Barothmuk

HAHAHAHAHA

You sound confused.

Glad we've finally got it on record. Yup. Males who are self proclaimed anti-feminists will quickly jump to the defence of "choice-based" liberal feminism. Can't imagine why.

Lol the change in policy isn't some un-deciphered mystery where we need to rely on what looks like crazy Hitler-esque “race based” theories. The Bolsheviks initially viewed abortion negatively considering it to be a dangerous procedure however allowed it given the difficult economic circumstances of the 1920s and believing abortion to be preferable to having a woman forced into poverty to raise an unwanted child (or worse dying in an underground abortion procedure). In the 1930s the policy was publically debated and it was decided that seeing the issues of potential poverty had been “solved” through greater spending in childcare facilities and pro-mother worker laws abortion could now be restricted in order to increase birth-rates. Sarah Davies' Popular Opinion in Stalin’s Russia basically covers all this. As for my own view, free abortion on demand, nothing less.

Impotent Soc-Dem party.

They're still pretty ****ty.

Source?

He already answered good sir: Clearly referencing Marx's famous proclamation that we must socialize the means of reproduction.

Do think a refutation of the claim that "banning abortion is socialist" is necessary Bruce?

With literally no investigation into this topic I'm going to guess its the fact that if it was a male superhero on the cover they'd be portrayed more defiantly. Plus the rapeyness of it all. But I'm guessing you know that.

Never said that. I considered it socialistic as it suggests collective ownership of people's bodies. Was going to say this is the dumbest thing I've read all day but then I got to the Nazi sympathizing. Only just hopped on and I've already had enough Off-Topic for one day.

You're not seriously suggesting either party has shifted towards public ownership of the means of production are you? Reagan was totally a neo-Stalinist.

Ugh, nvm. Remembered Namutree considers Republicans banning abortion to be "leftist".

I'll have you know I am a paragon of postmanship and an exemplary forumeer.

<cut>

Haven't bothered with Sommers and don't really care to. My issue with Stinker is that he's an historically and politically illiterate hack who basically parrots U.S propaganda, rejects any criticism of U.S imperialism, has deluded himself into thinking that "[democracies] tend to stay out of disputes across the board”, attributes the large death of American warring to the "fanaticism" of those resisting (how dare they!), divides rich and poor as "civilized and uncivilized", believes the upper classes "civilize" the lower classes and that when the lower classes rebel (the example he gives being the movements of the 1960s) this is symptomatic of the "de-civilizing" of society; he is an apologetic for the U.S prison complex and a bunch of other ****. Since I recall you like Chomsky I'd recommend reading Edward S. Herman and David Peterson's review of "Better Angels". It's reasonably good.

No sarcasm. Stinker's a wanker.

Looks like even the scumbag Stinker is trying to get some cheap publicity.

They are. Thompson wanted to ban games for silly reasons. Sarkeesian provided a *critique of trends in games. *more specifically a painfully moderate critique that constantly felt the need to reassure the viewer that they're not a bad person and that liking these games did not make them a person.

International Working Women's Day.

And yet you will defend things you dislike, which given "GG" seems to present itself as "defending freedom" would include "bile filled crap". So from what I can gather you'll defend the existence of bile-filled crap but condemn critiques you dislike or you, like Anita, will dislike the content of certain things, the difference being Anita will dislike sexist content whereas you seem to support it.

You did say "Here is a funny thing, a lot of the stuff I will defend tooth and nail I don't even like." Presumably this includes "bile filled crap". So I'll say again, you support creators being able to create what ever bile filled crap they want but if someone has the audacity to critique it in a way you dislike they must be silenced.

So you support creators being able to create what ever bile filled crap they want but if someone has the audacity to critique it in a way you dislike they must be silenced.

So?

Re-read your post. You presented Bayonetta being marked down as an example of “unethical journalism”.