I didn’t assume anything. I was merely responding to comments I’d seen literally under this article.

Ahh, piling on ad-hominems to convince me that ad-hominems are a-ok. I am convinced: I am an idiot.

You can say “wrong” without “repugnant,” I know you can. I believe in you.

I’ve marched in counter-protests against white supremacists. I’ve attempted to drown out their rallies with loud saxophone noises. I would still sit down with any one of them to a beer and a grill to talk and even find common ground, or, better, be curious and find an opportunity to understand and try and adjust their…

You’ve almost arrived at the moral dilemma that is abortion, but then avoided it entirely. It is something that weighs on just about every woman who has had one. Dismissing humans in the womb as non-people is extremely problematic, which is why I can at least empathize with people who are pro-life. Or at least not…

You really haven’t spoken with a lot of people outside your political bubble, have you? I’ve met many very kind, caring pro-lifers who would never harm a soul, but happen to think that every option should be considered before abortion, and are interested in legislation that makes that more normal. I don’t entirely…

Being content with misery or death for ideological miscreants is super classy and progressive.

I like how you included ad-hominem arguments thinking that would change my negative view of ad-hominem arguments. Impressive.

The inability to differentiate between a person and their perspective or ideas is indicative of a failure to achieve some very important social emotional milestones. The internet has somehow made these milestones less frequented by all of us.

I in no way intended this to be a pro-life comment, but thanks for the very insightful perspective. As someone who is pro-choice, I will continue to be.

Calling someone “stupid” seems to me to be a way to shut down discourse, at which point you’ve entirely failed to hold space for an opposing viewpoint. Your argument falls flat. I mean, I agree with what you said, basically, but we are politically aligned.

There were literally people in these comments calling pro-lifers stupid, which is why I said what I said, and still stand by it.

Indeed, I agree with you. But I would still not call someone who believes in pro-life principals in their heart of hears “stupid.” I would not stoop so low to insult someone for ideological differences, nor do I think it is beneficial for anyone to.

Pro-Life is an exclusionary idea now? Holding space for multiple viewpoints is, to my mind, tolerating and loving the people you may disagree with, and, if discourse is desired, approaching them with love, compassion, and curiosity. The science around how to change someone’s mind is right there with me, too.

Pointing at the lowest bar set by the worst of your political opponents as a way of excusing your own bad behavior is really quite noble.

I know what pro-life is. The implosion around “tolerating the intolerant” is a sticking point for liberalism, but, honestly, it isn’t that complicated to understand how one can accept and love a person, and respectfully disagree with their idea or viewpoint without insulting them. It’s really not that hard.

Calling someone stupid is not calling them out on their viewpoints. It is calling yourself out on your own inability to communicate.

As little as I like Trump and his followers, I would still contend that it’s vitally important to stick to criticizing the ideas and not the people. Ad hominem has become so common that it’s almost been erased as a fallacy and turned into a tribal moniker. That’s how you get civil war. Do you want civil war?

I like how you assumed I am “pro-life” (I am not) and that I was being snide (I was not - I was being scathingly critical of my political allies).

Oh, I’m a stooge now? I happen to be a pro-choice democrat. I’m just horrified by the level of discourse presented by my fellow leftists these days. All the casual defense of childish and arrogant behavior in this thread is yet more discouraging.