Seize the Memes of Production
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the “ML” influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
"Loves abortion" is just kinda.. wrong and purely there to trigger conservatives.
If you truly love abortions, I think you have some explaining to do..
Loving the freedom of choice to have or not have an abortion, that is something I think we all can get behind.
Triggered me too.
*takes political compass test*
- Economic Left/Right: -7.0
- Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.64
Well within typical range for me. Yup. Still not "conservative" by its measure.
Loving the freedom of choice to have or not have an abortion, that is something I think we all can get behind.
Well said.
(Certainly seems better received than when I tried to point it out similarly.)
It's clear it's referring to bodily autonomy using inflammatory language to get a reaction as you said. Basically just add the word access after abortion, don't be obtuse.
loves abortion
feminist
wat
What would be confusing about that?
True feminist is 4b
no.
I had never heard of that. It sounds like not feminism, certainly, but then feminism is about empowering women to define what it means to be feminine, so while I disagree, who am I to say they're wrong?
Having glanced at what that means...
That sounds worse than baby out with the bathwater fallacy.
No pun intended.
Females can get pregnant.
Loving abortion seems opposed to that fundamental feature of (majority of) females, being able to carry children, making more people (including females). Loving aborting them seems like a real dark fetish, against a fundamental potential of females, a core function of their sex...
Idk which "wave" of feminism that is.
To me, I still try take feminism as egalitarianism as pertains to sex/gender.
Loving abortion seems like succumbed to some kind of anti-human depopulation psyop agenda, moved the goal posts from reproductive integrity and freedom from letting rapists decide who the mothers of their children are. The choice, the protection, good. But to love abortion? ... That evokes to me an image of punched wombs and coat-hangers. Not feminist imagery evoked from that phrase "loves abortion". To me, when I read that, it evoked startling brutally misogynist imagery.
So if this is not an Orwellian slip-n-slide... what's the feminist meaning there that's offering you no confusion at this phrasing and (what to me is a clashing) juxtaposition?
Has "feminism" been moved on to some "wave" even further removed from its women-respecting egalitarian roots?
Sorry. Help me out here. What the fuck.
That feels like a deliberately obtuse interpretation of just about everything.
nope.
genuine.
You're weird
Then you lack media literacy.
Ad-hominem uncompelling.
Cant entertain the idea of different perspectives? Or of what neurolinguistic poison programming such phrasings are drip feeding us?
Really think I'm media illiterate when I mention Orwell so much?
I used to work in advertising. It used to be my job to psyop people. (And if Bill Hicks hadn't saved my by telling me to kill myself, I might still be doing it. But vowed to never again, 23 years ago).
Check those three fingers pointing back while you point that finger at me, with your fallacious reasoning.
So just sincere ignorance?
How's that work?
Thought I was expressing curiosity...
Ignorance (for one definition) is "A willful neglect or refusal to acquire knowledge which one may acquire and it is his duty to have."
So how's this seen as ignorance when I'm actively, and proactively, engaged in acquiring knowledge...?
Naivety perhaps. Ignorance seems clumsily over-strong and just wrong.
To query if that's ignorance, seems ironic... especially if that's intended as a rhetorical assertion, rather than a genuine question. Asserting something contrary to as just evidenced, would be "denying the antecedent", or more simply put: "ignoring evidence". See? Irony. n_n
You're feigning curiosity, but you have made up your mind about the world, and the conclusions you have decided upon are simply not true. That's ignorance, and it's deliberate. In fact, there's a name for it now. It's called Sea Lioning
bs
Well, you've proven me wrong by being reasonable.
Well that struck me as utter implausibility, trolling, hypocrisy or some such. Left me trying to work it out in chat (pasted as is, beneath)...
Maybe this is a case of... if not hanlon's razor, a lack of mutual charitable interpretation, accepting there are different perspectives (not necessarily stupidity (nor even malice)).
- [2026-01- 8 11:39:25] anyone else ever been accused of "sea lioning"?
- [2026-01- 8 11:39:48] What is that?
- [2026-01- 8 11:41:18] wondering if that's a common ocurance for autistics [(or intp)] not getting whatever popular social shorthand and aproaching things more literally.
- [2026-01- 8 11:41:31] "Sealioning is a form of online harassment characterized by relentless, bad-faith requests for evidence or justification, often about basic or previously addressed points, while maintaining a polite and sincere demeanor.""
- [2026-01- 8 11:45:30] wondering if it's something my autistic neurophysio's approach to things evokes in "normal"(HA!) people, and/or if it's some kind of hypocrisy or gaslighting like from a narcissist or sadistic troll.
- [2026-01- 8 11:50:45] mhm, yeah, I have, just a few weeks ago
- [2026-01- 8 11:54:47] oh, well, actually I was only told that "someone may have taken your behaviour as sealioning" …
- [2026-01- 8 11:55:04] that’s probably not quite being actually accused of doing it
- [2026-01- 8 12:06:09] <The_Camel> I never encountered it but I have seen it done on others.
- [2026-01- 8 12:07:48] <The_Camel> I never quite "discerned" it as sealioning; I normally just considered it "ill intent badgering"
- [2026-01- 8 12:08:00] <The_Camel> or "shadow pestering"
- [2026-01- 8 12:35:25] it struck me unexpectedly. was genuinely trying to discern their interpretation and intention, and to be helpful to their cause if genuine.
- [2026-01- 8 12:38:13] gets me wondering about the psychology, the identification, the social dominance limbic-reactive inconsiderate mode, contrast to (as my autism assessor pointed out to me) how autistic brains are delving into the fore brain more to work things out, rather than relying on the cerebelum and limbic system.
[Edit: and the conversation has gone on 10 times longer yet, with others chiming in saying they've been misidentified as sealioning too. Does seem to be a thing autistics have happen to them quite a lot. Perhaps a case of "double empathy problem" strikes again, and different approaches to things. ... Is interesting conversation, going into stuff about personality types, personality mapping systems like mbti and astrology, and their veracity, and epistemology, behaviourism, interpersonal difficulties and stuff... but I wont paste it all here.]
And I could probably use a toke to loosen up. Been 6 months cut off from supply.
You’re saying females so much, i cant tell if you're ferengi or incel.
Women are not defined by childbirth. Likewise loving abortion does not imply they love having them. It means loving ownership of their body.
Interesting. More ad-hominem attacks here.
ferengi
Money is money, but females are better. ;D
Likewise loving abortion does not imply they love having them. It means loving ownership of their body.
If so, then there are many far better ways to phrase it such that it does not pick up the unintended inference. Strikingly atrocious and divisive when worded so. A little Wittgenstein awareness would go a long way. Orwell too. For sure. Retroactively picking up the pieces to clarify it means something other than it literally says, should be an indicator it's not ideally worded. That is if one even ever encounters someone who questions it, rather than just moves on along without a word, dismissing the messenger for their grammatical ineptitude, or fallacious self contradiction, or worse, loves or loathes the idea as interpreted literally.
So, it's just innocent grammatical ineptitude, and stubborn reluctance to consider the variety of readers outside the in-group (who know what it's intended to really mean), to phrase it so?
Most generous I can reach for with that, is that it's a kind of ableist bigotry. Hey ho, used to it. World not yet built for us each and all. Much to mend still. Not easy when some presume to be right and arrogantly capping what they have as best, and fight efforts to construct better (rather than actively seeking, or at least welcoming), wrapping their identity with their ideas, going all social-dominance reflexive flailing.
PS, voluntary. :P
No the phrasing is fine, the issue is you're trying to frame this as something it's not.
Okay. We're stuck at contradiction level of graham's hierarchy of disagreement now. At least it's better than the ad-hominems.
Happy to hear any counter-arguments or refutations, or even non-disagreeing explorations of the ideas.
I think you might be overthinking it. I assumed it was a shortened way of saying "loves abortion rights." As I always do when I see something like this.
I think its about bodily autonomy.
I imagine there may be hot heads who downvote that without reading, and without offering helpful explanation.
Playing the hits!