CNN: banning abortions will cause right wing violence

So, you are not saying the CNN report was false, that law enforcement is alert to possible violence by the right, but I am happy you can speak for the Christian right militias and assure us there will not be any violence from the right.

 

You confuse me. Why would you think there would be violence from the right, pro-lifer's if abortion is banned or Roe is revoked? That leaves me scratching my head. It makes no sense. The right gets what they want, the left doesn't. The right has no reason to protest or cause violence. They got the ruling they wanted. They will probably be celebrating the news if it happens. The left, they'll take to the streets and if any violence is commintted due to the overturning of Roe, it will be done by them.

Just a wee bit of common sense here, explain why the right would cause violence for the SCOTUS overturning ROE? Please.

 

CNN, the first name in fear mongering

 

Good! I look forward to and hope them all the best! Patient and Doctors(?) Maybe the lesson many will learn will be "think before they get pregnant"!

 

Oh! You want miracles now or just a really silly lie

 

Is it a left wing conspiracy why law enforcement is on alert for possible violence from the right? Nope, they've got a history of violence
"Officials with the FBI and Department of Homeland Security raised concerns about an increase in violent rhetoric from far-right aggressors in the wake of the draft opinion’s release. And private intelligence groups have released reports detailing violent reactions and threats to bomb clinics and hurt pro-abortion protestors on far-right online forums in response to the draft leak."

 

Well, the Buffalo NY massacre is just one very recent example.

 

Let me get this straight. You really believe that if Roe is overturned by the SCOTUS, that the right will go out and protest that ruling and cause violence because Roe was overturned? You do really, truly believe that the right will take to the streets in protest and cause violence because Roe is overturned.


I’d wager there will be no taking to the streets, no protest and no violence from the right if Roe is overturned. Now can you guarantee the same from the left. That if Roe is overturned there will be no protest, no taking to the streets, no violence, that the left will just say okay, no more ROE. No big deal, no more abortion, we’re fine with that, next issue please. I don’t think so and if you have a lick of common sense, you don’t either.

 

That's it, ignore the citation and continue with your exaggerated scenario no one is arguing with.

 

Okay, if ROE is overturned, I’ll be watching with bated breath for the right to take to the streets in protest and commit violence. That as you stated, the left will silently accept that fact. This thread is on CNN: banning abortions will cause right wing violence. Now I can wait. We’ll see if Roe is overturned who takes to the streets, who protests and who causes the violence. I have time.

 

What are you talking about? I didn't say pro choicers will take it lying down. I expect and hope there will huge protests and I'll be there. The story was the potential for right-wing violence per FBI and HLS because of increasing internet threats.

 

Do you ever see a story, and question its motive and truthfulness when it defies common sense?

 

Confused by your confusion. They were reporting a specific threat. I suppose they could have chosen to cover something else, but it was there.

And it's not surprising. When Roe v Wade was called "settled law" even by conservative judges, it was just something to accept. Now we're going to have states that provide abortions for out-of-state people, states with wildly different policies... it's a real political struggle and instability. Violence from either side would be completely unsurprising because now there's an actual fight to be had. Do you tolerate people going to other states to get abortions? Do you do business with states that ban abortions? Lots of fodder for strife.

 

Whenever I watch Tucker.

 

I suppose that is a start, but if you can just try to focus on the topic at hand, there may be a possibility of having a productive conversation.

Since you are familiar with the concept of bias and reporting that perhaps is trying to push an agenda rather than inform, I am left to wonder why it is that the only defense you give of this is that there is a report, without a shred of criticial thinking being applied when referring to that "report".

With the topic at hand, the general notion that your article gives and that you are seemingly taking without question, which is that the potential danger comes from the right, does not comport with common sense. The reason that it does not comport with common sense is that if Roe were overturned the right is getting what they want, and the left is over the moon angry. Common sense would tend to dictate that the side that is angry would be far more likely toc reate violence surrounding this issue.

You report states that police are on the lookout for an increase of violence on the right at clinics, which could be true, but why? Well, there basically has not been any violence at abortion clinics since the 90's so even one or two instances would in fact count as an increase. What your report does NOT address is the potential increase in violence from the left arising from their passion driven anger at the overturning of Roe V Wade, which undoubtedly dwarfs the potential increase in violence from the right who in contrast are over the moon happy. It is the contrast that your article ( and you) are failing to acknowledge. On the whole, the clear risk of major violence comes from the left because they are upset, but admittedly, some could come from the right as well. Your article does not express this relationship, nor do you. It is clearly being purposefully misleading, but you do not seem to care. While you have expressed a knowledge of the concept of bias and perhaps the need for critical thinking when evaluating stories that we come across, yet you distinctly refuse to do so when it comes to this article.

I wonder why that is? Is it your belief that CNN is somehow immune from being biased? If they are biased, what side do you suppose that they favor? How does their identified bias comport with this particular article that you are repeating without applying any critical thinking?

 

What you are saying is the FBI and DHS lack common sense in being concerned about potential right-wing violence because of an increase in internet traffic on the subject and CNN should not have reported it because it is somehow biased?
Yes I see the bias..

 

Wow, you TRULY missed what was said. Try to focus.

What I referred to was balance. They only report one side of the equation, while ignoring the obvious side that would be far more likely to commit violence. The net result from this lack of balance is a purposeful attempt to mislead on balance as to where the bulk of the danger exists.

You mentioned that you critically think when it comes to Tucker, but strangely, refuse to do so when it comes to CNN. With them, it seems that you take their word and refuse to question anything.

Why do you suppose that is?

 

Do you have information that the FBI and DHS have concerns about an uptick in violent rhetoric coming from pro-choicers that CNN should have reported? I'm sure Tucker would be all over it if there were. Violent right-wing internet rhetoric is the subject of the thread. You say it is nonsensical, the FBI says otherwise. Who's the biased one?

 

I dont personally monitor the FBI.

I use critical thinking, which is a skill that you seem to only possess when it involves information with which you disagree. I understand that you perhaps enjoy using this anti-common-sense story to push your narrative. I prefer on the other hand, rather than blindly pushing a narrative, to pursue reality. If Roe v Wade were not overturned at this point, it would clearly be the most danger would come from the right. If it is overturned, it would clearly be the most danger coming from the left. This is simple logic, and that logic is applied evenly to both sides.

I suppose it is too much to expect others to be as fair-minded as myself. Undoubtedly you will retreat back to your obtuse stance, so there probably is not a need for you to reply.

 

What "obtuse" narrative am I blindly pushing? The fact that CNN reported a story on the FBI and DHS have observed an increase in right-wing violent rhetoric that you find nonsensical?
Tell me how CNN could have factually reported the story in an unbiased manner, oh fair-minded one? Or is it something the public doesn't need to know?

 

Well that could be your problem, you don't know what's going on. SCOTUS, as far as we know, isn't talking about banning abortion, but putting the question back to the states. Now we can have states next to each other with wildly different policies on whether abortion is murder or basic healthcare. Seems like fertile ground for violence to me, from either side.

CNN is far more objective than Fox, but that could be because liberals are more likely to trust science and logic over religion and corporations. Biased towards the truth.

 

By presenting the other side of the equation which is that there is undeniably a concern for left-wing violence, as evidenced by COMMON SENSE and turning on the news to see the angry left wing marchers all across the country. Strangely, we have not seen widespread andry right wing marchers on this topic, but all of a sudden someone is giving you the impression they are the concern for violence. Dont believe your lying eyes. Down is up, and up is down.

By reporting one side and not the other, reality is twisted. This is not a mistake. You would grasp this if it were Tucker, since it is CNN however and you like their spin, you suddenly turn into a blind mute.

When something doesnt add up, there is a reason.

 

Did it cross your mind that there isn't another "side" of the story? If there was any evidence that the pro-choicers were planning violence wouldn't the FBI and DHS be alerting local law enforcement and Tucker would be waxing hysterical about it. But hey, maybe the FBI and DHS are in the pocket of the Democrats and suppressing the evidence. There's a fresh right-wing conspiracy theory you can spread. Something doesn't add up, right?