this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2026
112 points (99.1% liked)
Memes of Production
334 readers
988 users here now
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.
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
founded 6 days ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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)).
[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 weird
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.
Money is money, but females are better. ;D
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.