West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Soopafly DPGC on October 31, 2024, 02:19:03 PM
-
Placeholder to stop the derailment of threads in the Westcoast section.
Let's talk in here.....
-
:salute:
-
Sccit has resorted to moderation control as a way to silence differing perspectives. Interesting choice, especially considering the highly offensive, disrespectful, and yes, even racist comments that have been tolerated here without intervention. It seems using his position to manage what views get to be heard says more about this space than anything I’ve posted.
The essence of moderation is to foster healthy dialogue—not to silence viewpoints you personally disagree with. However, this is a classic hypocrisy those in Sccit's circle embody time and again. My posts have been on-topic and respectful despite Sccit's onslaught of slurs and unhinged racially insensitive behavior. It would be worth reflecting on whether the same standard is being applied to all participants here.
What Sccit wanted was to have the last word. He has no intention of participating in a measured, thoughtful discussion of any kind. His main objective seems to be centered around maintaining some sort of ego-driven ringleader position in the forum that goes unchecked and unchallenged. Once he felt like he was losing control of that, he pivoted several times to different topics in attempts to reagin some ground. When this did not work, he censored me and got his last word. This move shows an incredible amount of weakness - especially when dealing with someone who has maintained respectful dialogue and candor the entire time without hurling a single insult.
-
Sccit has resorted to moderation control as a way to silence differing perspectives. Interesting choice, especially considering the highly offensive, disrespectful, and yes, even racist comments that have been tolerated here without intervention. It seems using his position to manage what views get to be heard says more about this space than anything I’ve posted.
The essence of moderation is to foster healthy dialogue—not to silence viewpoints you personally disagree with. However, this is a classic hypocrisy those in Sccit's circle embody time and again. My posts have been on-topic and respectful despite Sccit's onslaught of slurs and unhinged racially insensitive behavior. It would be worth reflecting on whether the same standard is being applied to all participants here.
What Sccit wanted was to have the last word. He has no intention of participating in a measured, thoughtful discussion of any kind. His main objective seems to be centered around maintaining some sort of ego-driven ringleader position in the forum that goes unchecked and unchallenged. Once he felt like he was losing control of that, he pivoted several times to different topics in attempts to reagin some ground. When this did not work, he censored me and got his last word. This move shows an incredible amount of weakness - especially when dealing with someone who has maintained respectful dialogue and candor the entire time without hurling a single insult.
i approved this post, even it bough i didn’t have to
you ain’t foolin no one… everyone could see you were completely dismembering the ice cube thread after being asked to stop repeatedly .. and even after the political discussion ended in there, you had the nerve to re-ignite it outa nowhere
most moderators on other forums woulda flat out banned u
that said, my 2 questions for u in relation to the topic title are.. 1.who got your vote? 2.what do u feel about the israel vs hamas war?
feel free to answer … or not. your choice.
-
Also, i want to discuss the idea that all races and genders have the same experiences
For example, because i'm black, i have the authority to speak on black related matters and history and struggles, even though i may or may not have experienced any of those things, whereas people of other races do not have the authority to speak on such matters. The assumption is, because i'm black, i have had those experiences. If i told you i grew up in a very affluent black family, would that change things at all? (i haven't, but merely as a conversational point). Could we be self educated enough to be able to speak on a topic without necessarily having to live through it where race wouldn't play a factor?
Must i be a female to speak on abortion rights? Does a the opinion of 60 year old female who has been through menopause and has no way of getting pregnant matter as much as a 20 year old female? Or is she unqualified to speak on the matter?
I see so much being said on only being able to speak or comment on certain things depending on the race of the poster and to me, i think it's more about how educated you are on the subject and less about what race you are.
-
Also, i want to discuss the idea that all races and genders have the same experiences
For example, because i'm black, i have the authority to speak on black related matters and history and struggles, even though i may or may not have experienced any of those things, whereas people of other races do not have the authority to speak on such matters. The assumption is, because i'm black, i have had those experiences. If i told you i grew up in a very affluent black family, would that change things at all? (i haven't, but merely as a conversational point). Could we be self educated enough to be able to speak on a topic without necessarily having to live through it where race wouldn't play a factor?
Must i be a female to speak on abortion rights? Does a the opinion of 60 year old female who has been through menopause and has no way of getting pregnant matter as much as a 20 year old female? Or is she unqualified to speak on the matter?
I see so much being said on only being able to speak or comment on certain things depending on the race of the poster and to me, i think it's more about how educated you are on the subject and less about what race you are.
that part
-
notice how he dipped once he was forced out of spamming the ice cube thread lolllll
dude is an egomaniac and a sociopathic control freak …. you’re never going to get a genuine discussion out of someone like that
he might return now with a rant to prove he’s not avoiding the thread.. but in that same rant, he will avoid answering the questions that are related to the topic, while keeping the focus on why his methods are better than mine
i know the type quite well
-
notice how he dipped once he was forced out of spamming the ice cube thread lolllll
dude is an egomaniac and a sociopathic control freak …. you’re never going to get a genuine discussion out of someone like that
he might return now with a rant to prove he’s not avoiding the thread.. but in that same rant, he will avoid answering the questions that are related to the topic, while keeping the focus on why his methods are better than mine
i know the type quite well
A shame because i truly wanted to have an open dialog on these things. No personal attacks, just a fun debate. I truly don't have the answers and want to hear other people's thoughts. But i feel guilty when threads deteriorate into off topic discussions. Maybe he just took a day off from the internet and will be back soon to engage in some healthy conversation.
-
A shame because i truly wanted to have an open dialog on these things. No personal attacks, just a fun debate. I truly don't have the answers and want to hear other people's thoughts. But i feel guilty when threads deteriorate into off topic discussions. Maybe he just took a day off from the internet and will be back soon to engage in some healthy conversation.
he doesn’t want an open dialogue
he wants to be a lawyer interrogating a witness
i too hope he returns and uses this thread as an outlet to discuss ALL political and social issues, because he was certainly not willing to do that in the cube thread, which he was seemingly using to practice for his upcoming bar exam
-
Sccit has resorted to moderation control as a way to silence differing perspectives. Interesting choice, especially considering the highly offensive, disrespectful, and yes, even racist comments that have been tolerated here without intervention. It seems using his position to manage what views get to be heard says more about this space than anything I’ve posted.
The essence of moderation is to foster healthy dialogue—not to silence viewpoints you personally disagree with. However, this is a classic hypocrisy those in Sccit's circle embody time and again. My posts have been on-topic and respectful despite Sccit's onslaught of slurs and unhinged racially insensitive behavior. It would be worth reflecting on whether the same standard is being applied to all participants here.
What Sccit wanted was to have the last word. He has no intention of participating in a measured, thoughtful discussion of any kind. His main objective seems to be centered around maintaining some sort of ego-driven ringleader position in the forum that goes unchecked and unchallenged. Once he felt like he was losing control of that, he pivoted several times to different topics in attempts to reagin some ground. When this did not work, he censored me and got his last word. This move shows an incredible amount of weakness - especially when dealing with someone who has maintained respectful dialogue and candor the entire time without hurling a single insult.
I'm not sure exactly what happened, but I think Sccit let the back and forth go on for a long time off topic. Now, the discussion has been moved to the appropriate section. If he does it to you again here, then maybe you have a case. So why not just continue whatever you were discussing here? What's wrong with that?
Am I missing something?
-
And Safe and Sound, you ignored my points in the other discussion so I will ask them directly here...
#1. If Trump is so horrible then can you detail for me how America has improved in the 4 years that Harris has been Vice President?
#2. Has racism ended during Kamala Harris time as Vice President?
#3. Did racism start when Donald Trump became president?
#4. Does racism exist in other parts of the world or just America?
#5. Is there such thing as racism in Africa?
#6. Name one policy that Donald Trump initiated against black people while he was president?
#7. Name one policy Kamala Harris initiated during her time as Vice President that has improved life for black people?
#8. Are you gay? Are you bisexual? I'm not trying to be a jerk, I just know a lot of gays support Kamala, that's the only reason I'm asking?
#9. Are you trans? Look, it's your freedom to choose, legally you have every right. I'm only asking because a lot of the trans community really loves Kamala.
#10. Were you dissapointed when they removed the mask mandates? I know a lot of leftists democrats were really butthurt and thought they were going to die when the mask mandate was removed.
#11. Is the inflation we've seen while Kamala has been vice president more Trump's fault or the Biden/Harris administration fault?
-
I watched Kamala's unimpressive performance on the All In Smoke podcast with Matt Barnes and Stephen Jackson
she didn't say anything of significance but Matt and Stack were really giving her softball questions as well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzThwqnQJDY&t=822s
-
I watched Kamala's unimpressive performance on the All In Smoke podcast with Matt Barnes and Stephen Jackson
she didn't say anything of significance but Matt and Stack were really giving her softball questions as well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzThwqnQJDY&t=822s
She's so fake, her smile is fake, her laugh is fake, her excitement is fake, all her reactions are fake... people can't see that?
-
i approved this post, even it bough i didn’t have to
you ain’t foolin no one… everyone could see you were completely dismembering the ice cube thread after being asked to stop repeatedly .. and even after the political discussion ended in there, you had the nerve to re-ignite it outa nowhere
most moderators on other forums woulda flat out banned u
that said, my 2 questions for u in relation to the topic title are.. 1.who got your vote? 2.what do u feel about the israel vs hamas war?
feel free to answer … or not. your choice.
It’s clear that our conversation stopped being about ideas a long time ago. Throughout all the threads, I’ve encountered persistent hostility, slurs, and racially insensitive and dismissive language from you. Rather than engaging constructively, you’ve repeatedly diverted to personal attacks and even escalated to moderation tactics that appear to suppress perspectives rather than foster open dialogue. I still do not have the ability to post freely without being approved by you.
These comments you made go beyond mere personal bias—they reflect a disrespectful dismissal of my identity, and they perpetuate harmful narratives that undermine the validity of biracial identities. The insistence on defining my Blackness for me, especially by someone outside the community, crosses into racist territory because it disregards my self-identification and the complexities of race.
In a discussion initially centered on meaningful topics, the relentless shift toward personal antagonism—ranging from questioning my identity to using racially demeaning language—has unfortunately made this a one-sided dialogue. I initially engaged to discuss Ice Cube’s work and its context within broader societal issues, but it’s clear now that this isn’t a space where those ideas are welcome.
Ultimately, after the intense disrespect you have shown, I have no obligation to entertain hostility or respond to tactics that deviate from any genuine discussion. I have maintained a respectful demeanor in my arguments, which are documented for anyone to see. That respect is entirely absent on your end and this feels like a need to keep some semblance of control than any genuine curiosity. With that said, I have no further comment and will no longer address you directly.
-
Deezam.... I read that whole back n forth with Safe + Sound and Sccit in the other threads. Gotta hand it to S+S, that vato can argue like a champ.
But ey, check this out homie... I got a pretty good hunch that foo done time. You know how many homies talk like that who got crazy stretches in the joint? Most of em don't have dates. They read anything they can get their hands on and be in the law library all day.
Maybe you vatos don't know about that life, but I do. S+S kept it respectful as hell, even when Sccit called him a bitch and a fag. That shit would get you handled with the quickness in the joint. You catching a 115 haha. If S+S is who I think he is, be careful with that foo. I seen vatos like that all day - super respectful and intelligent but they'll be your worst nightmare in real life if you disrespect them if you get what I mean. Seen it happen too many times.
I'm not all into politics like that when I don't have to be so I ain't gonna get into it with nobody in here. Plus I don't have the patience for it homes haha. I'd be trying to meet up and handle business lol. Fuck all that, I'm too old to get caught up anymore for lame shit, I'm just here for the gangsta rap, but I just wanted to speak on that because S+S sounds all too familiar.
Stay safe everyone and keep it solid Safe + Sound. I wouldn't be surprised if we crossed paths before. Te cuidas ese.
-
It’s clear that our conversation stopped being about ideas a long time ago. Throughout all the threads, I’ve encountered persistent hostility, slurs, and racially insensitive and dismissive language from you. Rather than engaging constructively, you’ve repeatedly diverted to personal attacks and even escalated to moderation tactics that appear to suppress perspectives rather than foster open dialogue. I still do not have the ability to post freely without being approved by you.
These comments you made go beyond mere personal bias—they reflect a disrespectful dismissal of my identity, and they perpetuate harmful narratives that undermine the validity of biracial identities. The insistence on defining my Blackness for me, especially by someone outside the community, crosses into racist territory because it disregards my self-identification and the complexities of race.
In a discussion initially centered on meaningful topics, the relentless shift toward personal antagonism—ranging from questioning my identity to using racially demeaning language—has unfortunately made this a one-sided dialogue. I initially engaged to discuss Ice Cube’s work and its context within broader societal issues, but it’s clear now that this isn’t a space where those ideas are welcome.
Ultimately, after the intense disrespect you have shown, I have no obligation to entertain hostility or respond to tactics that deviate from any genuine discussion. I have maintained a respectful demeanor in my arguments, which are documented for anyone to see. That respect is entirely absent on your end and this feels like a need to keep some semblance of control than any genuine curiosity. With that said, I have no further comment and will no longer address you directly.
typical limp wrist liberal tactics … “you called me names, waaaah!! i’m going to cancel you now!!!” ….. all while STILL refusing to answer any of my questions directly (like i said he would do)
but when he asked me random questions ala what my race was, i answered it with no hesitation
then he applies his holier than thou style, which has been his staple on this forum for quite some time.. so when he falsely accuses me of being “racist”, “hateful”, and makes remarks like “boy you aren’t really good at this” …. those aren’t “insults” in his book (only, they are in reality)… yet when someone tells him he’s acting like a lil bitch for avoiding questions, that’s a little too abrasive for someone of his “elevated stature” .. he refuses to engage outside of his own comfort zone, and deflects by using those excuses to avoid questions he rather not answer .. it’s a typical liberal debate tactic.
even worse, he thinks we don’t notice that he’s avoiding soopaflydpgc, who clearly has been nothing but respectful towards him ….. the problem with this guy is that he’s not nearly as smart as he thinks he is
transparency at its finest.
-
Deezam.... I read that whole back n forth with Safe + Sound and Sccit in the other threads. Gotta hand it to S+S, that vato can argue like a champ.
But ey, check this out homie... I got a pretty good hunch that foo done time. You know how many homies talk like that who got crazy stretches in the joint? Most of em don't have dates. They read anything they can get their hands on and be in the law library all day.
Maybe you vatos don't know about that life, but I do. S+S kept it respectful as hell, even when Sccit called him a bitch and a fag. That shit would get you handled with the quickness in the joint. You catching a 115 haha. If S+S is who I think he is, be careful with that foo. I seen vatos like that all day - super respectful and intelligent but they'll be your worst nightmare in real life if you disrespect them if you get what I mean. Seen it happen too many times.
I'm not all into politics like that when I don't have to be so I ain't gonna get into it with nobody in here. Plus I don't have the patience for it homes haha. I'd be trying to meet up and handle business lol. Fuck all that, I'm too old to get caught up anymore for lame shit, I'm just here for the gangsta rap, but I just wanted to speak on that because S+S sounds all too familiar.
Stay safe everyone and keep it solid Safe + Sound. I wouldn't be surprised if we crossed paths before. Te cuidas ese.
oh man this thread just keeps getting better 8)
-
oh man this thread just keeps getting better 8)
:high:
-
:high:
anytime prison rules start getting applied to Dubcc Threads it takes me back to the good ol dayz 8)
...When this forum was really poppin in like 01' and 02' my favorite show was Oz, and watching Oz and visiting the forum here really weren't that much different
-
anytime prison rules start getting applied to Dubcc Threads it takes me back to the good ol dayz 8)
...When this forum was really poppin in like 01' and 02' my favorite show was Oz, and watching Oz and visiting the forum here really weren't that much different
on that note, this forum has been poppin somethin serious lately
not sure if cats been noticing, but that snoop n dre album really increased the traffic here x4
-
Also, i want to discuss the idea that all races and genders have the same experiences
For example, because i'm black, i have the authority to speak on black related matters and history and struggles, even though i may or may not have experienced any of those things, whereas people of other races do not have the authority to speak on such matters. The assumption is, because i'm black, i have had those experiences. If i told you i grew up in a very affluent black family, would that change things at all? (i haven't, but merely as a conversational point). Could we be self educated enough to be able to speak on a topic without necessarily having to live through it where race wouldn't play a factor?
Must i be a female to speak on abortion rights? Does a the opinion of 60 year old female who has been through menopause and has no way of getting pregnant matter as much as a 20 year old female? Or is she unqualified to speak on the matter?
I see so much being said on only being able to speak or comment on certain things depending on the race of the poster and to me, i think it's more about how educated you are on the subject and less about what race you are.
You raise interesting questions about the relationship between lived experience and authority on certain topics.
Your points bring up some valid considerations about the roles of experience, education, and perspective in discussing sensitive issues like race and gender. I agree that education and empathy can go a long way in enabling someone to speak on topics outside their personal experience. In fact, allies often become informed and vocal advocates by engaging deeply with these topics, even when they haven’t experienced them firsthand.
However, there are certain aspects of racial and gender-based issues that are deeply tied to lived experience, which can’t be fully grasped through study alone. Lived experiences offer insights that go beyond intellectual understanding—think of it as the difference between reading about hardship and living through it. For example, while anyone can study the history of racial discrimination, someone who has directly faced racial bias might have a more nuanced understanding of its daily impacts. This doesn’t mean others can’t comment meaningfully, but the depth of understanding may differ.
The example of abortion rights is also a good one. Both men and women can be educated about reproductive health and can form educated opinions on it. However, the voices of women—especially those within childbearing age, as they’re directly impacted by such policies—may hold added weight. It’s not about silencing others but about recognizing who is most affected by certain issues and how that can shape both their insights and the impact of decisions.
Having a well-rounded discussion often involves multiple perspectives: the lived experiences of those directly affected, the insights of allies, and the knowledge of those who’ve studied the issue deeply. When people defer to those with lived experience, it’s not to exclude others; it’s to ensure that the realities of those most impacted are accurately represented and considered.
-
on that note, this forum has been poppin somethin serious lately
not sure if cats been noticing, but that snoop n dre album really increased the traffic here x4
meh... still too nice atm... the forum ain't poppin till Infinite starts catchin hate like it's 88'
-
Deezam.... I read that whole back n forth with Safe + Sound and Sccit in the other threads. Gotta hand it to S+S, that vato can argue like a champ.
But ey, check this out homie... I got a pretty good hunch that foo done time. You know how many homies talk like that who got crazy stretches in the joint? Most of em don't have dates. They read anything they can get their hands on and be in the law library all day.
Maybe you vatos don't know about that life, but I do. S+S kept it respectful as hell, even when Sccit called him a bitch and a fag. That shit would get you handled with the quickness in the joint. You catching a 115 haha. If S+S is who I think he is, be careful with that foo. I seen vatos like that all day - super respectful and intelligent but they'll be your worst nightmare in real life if you disrespect them if you get what I mean. Seen it happen too many times.
I'm not all into politics like that when I don't have to be so I ain't gonna get into it with nobody in here. Plus I don't have the patience for it homes haha. I'd be trying to meet up and handle business lol. Fuck all that, I'm too old to get caught up anymore for lame shit, I'm just here for the gangsta rap, but I just wanted to speak on that because S+S sounds all too familiar.
Stay safe everyone and keep it solid Safe + Sound. I wouldn't be surprised if we crossed paths before. Te cuidas ese.
Ya sabes carnal. Ahí the guacho.
-
Ya sabes carnal. Ahí the guacho.
lmao now he bein trolled .. sometimes them booksmarts don’t quite translate to intelligence via life experience
btw .. i took you off moderation on GP …. just don’t be spamming music threads no more homie
-
Ya sabes carnal. Ahí the guacho.
Oraaa 8)
-
Ya sabes carnal. Ahí the guacho.
Good luck with Kamala on Tuesday—I’m sure she will end racism and reduce inflation
-
Good luck with Kamala on Tuesday—I’m sure she will end racism and reduce inflation
it’s funny how he talks about only black people should be the authority on black issues… and i actually agree. but he’s biracial, meaning he himself can only be the authority on biracial issues
:mjlol:
-
lmao now he bein trolled .. sometimes them booksmarts don’t quite translate to intelligence via life experience
btw .. i took you off moderation on GP …. just don’t be spamming music threads no more homie
GP on the internet hahaha...This foo swears haha... relax gringo. The way you sounding off in here, you wouldn't last a second on the main line haha. SNY material fo sho lol. Safe + Sound right here showing a homie respect like he's supposed to. That foo coming to my hood today to kick it lol. You don't know how we get down ese. Stay in your lane.
This forum is lame homes. A lot of gringo shit talkers and squares that ain't from the hood trying to speak on black & brown business. That's a no no. You foos need to stop watching movies and get with the program.
Imma fuck around and get in trouble here haha. I'm too old for this shit ey. Latez
-
GP on the internet hahaha...This foo swears haha... relax gringo. The way you sounding off in here, you wouldn't last a second on the main line haha. SNY material fo sho lol. Safe + Sound right here showing a homie respect like he's supposed to. That foo coming to my hood today to kick it lol. You don't know how we get down ese. Stay in your lane.
This forum is lame homes. A lot of gringo shit talkers and squares that ain't from the hood trying to speak on black & brown business. That's a no no. You foos need to stop watching movies and get with the program.
Imma fuck around and get in trouble here haha. I'm too old for this shit ey. Latez
lmaooooooo
-
GP on the internet hahaha...This foo swears haha... relax gringo. The way you sounding off in here, you wouldn't last a second on the main line haha. SNY material fo sho lol. Safe + Sound right here showing a homie respect like he's supposed to. That foo coming to my hood today to kick it lol. You don't know how we get down ese. Stay in your lane.
This forum is lame homes. A lot of gringo shit talkers and squares that ain't from the hood trying to speak on black & brown business. That's a no no. You foos need to stop watching movies and get with the program.
Imma fuck around and get in trouble here haha. I'm too old for this shit ey. Latez
tha dubcc is back!! I haven't received gang threats and had my street cred questioned in at least 10 years
-
it’s funny how he talks about only black people should be the authority on black issues… and i actually agree. but he’s biracial, meaning he himself can only be the authority on biracial issues
:mjlol:
Yes, of course. It's a double standard. He gets to speak on all races but others can't. Got it.
-
You raise interesting questions about the relationship between lived experience and authority on certain topics.
Your points bring up some valid considerations about the roles of experience, education, and perspective in discussing sensitive issues like race and gender. I agree that education and empathy can go a long way in enabling someone to speak on topics outside their personal experience. In fact, allies often become informed and vocal advocates by engaging deeply with these topics, even when they haven’t experienced them firsthand.
However, there are certain aspects of racial and gender-based issues that are deeply tied to lived experience, which can’t be fully grasped through study alone. Lived experiences offer insights that go beyond intellectual understanding—think of it as the difference between reading about hardship and living through it. For example, while anyone can study the history of racial discrimination, someone who has directly faced racial bias might have a more nuanced understanding of its daily impacts. This doesn’t mean others can’t comment meaningfully, but the depth of understanding may differ.
The example of abortion rights is also a good one. Both men and women can be educated about reproductive health and can form educated opinions on it. However, the voices of women—especially those within childbearing age, as they’re directly impacted by such policies—may hold added weight. It’s not about silencing others but about recognizing who is most affected by certain issues and how that can shape both their insights and the impact of decisions.
Having a well-rounded discussion often involves multiple perspectives: the lived experiences of those directly affected, the insights of allies, and the knowledge of those who’ve studied the issue deeply. When people defer to those with lived experience, it’s not to exclude others; it’s to ensure that the realities of those most impacted are accurately represented and considered.
I was talking about this with a friend the other day.....
Does a 60 year old woman who has been through menopause and has no chance of getting pregnant have the same right to speak on abortion rights as women who are in pregnancy age ranges? And if so, how does that differ from men not being able to speak on abortion issues, as the commonality there is that neither men, nor menopausal women can give birth.
Also, why does me as a man, have no say in the law to protect my daughter/niece, etc. Yes, the laws might not directly affect me, but they affect people in my life (minors) who can't vote, who will rely on my vote to help shape the laws that govern them. Why then do I have no say in abortion rights?
I really think there's a danger in allowing a democratic process to decide laws, but then at the same time, attempting to eliminate more than 50% of the population by suggesting that only a small group of people be allowed to talk about or vote on the issue. That is no longer democracy.
-
I was talking about this with a friend the other day.....
Does a 60 year old woman who has been through menopause and has no chance of getting pregnant have the same right to speak on abortion rights as women who are in pregnancy age ranges? And if so, how does that differ from men not being able to speak on abortion issues, as the commonality there is that neither men, nor menopausal women can give birth.
Also, why does me as a man, have no say in the law to protect my daughter/niece, etc. Yes, the laws might not directly affect me, but they affect people in my life (minors) who can't vote, who will rely on my vote to help shape the laws that govern them. Why then do I have no say in abortion rights?
I really think there's a danger in allowing a democratic process to decide laws, but then at the same time, attempting to eliminate more than 50% of the population by suggesting that only a small group of people be allowed to talk about or vote on the issue. That is no longer democracy.
Your questions highlight an important balance between democratic representation and respecting the direct impact certain policies have on specific groups. In a democracy, everyone does have the right to voice their opinion on issues that shape society, particularly when they impact family members, loved ones, or community standards. For example, many men rightly feel a responsibility to advocate for policies that protect the rights and well-being of women and girls in their lives.
However, centering voices of those most directly affected by policies like abortion access doesn’t mean eliminating others’ input—it’s about prioritizing the lived experiences and needs of those who face the immediate impact of these policies. While a 60-year-old woman or a man may not personally experience pregnancy, they can still be informed and empathetic allies, and their advocacy can help shape understanding. The difference, though, is that someone with direct experience may offer insights about the physical, emotional, and social realities of abortion that others wouldn’t intuitively understand, even with empathy or education.
The goal isn’t to exclude anyone from the conversation but to amplify the perspectives of those whose lives are most impacted. For example, while anyone can understand the need for healthcare, we look to patients with chronic illness to help guide policy because their needs are specific and often nuanced in ways that aren’t apparent from the outside.
It’s a complex balance in a democratic society, but acknowledging those most affected—and ensuring their voices are centered—helps prevent policies from being shaped by perspectives that may lack a full understanding of the issue. In this way, it’s not about excluding voices but ensuring we’re fully informed by those who are on the front lines of these experiences.
-
Your questions highlight an important balance between democratic representation and respecting the direct impact certain policies have on specific groups. In a democracy, everyone does have the right to voice their opinion on issues that shape society, particularly when they impact family members, loved ones, or community standards. For example, many men rightly feel a responsibility to advocate for policies that protect the rights and well-being of women and girls in their lives.
However, centering voices of those most directly affected by policies like abortion access doesn’t mean eliminating others’ input—it’s about prioritizing the lived experiences and needs of those who face the immediate impact of these policies. While a 60-year-old woman or a man may not personally experience pregnancy, they can still be informed and empathetic allies, and their advocacy can help shape understanding. The difference, though, is that someone with direct experience may offer insights about the physical, emotional, and social realities of abortion that others wouldn’t intuitively understand, even with empathy or education.
The goal isn’t to exclude anyone from the conversation but to amplify the perspectives of those whose lives are most impacted. For example, while anyone can understand the need for healthcare, we look to patients with chronic illness to help guide policy because their needs are specific and often nuanced in ways that aren’t apparent from the outside.
It’s a complex balance in a democratic society, but acknowledging those most affected—and ensuring their voices are centered—helps prevent policies from being shaped by perspectives that may lack a full understanding of the issue. In this way, it’s not about excluding voices but ensuring we’re fully informed by those who are on the front lines of these experiences.
ok…. so why don’t u stop speaking as an authority on black issues then? from now on, by your very own definition, you can only be an authority on biracial issues.
-
Yes, of course. It's a double standard. He gets to speak on all races but others can't. Got it.
that’s why he was terrified to give his opinion on israel vs hamas…. because he knew that once he opened his mouth with his opinion, he would come off as a huge hypocrite.
these soulless limp wrist cats are easy AF to check … and once checked, they usually “block” or run into hiding. another day, another blessing.
-
Your questions highlight an important balance between democratic representation and respecting the direct impact certain policies have on specific groups. In a democracy, everyone does have the right to voice their opinion on issues that shape society, particularly when they impact family members, loved ones, or community standards. For example, many men rightly feel a responsibility to advocate for policies that protect the rights and well-being of women and girls in their lives.
However, centering voices of those most directly affected by policies like abortion access doesn’t mean eliminating others’ input—it’s about prioritizing the lived experiences and needs of those who face the immediate impact of these policies. While a 60-year-old woman or a man may not personally experience pregnancy, they can still be informed and empathetic allies, and their advocacy can help shape understanding. The difference, though, is that someone with direct experience may offer insights about the physical, emotional, and social realities of abortion that others wouldn’t intuitively understand, even with empathy or education.
The goal isn’t to exclude anyone from the conversation but to amplify the perspectives of those whose lives are most impacted. For example, while anyone can understand the need for healthcare, we look to patients with chronic illness to help guide policy because their needs are specific and often nuanced in ways that aren’t apparent from the outside.
It’s a complex balance in a democratic society, but acknowledging those most affected—and ensuring their voices are centered—helps prevent policies from being shaped by perspectives that may lack a full understanding of the issue. In this way, it’s not about excluding voices but ensuring we’re fully informed by those who are on the front lines of these experiences.
This cat is just muddying the waters with excessive verbal husk. It's a logical fallacy called equivocation. Bottom line is black people talk shit on white people all the time, but white people are not allowed to say anything about black people. Got it.
-
This cat is just muddying the waters with excessive verbal husk. It's a logical fallacy called equivocation. Bottom line is black people talk shit on white people all the time, but white people are not allowed to say anything about black people. Got it.
it’s word salad …. he’s an athiest ….. very robotic responses, almost sounds AI generated
only idiots who don’t understand half the words he’s spewing fall for it on some “wow! he’s so well spoken!!” type stuff
-
it’s word salad …. he’s an athiest ….. very robotic responses, almost sounds AI generated
only idiots who don’t understand half the words he’s spewing fall for it on some “wow! he’s so well spoken!!” type stuff
yeah word salad for sure, but then you ask him a direct question and he short circuits