Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
April LC Thread: Special "No Collusion" Survivor White House Edition April LC Thread: Special "No Collusion" Survivor White House Edition
View Poll Results: Who will NOT survive the month of April?
Rod Rosenstein
15 36.59%
Mike Pompeo
0 0%
Sarah Huckabee Sanders
2 4.88%
Kjrstyn Njielessen
9 21.95%
Wilbur Ross
1 2.44%
Kellyanne Conway
0 0%
Rudy Giuliani
3 7.32%
Jared Kushner
1 2.44%
Mick Mulvaney
5 12.20%
Write-in
5 12.20%

04-01-2019 , 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossnerd
You can tongue my clit, rep lol. I don't give a **** about your opinion.
u that ****ing desperate? i'm happily married but tks for the offer, i'm not scared of some pussy in my face
04-01-2019 , 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
Is it? I didn't think Crossnerd was against calling out Melania for the specific person (Donald Trump) she chose to marry (as opposed to simply "marrying a rich dude").
Well then you missed some posts.
04-01-2019 , 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossnerd
Again, I think you think posts like this are just totally kosher and not dripping in internalized sexism, but they're actually really disgusting.
I think the last part of it "she probably just stares at a blank wall all day," is dripping in sexism, but I also have way less (like hardly any) problem with that type of post being directed at Melania Trump, who is probably in a literal sense doing absolutely nothing of positive value to society with her life, even while being in a position in which she very much could. Further, by doing nothing, and sometimes worse - doing horrible things, she's making the world worse every day.

The part about hardly being able to speak is also either sexist or shows ignorance toward her lingual skill, but then again I really don't care if people know about the full resume of a first lady who's making the world a worse place.

Given that Melania is a public figure and definitively on the side of the bad guys, I think the line of acceptable criticism for her can be a little different than in general, even while I may not approach the line in certain ways. I'm certainly going to spend a lot more time attacking a lot of worse people than the ones ripping her for good reasons and exercising some poor judgment in the process, especially when it may be in an attempt to be humorous. But that's just me.
04-01-2019 , 11:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
That's sure interesting, because it says here:



Emphasis mine. It's literally a fundamental rule to this site that you don't want that stuff posted here.
that's lawyer gibberish. fact is, i'm happy to leave you guys alone. it's you guys who flip out over other threads and forums that wind up being created because you are so quick to throw people out.
04-01-2019 , 11:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by +rep_lol
u that ****ing desperate? i'm happily married but tks for the offer, i'm not scared of some pussy in my face
I guess they never miss huh?
04-01-2019 , 11:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mat Sklansky
that's lawyer gibberish.
Man, maybe you guys should pay attention to your own legal representatives?
04-01-2019 , 11:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
Is it? I didn't think Crossnerd was against calling out Melania for the specific person (Donald Trump) she chose to marry (as opposed to simply "marrying a rich dude").
I mean, sure, granted, the language being called out was problematic, but, like, no one gives a **** about Melinda Gates, and people aren't villainizing Trump's earlier wives. Women marrying rich dudes aren't generally made into villains. It's precisely because she knowingly married Donald Trump, professional grifter, scumbag, racist, misogynist, and abuser, that she's being made into a villain. She's remained married to him through his presidency, and she's promoting his agenda. At this point, she's complicit. Not all means of escaping poverty are ethical, trivially. Sure, attacks at her should be better.
04-01-2019 , 11:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mat Sklansky
that's lawyer gibberish.
In the world I come from, this is the kind of thing you don't write in public (or private!), because it's the kind of thing that plainly says "I know and understand what our lawyers told us, and I don't give a ****, I'm going to do the other thing". But hey, you do you Mat!
04-01-2019 , 11:44 PM
zzzzzzzzzzz
04-01-2019 , 11:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
Man, maybe you guys should pay attention to your own legal representatives?
yea they listened to their ****ty legal representatives once already and missed out on the gravy train of the century

so now we have this
04-01-2019 , 11:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
In the world I come from, this is the kind of thing you don't write in public (or private!), because it's the kind of thing that plainly says "I know and understand what our lawyers told us, and I don't give a ****, I'm going to do the other thing". But hey, you do you Mat!
this is absolutely the kind of thing that gets introduced as evidence in court cases, fwiw
04-01-2019 , 11:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mat Sklansky
that's lawyer gibberish. fact is, i'm happy to leave you guys alone. it's you guys who flip out over other threads and forums that wind up being created because you are so quick to throw people out.
Is it your opinion that Unchained/7.0/whatever was just fine, except for the fact that we caused too much of stink about it?
04-01-2019 , 11:46 PM
I'm not against legitimate attacks on Melania. I'm against *sexist* attacks against her, and that will remain true regardless of the target. You do not have free reign to use sexist language against women you don't like or don''t agree with politically. Sorry, YOU DON'T. Whether you can conceive of it or not, that behavior endangers me, and I will fight it.

I will not tolerate sexism in conversation. Neither do you have the right to ask or command me to tolerate it.
04-01-2019 , 11:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossnerd
I'm not against legitimate attacks on Melania. I'm against *sexist* attacks against her, and that will remain true regardless of the target. You do not have free reign to use sexist language against women you don't like or don''t agree with politically. Sorry, YOU DON'T.
Cross,

Literally everyone here has agreed that we shouldn't use the w-word to describe Melania.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
people aren't villainizing Trump's earlier wives..
Ivana Trump divorced him, split his bucks, and told the world he was a rapist *******. I respect that. That's real truth to power ****.
04-01-2019 , 11:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mat Sklansky
that's lawyer gibberish. fact is, i'm happy to leave you guys alone. it's you guys who flip out over other threads and forums that wind up being created because you are so quick to throw people out.
So you don’t care that racist **** is posted on 2+2 as long as a fairly large portion of one of the political parties believes it’s true?
04-01-2019 , 11:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossnerd
Again, I think you think posts like this are just totally kosher and not dripping in internalized sexism, but they're actually really disgusting.
i'm sorry that you feel that way. is it your opinion that no man can cyberbully any woman? or do you feel that melania isn't evil enough to deserve the level of scorn where it's appropriate to bring up her ghoulish appearance?

melania's one of the worst people in american politics. it's no kind of gender equality to pretend she's normal while pointing out that mike pence looks like a demon host.
04-01-2019 , 11:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by will1530
So you don’t care that racist **** is posted on 2+2 as long as a fairly large portion of one of the political parties believes it’s true?
As long as it's on Fox News or that fat ****er Rush Limbaugh is spouting it on AM radio it's all cool.

* Hopefully it's still ok to fat shame here

** I'm sort of fat at the moment so I say it's ok for me to do it
04-01-2019 , 11:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crossnerd
You don't get to use that word toward a woman. Anything that comes from me after that word is used toward a woman should be totally allowed.
I get this now. It doesn't clear everything up, but it's fine.
04-01-2019 , 11:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
In the world I come from, this is the kind of thing you don't write in public (or private!), because it's the kind of thing that plainly says "I know and understand what our lawyers told us, and I don't give a ****, I'm going to do the other thing". But hey, you do you Mat!
the terms and conditions were written to protect us. to allow us to censor whatever we want. they list as many things as they can think of.

but no, we don't want stormfront style racism and hatred here. but we've reached a point, from my perspective, that you guys feel that all republicans are stormfront style racists.

again, i don't really mind how this individual forum is policed. it seems to me that it is people from this forum who are overly concerned how other forums on this site are policed.
04-01-2019 , 11:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
Cross,

Literally everyone here has agreed that we shouldn't use the w-word to describe Melania.
But I had to bring it up.

There was NOT enough objection to it in the original thread. If there had been, I wouldn't be here right now doing this.

It wasn't enough when it happened, and THAT IS ENOUGH for me to freak out over.

I live in a state where if I am "mentally incapacitated" because I "did it to myself" via drinks or drugs, I can't be "raped". I live in a state where if I change my mind mid-sex and say stop, and he doesn't stop, thats not rape. (North Carolina, google it)

Do not preach to me about the repercussions of sexist lanuage. I need only ONE person to consider me a "drunk whore" here for me to lose my entire sense of self. My chances are 1 in 5. You play poker, do you like those odds??

This isn't your fight, so you don't get it. But I have to worry about it every time I go out. You act like I'm making a big deal out of things- MY CARDS ARE LIVE. 1 in 5. Do you like those odds??
04-01-2019 , 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mat Sklansky
the terms and conditions were written to protect us. to allow us to censor whatever we want. they list as many things as they can think of.

but no, we don't want stormfront style racism and hatred here. but we've reached a point, from my perspective, that you guys feel that all republicans are stormfront style racists.

again, i don't really mind how this individual forum is policed. it seems to me that it is people from this forum who are overly concerned how other forums on this site are policed.


lol you are just drunk and trolling at this point
04-01-2019 , 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
Is it your opinion that Unchained/7.0/whatever was just fine, except for the fact that we caused too much of stink about it?
unchained was pretty good. all sides had pretty much uncensored freedom. i recall fly even liked it. it quickly went downhill after heavier moderation came in.
04-01-2019 , 11:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mat Sklansky

but no, we don't want stormfront style racism and hatred here. but we've reached a point, from my perspective, that you guys feel that all republicans are stormfront style racists.
Really? The person in question is using a black minstrel style avatar and the motivation there is nothing more to upset people. Does it need to be a swastika before you recognize stormfront style racism?
04-01-2019 , 11:57 PM
I did a quick search of the Politics forum for the word "whore" and found 36 posts in the year 2019. 20 were in this thread, where I think it's only been used in this exact discussion.

Five were in the March LC thread, of which:

1. Was the dth post that I think started this whole thing.

2. Was someone quoting #1.

3. Was Kafja telling dth #1 was out of line.

4. Was SenorKeeeed calling Jussie Smollet an attention whore.

5. Was someone quoting #4.

Three others were (1) reference to Avenatti (by Crossnerd) as a fame whore and (2) quotes of that post. There appear to be others in here that I missed because they used "whores" and "whoreish" but obviously Crossnerd has no problem with calling people fame whores/attention whores based on her posting there. She did have a problem with someone jokingly saying that her reference to Avenatti was "unfair to whores" because they didn't use the term "sex worker" instead.

At this point I'm tired of separating by thread/post, so we have:

1 publicity whore
1 prestige whore
2 attention whore
1 useless stooge whore (I don't really know what this is, but it was again dth)
1 was I think quoting a line from a movie, but I could be wrong ("Do you kiss ___ with those filthy whore lips?")
1 was referring to Joe Liebermann as a corporate whore

I missed one, but you get the point. In three months of posting on a high volume forum, there were one, maybe two bad uses of the word and ironically one of them was actually responded to by a forum member other than Crossnerd anyway, before she started this post-storm about the same one.

Point being, I don't think this forum has some kind of sexism problem, I don't think that sexism here goes unaddressed, and I think attacking this forum as some sort of institution that defends sexism is kind of absurd.
04-01-2019 , 11:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mat Sklansky
unchained was pretty good. all sides had pretty much uncensored freedom. i recall fly even liked it. it quickly went downhill after heavier moderation came in.
because obviously the heavier moderation from chez and well named was what led to nazis showing up to celebrate the murder of heather heyer

i bet it was even token leftists like chez and well named who spraypainted swastikas on the front of your father's house after trump got elected. maybe antifa.

      
m