banned
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
gas stoves
There was a minor media circus about them, but they haven't actually been banned, have they?
Anyway, induction is amazing and I hope both gas and conventional electric stoves get banned.
W.H, liberal morality, and why co-existence is undesirable
A little while ago, I read a story of a recent scandal which I think conclusively shows that the Dems have finally gone too far. You see, the state legislature of Massachusetts passed a prisoner rehabilitation weekend pass program, in which prisoners with good behavior could obtain leave to spend time unsupervised in society and then return to serve their sentences. Unfortunately they forgot to exclude first degree murderers serving life without parole sentences who, for obvious reasons, could not be trusted to return. As such, the court said they must be allowed to participate unless the legislature specifically excluded them. The legislature passed a new bill to do so, but the Massachusetts governor vetoed the bill.
Enter inmate W.H, who with his 2 friends got bored robbing a cooperative teenage clerk, so they stabbed him 18 times and threw him in a dumpster. Sentenced to life without parole, he was furloughed from prison and escaped. But normal life was of course boring. So predictably, he broke into a woman's home with a pistol, tied up her boyfriend, stabbed him, and then raped her in front of him.
Perceptive readers will have guessed by now that by recent, I mean 36 years ago. You see W.H is Willie Horton, the governor was Michael Dukakis and this was the scandal that helped sink his campaign for president. or as the Times covered it back then:
"Foes accuse Bush campaign of inflamming racial tension": https://www.textise.net/showText.aspx?strURL=https%253A//www.nytimes.com/1988/10/24/us/foes-accuse-bush-campaign-of-inflaming-racial-tension.html#site-content
Now, as much as i'd like to dunk on the Times they didn't cherrypick random nobodies. Their sources for the accusation of "inflaming the nation's racial fears", Dukakis' running mate, Jesse Jackson and the future DNC chair, Dona Brazille. And of course, if you look up Willie Horton today, basically every non-conservative source including your high school teacher will tell you about the "infamous"... ad, which unlike unleashing rape and murder on your innocent citizens violates the sacred values of our Democracy or something. Some degree of deliberate unrestricted warfare is going on here, but I don't think this fully explains it. I'm reminded of Amy Biel who went to South Africa to fight apartheid, only to be pulled out a car by a black mob which slaughtered her despite the protests of her black friends that she was on their side. And then her parents flew into the country to testify a the "truth and reconciliation committee" in favor of releasing her murderers. They then started a foundation and hired these murderers.
Hlynka, I'm sure, will find a way to call them hypocrites. Moldbug will ask, 'but don't these elves eat great food'? As for me, I neither desire nor expect cooperation with these people, whatever their thought process or culinary habits. I wanna see the conservative movement* draw a clear unambiguous moral line between us and them, accept those that will cross over, and to crush the opposition permanently and with the same concern they feel for their pets' victims.
Added:
*Of course they are more concerned with saving the enemies' feti.
Added:
Here are the two ads Bush ran on the issue.
Willie Horton ad https://youtube.com/watch?v=Io9KMSSEZ0Y
Revolving door ad https://youtube.com/watch?v=Io9KMSSEZ0Y Note how in the second one, the campaign goes out of it's way to find white criminals for it's footage.
This is it.
WELL THIS IS IT BOYS. I've been Permabanned. I appeal to the other mods not for "a second chance" but for an outright acquittal, as I believe this charge to be a travesty. Paging @naraburns, @ZorbaTHut, @TracingWoodgrains
Commenters who are tempted to draw conclusions from this ban should... do exactly that. Seriously, read @Amadan's rationale and try to defend his integrity. There are people who place no value on your life, and others who, whatever their pretensions to the open discussion of ideas and others who find pointing this out intolerable. The outer party lives on, laundering gross atrocities into respectability by demanding that you not be outraged by them. And so, in this eternal re-run of the scene from "politics and the english language" releasing monsters to slaughter innocents becomes, "a policy that resulted in a criminal doing some crime." Depicting the criminal becomes "racialized imagery", and the promise of open discussion becomes, "I'm not sure how you'd make it relevant today without being pure "boo Democrats,"...
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
The staffer in question said the following according to Weiss.
“It's pretty clear he's saying the ‘American Patriots’ are the ones who voted for him and not the terrorists (we can call them that, right?) from Wednesday.”
"voted for him" and "terrorists" (referring to the Jan 6th rioters) are not mutually exclusive. I'd expect that sort of interpretation from a Trump supporter looking to deny, deny, deny. When I ask myself who was there, I don't think the answer is ever going to be "people who aren't Trump supporters but decided to riot inside".
What this release amounts to is many people inside Twitter were looking for a reason, any reason, to ban Trump, and despite some initial resistance by some more process-oriented people, he was indeed banned.
We have no idea how many people wanted him banned that way. This is why I said not having the full logs to comb through makes this frustrating - we literally cannot assess accurately how many people wanted Trump gone. We can only speculate about it based on things like political donations, and we have no reason to assume the process-oriented people weren't also left-leaning or anti-Trump. The phrase "vocal minority" exists for a reason.
'polite' being the code word doing a lot of work, here.
You can say that black people are stupid and trans people are deluded pedophiles every day for years, as long as you maintain decorum. That's still 'polite'.
But if someones recognizes that what you're saying there is 'fuck everyone not like me' and responds with 'hey, fuck you too', that person is not being polite and must be eliminated.
Hlynka wasn't interested in maintaining decorum when it was an obvious papering over disrespectful or violent thoughts. I admired how long he was able to act on that disinterest without getting permabanned.
Personally, the masquerade is getting boring for me too. But out of respect for mod wishes, I'll try to fade out rather than flame out if it becomes too annoying to bother with.
Tarnstellung
1yr ago
I thought the downsides of gas and conventional electric stoves were well-known.
Gas stoves cause indoor air pollution (I believe this is what the aforementioned media circus was about) and require gas, which is a fossil fuel – do I need to explain why fossil fuels are bad? And they require either a network of gas pipelines, which are an additional bit of infrastructure that needs to be built and maintained (and they tend to explode), or distribution in individual tanks, which is very wasteful. Induction just needs the existing electrical grid.
Conventional electric stoves are extremely inefficient, so they waste a lot of energy. And they are horrible to work with, it's basically a human rights violation. If conventional electric stoves are Americans' perceived alternative to gas, then I can understand the overreaction to the mere suggestion that gas stoves might be banned. In fact, in that light, it was probably an underreaction.
AdvocatingAsmodeus
Darwinian Consequentialism
1yr ago
Oh this is fun! I've been banned from reddit so many times I finally gave up three years ago. Everytime for calling out the "woke left". Do you even know what they are? I can educate you as a "leftwinger" and we can circle jerk about what cucks they are and that sounds hot. But I am suspecious that you might think I am gay.
My self confidence about your trajectory is confirmed by this very comment. Socratic method works!
I really don't need to say anything. You have said what I wanted you to say.
justawoman
1yr ago
You understand that if this drug is banned, women who suffer miscarriages have to carry the dead fetus and risk sepsis (whereas before they could take the pill to pass the tissue) correct?
FarNearEverywhere
4d ago
No.
I've put up with you doing the Nanny bit because you're a mod and you have the authority, but I'm not going to accept sneering without responding in kind.
If OP can be polite about their response, I'll be polite in return. OP goes on about "reality is only allowed to have appropriately gritty" so on, I'll respond in the same tone.
You can tell me I'm wrong, you can tell me I'm banned, but you can't tell me how to feel my feelings.
AhhhTheFrench
We will sell no wine before its time
28d ago
Some of us get rate limited. The people here love Mike Pence the same way people on reddit love pitbulls. I was banned there for pitbull hate speech.
HaroldWilson
4mo ago
The_Donald
Hard to be at all sympathetic given that they banned any criticism of Trump. Hard to complain about being banned for 'contradicting woke orthodoxy' (which I don't think is a fair representation of what happened but nevertheless) when you don't allow any contradiction of Trumpian orthodoxy.
Zelensky to run for re-election? What elections are we talking about, 90% of the parties have been banned
Martial law in Ukraine was declared on 24 February 2022. On 15 March 2022 the Parliament deprived Opposition MP Illia Kyva of his mandate.[9]
On 20 March 2022, several political parties were suspended by the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine for the period of martial law:[10][11]
Opposition Platform — For Life
Derzhava
Left Opposition
Nashi
Opposition Bloc
Party of Shariy
Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine
Socialist Party of Ukraine
Socialists
Union of Left Forces
Volodymyr Saldo Bloc
The property of the party and all its branches were transferred to the state.[13] The decision was open to appeal at the Supreme Court of Ukraine within 20 days.[13] At the time Opposition Platform – For Life was one of two of the 20 March 2022 suspended parties that was subject to an attempt of getting banned in court, Opposition Platform – For Life was the only party to defend and participate in the case.[13] (The other party was the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine.[67]) On 15 September 2022 the final appeal against the party's ban was dismissed by the Supreme Court of Ukraine, meaning that the party was fully banned in Ukraine.[14]
Ukraine judiciary system is utterly broken and has become among other things, an active puppet of the U.S, see for example this fascinating video from Joe Biden, you'd believe it's too big and blatant to be true but no the man even brag about it, so potent!
https://youtube.com/watch?v=azLKK0xTOFI
Let's not forget "fuck EU" or the fact Biden personally said the night of the sponsored coup, to Yanukovich on the phone that it was over and he would get killed if he didn't flee to Russia.
a to justify counter-corruption purges of the Ukrainian government.
Zelensky actively promoted the maintenance of the corruption by recently appointing a corrupt person at the top of the top anti-corruption organism of Ukraine.
IMHO It's hard to know what is the moral compass of Zelensky but he is at best utterly powerless.
Zelensky was elected for promising peace in the donbas but he quickly learnt the hardway that he was not the man in commands, it is the military that ruled and still rules Ukraine https://www.kyivpost.com/post/6652
https://youtube.com/watch?v=SIaTAnhgMT4
I expect NATO weapon shipments to hit a qualitative and quantitative critical mass by late 2023 that makes Ukraine favored in the early 2024
What kind of delusion is that? Even with the west support it will slow down but not at all reverse the attrition losses.
This will not favor Ukraine, whatever that means, Ukraine because of the extreme non-linearity of the effect of attrition losses on defense capabilities, should and will stay in a defensive position with a goal of 1) reducing hardware losses and 2) slowing down russia territorial expansion, in that order of priority.
Most of their tank/IFV/aircrafts/and anti-air (S300s) budget has been spent and we have no signal they have factories running making new hardware, IIRC the T80 factories are located in Kharkiv, too close to the front.
While russia also suffer from attrition, their existing reserves being considerably larger, they will obviously win this attritive war, unless the U.S sends tanks in the thousands at a minimum.
That's for the quantitative argument, as for the qualitative one, I have extensively debunked this ego-boosting myth in many of my past comments.
sliders1234
11mo ago
I’m a proud member of the banned from Reddit anti-trans group. I actually didn’t know how much Reddit was censor before. My time on Reddit is probably not that much longer.
do_something
9d ago
they went out of their way to say hypnosis porn is banned, what the fuck
I am not so surprised that someone wants rape via mind control be kicked out of their platform (or is it somehow something else?)
Ben___Garrison
1mo ago
Agreed. This forum's meta treatment of Christianity is very goofy. You can call trans people delusional and nothing will happen. You can call people in favor of covid lockdowns delusional and nothing will happen. You can even call people you're arguing against delusional as an ad-hominem and nothing will happen. But call religious people delusional and you should absolutely expect to get warned/banned.
Dude, you attacked me and then you claim to play defense and try to frame it as you being someone motivated to reduce inflammatory claims when it isn't true.
This dishonest game of defecting and then pretending you never defect and just spin after spin, might have something to do with why people have a problem with your faction.
Why should supporting hate speech laws deserve “beef?” If this community just banned people for endorsing bad ideas, we’d still be on Reddit, because 95% of our users would be gone. Instead, the Motte aims to allow the most degenerate, reactionary, humanist, traditional, secular, surreal opinions.
One man's boo the outgroup that is negative towards the progressive movement and wokeness ADL, Soros, civil rights movements or even the behavior of Jewish establishment and tries to articulate it is the other person's tolerance of bad ideas when they hate white supremacists, white identitarians, right wing identitarianism, support hate speech, or even dehumanizing the palestinians and approving of attrocities against them and so on.
People are allowed here to concern troll right wing identity politics and they are not vilifying the outgroup but we are not allowed to argue that this is racist. Nor that it leads inevitably and promoted by a faction that we see in practice tolerate or outright themselves promote excessive victimhood for the ingroup. Nor to connect it with the progressive identitarian movements in general, and to argue against them all.
Because this isn't merely an idea, but "booing the outgroup"! Conversely the people here who think the other side are racists like you do are not booing the outgroup! So one side has carte blache to vilify the opposition and spin it self as good, lets call them the progressive side that tries to put sometimes a bit of limited hangout. That can include in it the Bill Maher types. This side consistently frames the opposition to it as racist. Even more so certain branches of it. A direct opposition is not allowed, but I guess if you accept some of the progressive's framing that tribalism for the right wing side and victimhood is bad period, maybe you would be allowed some space... But not if you directly oppose it as a bad ideology and argue that it would be good for society if it lost influence, even if you qualify it to think that equal racist supremacist movement on the right wing dominating would also be bad.
Maybe just maybe you who supports censoring your opposition and aligns with the progressive stack movement are trying to censor your opposition.
Reddit is another forum that was ruined by left wing pro progressive stack anti right wing moderation and those who run it also pretended that this was reddit just banning people who break the rules and right wingers break the rules more.
Personally, I think speaking truth to power and criticizing sacred cows and movements that have captured power and vilify and mistreat classes of people, based on false dogmas is necessary. As someone who has studied the history of your movement, I know of the consistent viciousness that they close ranks and has treated any dissent and enforced conformism. It is why it is especially important for people faced with the demand for struggle sessions to not be discouraged when dealing with such people. They should know with what they are dealing with.
Conversely, there is something both cowardly and obscene with siding with groups like the ADL and left wing establishment as they abuse their power to enforce lies and punish dissent, and discriminate, harm and vilify their ethnic and right wing outgroups. Whether in the most overt manner. Or in the slightly more indirect manner of their protectors and fellow travelers who demand that they are allowed to defect, align and support this but for us to pretend that this isn't the case. That demand that any treatment of this phenomenon is wishy washy, of course.
But somehow this concern trolling doesn't exist when it comes to clearer denouncation of right wing historically more pervasively seen racist supremacist movements, or ages. Nobody will be treated to vilify the outgroup if they argue that Jim Crow was anti black, but it sensationalizes as boo outgroup to call MLK and his movement as antiwhite. To attack the KKK does not sensationalize instead of the much more relevant ADL or George Soros which does sensationalize you. To attach dissident right wing identitarians somehow doesn't result in accusations of vilifying the outgroup. Hell, even when I argue that Jim Crow age was anti-black, there is no care in the world.
The daft utopian dogma that condemning as bad particular factions is evil and intolerable (which vilifies those accused of doing it) is obviously not enforced consistently but concern trolling the outgroup. I am also not aware of any society that it has existed and enforced consistently.
Both you who are more transparent at it, and obviously Amadan and others of this mentality want submission to your false and blatantly prejudiced ideological vision of who are the good guys (who ought not be criticized) and who are the bad guys (which you are allowed to sharply criticize) and hide under platitudes of people "booing their outgroup".
See my other post about conservatively estimating that we could expect around 50,000 LEO casualties in trying to enforce a gun confiscation program.
I flat-out do not believe this. At most you would get about 10 LEO deaths on the first day, and then the military gets called in to put down the insurrection. Rules of engagement are always optional. "There is absolutely no difficulty in using any level of the American security forces against the barbarians."
PLUS the fact that guns can be 3D printed now, so it's not sufficient to confiscate those already in circulation.
Can you 3D print gunpowder?
I might concede this if you concede we would probably see an increase in vehicular-based massacres
I do concede that. The standard economic result is that when one good is banned, some of that demand goes towards a substitute good, but not enough to completely make up for it. I would expect the new rate of vehicular massacres to be somewhere between the current rate, and the current rate + the gun massacre rate. I also suspect that "massacre-prevention software" would soon become standard on cars if this became an issue.
And if we accept the idea, for arguments sake, that we could toss out our civil rights in the name of achieving lower crime, then maybe the example of El Salvador represents a much MORE EFFECTIVE path we could follow to achieve a similar impact on violent crime.
Oh, I am absolutely not advocating for large-scale gun confiscation. I am simply pointing out that it is both possible to do, and that it would achieve it's primary goal of reducing gun murders (and murders in general).
drmanhattan16
1yr ago
Hard evidence comes out that it was in fact happening, and you go "pff, everyone knew that"?
But we already knew that? I mean just publicly, we knew that Twitter was taking a stance against "misinformation" and trying to add corrections to people's tweets. Mind you, I don't think the exact specifics were known to the public, but I also don't consider "news flash, Twitter has active infrastructure and action to combat what they don't want" to be something particularly revealing.
Wikipedia is still calling Twiiter shaddow-banning a "conspiracy theory" (even as they admit it turned out to be true).
It's Wikipedia on a topic that is now salient to politics, did you expect that the people editing it were more interested in substance over ideology?
Secondly, the shadow-banning thing is an annoying conversation by virtue of being over definition. My understanding of shadow-banning is that no one can see the content in question, though the user would never know this without logging out and checking for their content. This is how Reddit does it, from my understanding, and how a lot of people are thinking about this topic.
However, I don't agree with this and think we should amend the definition based on how Twitter operates. If a celebrity starts noticing their tweets get no engagement, they'd realize it immediately as something being off because there's a direct link between followers in a way that doesn't exist on Reddit. So if Twitter makes it so that only followers see that content, then we should say this person is shadow-banned. However, there's a caveat to this in that technically, the content wasn't hidden, just maximally deboosted, meaning even the amended definition wouldn't fit. I think that's a small and irrelevant point to quibble over, personally.
If I have any problem with how people are doing this debate more publicly, it would be that definitions aren't being tabooed.
So I’ve now been banned on all of Reddit’s neutral subs. This might not belong here but perhaps we should go back to Reddit? It seems as though anyone whose center right or maybe I’m just Maga eventually gets banned. My concern with this sub leaving Reddit is we will become like them. As Reddit subs are isolating themselves from the right they become just talking points to the left. Off Reddit this subs only going to be recruiting people from the right and the conversations will become equally dull. I actually like discussing things with adversaries. And on net I think people need to hear how other people think.
It feels to me more and more communities are feeling like they need to pick a side. I remember years ago I could post on neoliberal as a Reagan Republican. Then I was banned. And a year or two later they have post about how can I talk to a Republican. Infantile stuff. And while I see the need to get off Reddit because well I get banned constantly - being off Reddit is a fear of becoming a dull GOP talking points sub. Because I’ve seen enough subs go from lively debate to we talk about Dem talking points now.
More of a thought piece than saying we should go back to Reddit. But without having some attachment to slatestar it seems like it will be tough to get more than red tribe let’s bash dumb blue tribe convos.
Chrisprattalpharaptr
Ave Imperaptor
3mo ago
It says "Moms for Liberty" right on the tin
And yet, most of their advocacy revolves around banning books and curricula discussing LGBT, trans and civil rights issues:
Accompanying that letter is an 11-page spreadsheet with complaints about books on the district’s curriculum, ranging from popular books on civil rights heroes to books about poisonous animals (“text speaks of horned lizard squirting blood out of its eyes”), Johnny Appleseed (“story is sad and dark”), and Greek and Roman mythology (“illustration of the goddess Venus naked coming out of the ocean...story of Tantalus and how he cooks up, serves, and eats his son.”) A book about hurricanes is no good (“1st grade is too young to hear about possible devastating effects of hurricanes”) and a book about owls is designated as a downer. (“It’s a sad book, but turns out ok. Not a book I would want to read for fun,” an adult wrote of the owl book in the spreadsheet.)
...
At one juncture, the group implores the school district to include more charitable descriptions of the Catholic Church when teaching a book about astronomer Galileo Galilei, who was persecuted by said church for suggesting that Earth revolves around the sun. “Where is the HERO of the church?” the group’s spreadsheet asks, “to contrast with their mistakes? There are so many opportunities to teach children the truth of our history as a nation. The Church has a huge and lasting influence on American culture. Both good and bad should be represented. The Christian church is responsible for the genesis of Hospitals, Orphanages, Social Work, Charity, to name a few.” MFL’s Williamson County chapter also takes issue with a picture book about seahorses, in part because it depicted “mating seahorses with pictures of postions [sic] and discussion of the male carrying the eggs.”
So painting them as being about Liberty in any meaningful sense of the word, other than Liberty being a red-tribe codeword, seems patently dishonest. Their objections to content are often explicitly political and coded red-tribe. Some of the shit that was banned in Florida schools a few years ago was hilariously inoffensive.
As for the OP, whatever. I don't really care. But if people bothered to look at the context, I'd expect most to at least get a chuckle out of the fact that people clutching their pearls at the idea of their child being exposed to the idea that gay people exist then get schwasted with them on the weekend in between threesomes.
HaroldWilson
4mo ago
I was responding to you, specifically your smug mockery of 'start your own website', which was silly because that's exactly what they were able to do.
Kiwifarms, though I don't necessarily agree with Cloudflare's decision, was clearly not just banned just for its ideological proclivities.
Tarnstellung
10mo ago
Yes, the evidence is weak. That is precisely what the authors of the meta-analysis meant by:
The strength of evidence for these conclusions is low due to methodological limitations
If you look at the "Discussion" section, you will note that most of it is dedicated to pointing out problems with the studies under review. The article also notes that de Vries, 2014 has a "serious" risk of bias and the other three adolescent studies have a "moderate" risk of bias, and of the 20 studies they looked at, only three have a "low" risk. All of this means that further research is needed (it always is), but based on the evidence we have now I think it's perfectly reasonable to adopt a working hypothesis that puberty blockers and hormone therapy are beneficial.
Your points about self-selection among participants only imply that doctors should exercise care when choosing which treatments to administer to whom. Clearly some patients do benefit from hormone therapy, therefore the therapy should not be banned.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1yr ago
What's your definition of "shadow-ban"?
According to urbandictionary
Banning a user from a web forum in such a way that the banned user is unaware of the ban. Usually takes the form of showing that user's posts/profile/etc. only to that user; other users never see them. Considered underhanded chicken-shit behavior.
And according to Twitter
People are asking us if we shadow ban. We do not. But let’s start with, “what is shadow banning?”
The best definition we found is this: deliberately making someone’s content undiscoverable to everyone except the person who posted it, unbeknownst to the original poster.
So, what accounts is it alleged Twitter shadow banned, according to either its own or the pre-Twitter-Files definition? As far as I can tell the actions Twitter is alleged to have taken are:
-
De-boosted some accounts such that their content would not appear in one's timeline, but could still be viewed if they went to the posting account directly (i.e. not shadow banned) and;
-
Hid some accounts from auto complete in the search bar, but which could still be viewed if one navigated directly to the posting account (i.e. not shadow banning).
As far as I can tell this new post-Twitter-Files definition of shadow banning as any kind of limit of an accounts reach is entirely invented for the purpose of claiming Twitter lied about not shadow banning people (in the same blog post where they are extremely clear about what they mean by shadow banning).
curious_straight_ca
1yr ago
Musk is based and anti-woke
Based just means 'guy i like' now. Communists have been saying 'based' since 2016. Musk is an independent centrist who is good at engineering and management. Maybe that'll change! His memes, and those of his supporters, are about as funny as r/AdviceAnimals. I'll take @rapegroyper1488 and @gaypissretard420 being unbanned (not ironic), but that doesn't make him 'based' or right-wing or make his twitter decisions competent.
The real question is, why does the left hate an anti-establishment, egalitarian, and pro-meritocratic guy like Musk? Could it be because the left is the establishment now? And they fear losing their power?
the right has been saying 'whoa the left is powerful and bad and doesnt like us' for a century now, it clearly isn't enough to just go 'whoa what if the left isnt nice' over and over
The "I can't be trusted alone in a room with a woman that isn't my wife" mike pence?
During an interview in 2002, Pence told a reporter that he would not have dinner alone with a woman other than his wife.
The "I want to force people to have funerals for their miscarriages" mike pence?
The "retarded children should be forced to full term" mike pence?
In March 2016, as Indiana governor, Pence signed into law H.B. 1337, a bill that both banned certain abortion procedures and placed new restrictions on abortion providers. The bill banned abortion if the reason for the procedure given by the woman was the fetus' race or gender or a fetal abnormality. In addition, the bill required that all fetal remains from abortions or miscarriages at any stage of pregnancy be buried or cremated, which according to the Guttmacher Institute was not required in any other state.[155][156][157] The law was described as "exceptional for its breadth"; if implemented, it would have made Indiana "the first state to have a blanket ban on abortions based solely on race, sex or suspected disabilities, including evidence of Down syndrome".[156]
"Coal is the future" mike pence?
Pence has been an outspoken supporter of the coal industry, declaring in his 2015 State of the State address that "Indiana is a pro-coal state," expressing support for an "all-of-the-above energy strategy", and stating: "we must continue to oppose the overreaching schemes of the EPA until we bring their war on coal to an end.
He is your hero?!
Updated with the appropriate context.
More options
Context Copy link