The Human Cost of Talking Trump

[Zhongyongdaoist]

2 hours ago, Trunk said:

What unwelcome violation could someone do to you, that would make your butt hurt, that would cause you distress and that would be worthy of strong complaint?

 

For some people mere lese magesty is enough to bring them out roaring like lions.

 

38 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

Common usage of "butthurt" is to say that someone needs to get over what they're upset about.

The implied meaning of the term is that they were just raped. Doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

 

Another form of "pain in the ass" that does not require anal rape to be a painful problem is a hemorrhoid.  It is too bad that a person with an inflamed ego, did not apply some "preparation H" to herself before she decided to inflame the Dao Bums with her "witty" attempt at getting even:

 

On 11/9/2017 at 11:05 AM, Taomeow said:

On 11/8/2017 at 6:36 PM, Zhongyongdaoist said:

 

  Why does this person want to buy a book subtitled "the art of getting even"? 

 

Possibly because this kind of magic constitutes about 90% of all magic practiced in places like Hong Kong?..  We live in an unfair society.  "Getting even" sounds, well, not nice.  But another way to put it is "getting back to the balanced state."  Sounds nicer, eh?  Technically it can be the same thing.  You are wronged.  You can turn the other cheek, will it restore the balance?  Or will it make things a bit more "uneven?"  Alternatively you can slap the cheek of the offender with the same force he applied to yours.  Will it make things a bit more "even?" 

 

Many in Asia go with the second scenario.  A Chinese friend of mine who traveled to a town in Hong Kong whose name I forget described a whole street of sorcerers (they like clustering specializations, there's streets of mattress makers and streets of computer assemblers and streets of sorcerers).   There's hundreds of clients congregating there all day long in search of revenge.  Employees wronged by bosses give the sorceress (most are female) the name, she writes it in a talismanic script on a piece of yellow paper, puts the paper on the ground, has the wronged party remove one of his shoes and pummels the name with the shoe, screaming and cursing.  That sort of thing.  He said he'd never been anywhere where the noise and screaming were on this level, and he's traveled the world.

 

So, aside from the general "not nice" idea of the book's premise, what would your objections be to the procedures proposed?

 

I was and always will be on the side of healing rather than getting even:

 

On 11/8/2017 at 6:36 PM, Zhongyongdaoist said:

if they think that they need to get even with someone, they should probably seek out someone who is a practitioner rather than trying to do it themselves.  If they are lucky they will find a true practitioner, someone who can heal the whole situation bringing a true resolution to the matter, if they are not, well, horror stories are written about what happens if they are not.

 

Preventive medicine was my object in hiding Taomeow's original response.

 

9 minutes ago, Kar3n said:

14 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

I don't really have time to read what she said, but perhaps she was making that joke...and if so, that's quite witty.

Funny how wit comes into play when we are talking TM, but when we talk jonesboy it is troll, bully, sodomite, rapist and abused.

 

The double standards are quite amazing...

 

People should be thinking about how they are being manipulated, used, and even abused for a misguided attempt at "getting even".

[Taomeow]

19 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

I don't really have time to read what she said, but perhaps she was making that joke...and if so, that's quite witty.

 

Oh no, I didn't make that "joke."  We need to give credit where credit is due -- it was Kar3n who arrived at the conclusion that tongue-in-cheek has sexual connotations.  It would never occur to me -- unlike the case with "butthurt." 

 

Incidentally, I am a published American author, not a disenfranchised "tsarina" who needs the firing squad to explain grammar, syntax, stylistics and lexicology to me while crushing heirloom china and practice shooting Siberian cats.  

[zerostao]

9 minutes ago, Zhongyongdaoist said:

 

For some people mere lese magesty is enough to bring them out roaring like lions.

 

 

Another form of "pain in the ass" that does not require anal rape to be a painful problem is a hemorrhoid.  It is too bad that a person with an inflamed ego, did not apply some "preparation H" to herself before she decided to inflame the Dao Bums with her "witty" attempt at getting even:

 

 

I was and always will be on the side of healing rather than getting even:

 

 

Preventive medicine was my object in hiding Taomeow's original response.

 

 

People should be thinking about how they are being manipulated, used, and even abused for a misguided attempt at "getting even".

Someone once told me that when you find yourself deep in a hole that you should stop digging. I wanted to pass that advice on to you.

[Aetherous]

24 minutes ago, Kar3n said:

Funny how wit comes into play when we are talking TM, but when we talk jonesboy it is troll, bully, sodomite, rapist and abused.

 

The double standards are quite amazing...

 

I generally don't take sides, just state the truth as far as I'm able. Nothing against jonesboy...not saying he's a rapist. Just that I think butthurt implies the meaning that the person had been "raped".

Anyway, I've really got nothing against anyone here. I like you and jonesboy too.

[Aetherous]

16 minutes ago, Zhongyongdaoist said:

Another form of "pain in the ass" that does not require anal rape to be a painful problem is a hemorrhoid.  It is too bad that a person with an inflamed ego, did not apply some "preparation H" to herself before she decided to inflame the Dao Bums with her "witty" attempt at getting even

 

I don't think that makes any sense in the context of using "butthurt". The conversation the person didn't like gave them a hemorrhoid?

At least personally, anal rape is the implied meaning that I always understood about the term. I have never seen any definition of it that referred to hemorrhoids, but I have seen anal rape as a definition.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ButtHurt  on the first two pages we can see multiple mentions of it.

[Kar3n]

51 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

 

Oh no, I didn't make that "joke."  We need to give credit where credit is due -- it was Kar3n who arrived at the conclusion that tongue-in-cheek has sexual connotations.  It would never occur to me -- unlike the case with "butthurt." 

I was just following your lead on possible sexual connotations of word groups. It is not witty, hilarious or satirical? I do not believe butthurt to be a sexual term and it certainly does not conjure images of rape, anal sex or anything of that nature, so we will have to agree to disagree.

 

Quote

 

Incidentally, I am a published American author, not a disenfranchised "tsarina" who needs the firing squad to explain grammar, syntax, stylistics and lexicology to me while crushing heirloom china and practice shooting Siberian cats.  

You certainly demanded all of the above like a "tsarina"...

Quote

Hi again, dear mods,

not sure my first report of this post was noticed, so reporting it for the second time.  I may not understand the idiom "butt hurt" fully, in which case an explanation of its full compliance with TDB's guidelines may be what I need.  I've always thought that it's either a homophobic slur employed by a closeted gay male to assert his masculinity by attacking uncloseted gay males, or a reference to anal sex with a woman with even more unappetizing connotations for the user.  I would rather see mod intervention in regard to Jonesboy using it toward me, but if such intervention is not forthcoming, then I will opt for posting this very explanation, possibly with more detailed and thorough analysis of the rather obvious origins of such imagery  in a person resorting to it.  Please let me know which you prefer.  Many thanks.       

Seems pretty clear that you did not get what you thought you deserved and you have not only retaliated against jonesboy but the mod team as well for not fulfilling your demands in a public manner.

 

It is all really sad it has come to this.

[Marblehead]

When I have been sitting on a hard chair for too long my butt hurts.

 

That hasn't happened today, I have been outside working.

 

[Bud Jetsun]

Whatever a being expresses as a "disliked" action, expression or being is inherently only an aspect of themselves reflected they have not yet found peace with. 

 

A being worships with most sincerity whatever they pay their attention.  All other acts are in-genuine pseudo-worship, as a beings only currency of spiritual value while in this fleeting earthly experience is attention in Now alone. 

 

Each being unstoppably free to evolve, or spend their one moment worshiping reflected discontentment until inevitable last breath draw moment. 

 

Unlimited Love,

-Bud

[Stosh]

Most people seem not to be at peace with ad hominem insults .

I figure most of y'all would prefer a degree of respect , and in the absence of that , would prefer for moderation to defend ones position  in such a circumstance. 

I haven't looked up ' butthurt'  to find what some dictionary writer might have decided to say about the term,( I don't care either.)

BUT when I heard that term , it seemed to me like it has some kind of derogatory slant about one's posterior. Perhaps that they are not happy to have been roughly dominated . It certainly would appear to about someones rectum. Otherwise one might say something like 'upset' or 'disgruntled' or foiled or thwarted .. etc. 

Any way one slices it , it is rude , and in the face of rudeness its very normal not to feel kindly about that. Nor would it be strange to feel like one has been abandoned , when one is told they should just withstand the personal attack to their dignity when there is supposed to be moderation.

If the attack is public , then the correction should be public ,1 because the dignity of someone has been impugned , and 2 , when justice is done it needs to be seen to be done if the effect is to go beyond that particular instance. 

As a matter of people just trying to get along , it would be great if offenses were minimized by the offended , but including or barring that , it would be nice if the person who did the offending self corrected merely out of a desire to have a harmonious forum. 

If things go too far , just make nice and forget about it.  Take a deep breath ,and just  STOP. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bindi]

8 hours ago, dawei said:

 

funny you didn't quote what they claimed is the #1 definition... which is the common usage and how it was used... but instead used one that claims 'everyone envisions'...  please...  it should read, everyone whose head is in the gutter.   I guess dickhead (a stupid, irritating, or ridiculous person, particularly a man.) would be off limits too then ?   

 

This only reminds me of the childhood phrase... sticks and stones...  

 

But I do feel bad if someone mistook a sexual meaning as there is none in the context it was given.  It's been explained too many times but it just gets ignored.  We (staff) really only need to address how and when it was used, not every possible flight of definition the world envisions. 

 

 

Butt-hurt is a term that pretty well belongs in the gutter in the first place. Dickhead is such a good description of certain people I'd have to make an exception for that one  

 

edit: my earlier post was referring to the possible origins of the term, not the term as it has come to be understood by those who use it. If someone has never heard the term butt-hurt, then their mind will make whatever association it does, and their response will be to their initial association. 

Edited March 16, 2018 by Bindi

[liminal_luke]

4 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

Incidentally, I am a published American author  

 

That`s not surprising.  If you`ve written something I`m likely to understand (not too technical, not in Russian) I`d be interested in reading it.  Especially if it`s available on Amazon Kindle.  (Otherwise I could get it from a regular bookstore when I return to the states.)  If you`re open to sharing the author side of your life with us Bums (and I get that you might not be), please let us know what you`ve written.  

Edited March 16, 2018 by liminal_luke

[thelerner]

On 3/15/2018 at 12:06 PM, Kar3n said:

I have asked you twice to stop and let us look at the situation. This is my final request for you to please, stop perpetuating the situation and stirring the pot and attacking a member of this forum, lest you find yourself on the receiving end of what you so badly want for joeblast.

 

Enough is enough, already.

Well, you know I want to be good,

but If I was,

You wouldn't be earning

    the big bucks of a moderator. 

 

 

When one spreads aggravation, as I've done

it doesn't always land where aimed.

So, clap clap, I'm out. 

Edited March 17, 2018 by thelerner

[redcairo]

On 3/14/2018 at 9:37 PM, Aetherous said:

To be challenged by others is an opportunity for cultivation...it's not an opportunity to silence others. Silencing free speech and controlling other people is not the path of peace. The Talk Trump thread is a great opportunity for most of us to grow. The only thing is that it's up to us as individuals, if we're going to cultivate and behave proactively, or let our egos and emotions rule who we are. Just because some members make the wrong choice, or falter a little bit on the path, doesn't make it any less of an opportunity for growth.

 

I see Luke's point. But I see this too. That thread has actually brought me face to face with repeatedly with asking myself:

 

What do you choose to spend your time, attention, focus upon? Why? There's a huge forum here. You visit that thread and leave. Why? Are there seriously no people or threads about other topics of my interest? Of course there are. Why don't they draw me the same way -- sometimes? Because I let myself have that 'attachment' to the subject. Is it bad, good? It's not anything but what I make it for me, and what others make it for them.

 

Has anybody ever been rude to me? Probably, but I have the internet-skin of a rhino so when I get really irked I usually leave and cool off before I return, lest I share with them my deepest feelings about their mama or whatever. Maybe a few exceptions. I've run my own forums for over 20 years so I know the sufferage of staff and I don't want to make it worse on them. Do I learn anything from it? Well I see for the zillionth time that what triggers anyone on any spot of the spectrum is being invalidated as if their words spawn not from genuine feeling or thought or experience but from being 'so stupid they just believe source X.'

 

There are other things that trigger me personally. One is when the ability to make tongue-in-cheek half-joking things are intentionally taken over-literally so it can be interpreted as 10x the offense. Ideally when anybody feels like that -- we all get that way sometimes -- they would just avoid such threads, since they actually make a cantankerous but sometimes good natured spitball fest into a heavy bore where somehow you're walking on eggshells in a topic that is all about NOT walking on eggshells in a lot of ways.

 

If you LIKE mud wrestling, I am sure there is a path of individuation to be found in that, but if you really hate mud wrestling and find it offensive, best to avoid the pit. The bums have tons of other threads -- some of which are also pits in some respects but only in the most appropriately challenging to help you grow ways hahaha -- that might be better.

 

Do I suffer from all the negativity on the Trump threads? Sure, if I spend too much time on it. So what's the lesson here? The lesson is that I'm an adult, and I need to learn to evaluate the result things have on my state of mind, how much I get done if I do/don't participate in that.

 

For some people the lesson is "don't go to the Bangkok market if chaos and the chance of getting robbed offends you" and for others the lesson is "hey there's tons of colorful life and great opportunities there" and for others the lesson is "learn how much you can stand, what your own boundaries are, and discipline yourself to visit or participate -- or not! -- appropriately." 

 

*

 

All that being said... I think what Luke was in part saying, was not just (or so much) that he wanted the bums not to have a place for spitwads, but that he was distressed that bums he likes participating with in other areas of the forum have left those areas because of the political stuff. That part, I totally get.

 

But this is life: people go to church, and then sometimes your favorite people leave "because of all the hypocrites." The fact that 90% of the people were kind friends and not hypocrites is worth noting; the fact that they often quit praying and doing anything related to their spirituality when they leave church, and it wasn't God who was the hypocrite, is worth noting; really what it means is they chose to focus on the tiny percent of whatever or whomever bothered them the most, make it more important than everything else, were unable to have the discipline to focus away from it or prioritize it downward, and ended up with such internal drama they just had to walk away from everything even associated with it. This happens with jobs, too, sometimes.

 

That sucks. There's great people lost to topics and places and groups that way.

 

But that's their path, you might say. It seems ok on the surface to say "well let's just root out that area of flaming mud" but when you think about it, what we're really saying is, "We have this huge neighborhood with so much interesting stuff and so many people. But way over on the west side, down by the railroad tracks, there is this neighborhood. And all the people are trash-talkin' longshoremen! They even have fistfights on the docks sometimes! And Danny got a job with them and then, he kept hanging out with them and then, he got so mad about the fighting and some guy mean to him he moved out of town entirely. We must go down there and make sure they all become more like us, or leave the city limits!" 

 

But... they're not in your house, or even in your part of town. If you have to specifically *go there* to even have any idea what is going on, they're clearly not inflicting it upon you. Danny's life is his own. Their life is their own. To finish the analogy, ha.

 

The "reach into someone else's world and insist they be what I want" is, ironically, a philosophical tendency that is a political doctrine on its own. :-)

 

Also: There's a lot of kinder-gentler and armchair philosophy and spiritual yearning going on in the rest of the forum. Some boot-wearing ass-kicking down-home jerks might be just the energy needed for a little balance in the overall bum-planet yinyang. ;-)

 

Probably should have read more than the first page before typing this out. Sorry if it works out poorly. Must run but will return this weekend or sooner.

 

RC

Edited March 17, 2018 by redcairo
keep deleting words with ctrl key I think

[liminal_luke]

34 minutes ago, redcairo said:

 

I see Luke's point. But I see this too.

 

I started out thinking we needed to stop talking Trump.  But then posts like the one from Aetherous you quoted convinced me that was the wrong approach.  Now I just think we need to be nicer to each other.  

 

Clearly people aren`t going to stop insulting each other just because I`d like them to though.  One alternative would be to have more active moderation.  If I was a moderator I`d swoop in at the least provocation, handing out suspensions by the handful as one would dole out miniature Snickers bars to greedy little trick-or-treating Halloween witches.  I wouldn`t be happy and neither would my much put-upon fellow Bums.  

 

I wish people would stop treating each other with contempt.  Whether or not expressions of contempt can (or should) be eliminated by moderation is an open question.  

 

 

Edited March 17, 2018 by liminal_luke

[doc benway]

2 hours ago, Stosh said:

Most people seem not to be at peace with ad hominem insults .

I figure most of y'all would prefer a degree of respect , and in the absence of that , would prefer for moderation to defend ones position  in such a circumstance. 

I haven't looked up ' butthurt'  to find what some dictionary writer might have decided to say about the term,( I don't care either.)

 

I didn't look it up until just now after reading your post.

Here's a link that, while perhaps not authoritative, is going to be my go to explanation...

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/323628/etymology-of-butthurt

 

[dawei]

2 hours ago, Bindi said:

 

Butt-hurt is a term that pretty well belongs in the gutter in the first place. Dickhead is such a good description of certain people I'd have to make an exception for that one  

 

edit: my earlier post was referring to the possible origins of the term, not the term as it has come to be understood by those who use it. If someone has never heard the term butt-hurt, then their mind will make whatever association it does, and their response will be to their initial association. 

 

I have to agree overall 

 

[Marblehead]

10 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Now I just think we need to be nicer to each other.  

 

 

Ain't that the truth?

 

[Aetherous]

On 3/15/2018 at 9:05 AM, thelerner said:

this guy (Joe I'll him) has written about the need to kill everyone in the Fed.  Doesn't seem harmless or political to me.  He goes further and writes we should round up their kids and murder them if they don't change there beliefs.

 

Not trying to stir up anything negative, either for thelerner or joeblast...

But did joeblast really not say this?

If he did say it, it seems very out of character for him to talk about murdering children.
If he didn't, it seems very out of character for thelerner to accuse someone of speaking about murdering children.

Members shouldn't be permitted to say such things here, nor should they accuse others of saying such things when it didn't actually happen.

Not wishing moderator actions against these members...but can this whole debacle not happen again?

[Kar3n]

52 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

Not trying to stir up anything negative, either for thelerner or joeblast...

But did joeblast really not say this?

If he did say it, it seems very out of character for him to talk about murdering children.
If he didn't, it seems very out of character for thelerner to accuse someone of speaking about murdering children.

Members shouldn't be permitted to say such things here, nor should they accuse others of saying such things when it didn't actually happen.

Not wishing moderator actions against these members...but can this whole debacle not happen again?

As a team we discussed this. I commented in the discussion with admin and ZYD that I do not remember this, looked for it and unless I could get more info, I was not interested in digging up the past to see how it was handled. It was the consensus of staff the we were not going to dig any further into this, because, well, for me, personally, I have better things to do. I invested enough into it.

 

I am not sure when this was supposed to be said or in what context, but I did do some digging, several times and could not find any reference. I, in my tenure as mod, have kept very detailed records of reports, action and inaction for every member in the super secret back office of TDB. I made no notes regarding this and do not remember a report. I am a mama bear, you just do not mess with kids, so this is not something that would have been let go of without action, request for an edit or something from me. I inquired about a time frame and topic, but my query was not given a response.

 

I would not like to see it again either, but we can not control what another does, action, if any, would be after the fact.

[Marblehead]

If I recall correctly the thought of murdering children was in a video link, maybe posted by Joeblast and then the thought being questioned by Thelerner.

 

Neither of the two actually suggested murdering children.  

 

The concept at hand, if I recall properly, was that of population control.

 

I did not see any violation of forum rules in the exchange.

 

Let's not put into this more than was actually posted.

 

[moment]

the tyranny of politics

Edited July 6, 2019 by moment

[redcairo]

"Address the topic not the person" is a good rule.

 

Conversations about hard topics are hard. There's no getting around it. And sometimes it depends on the particular people and I don't just mean how they talk to each other.

 

I'm from a family where half the people are half- some minority race and/or often married to people of a minority race so family get togethers look like a United Colors of Bennetton ad, I've joked. Some are city folks and some very rural, and the ages and politics are pretty different. So when we get ten people debating a topic like say, illegal aliens, they are debating the topic of (wait for it) "illegal aliens." The reason is, half these people are native, mexican, black -- so nobody is going to say to them, "You just don't like brown people!" or whatever, because that would be ridiculous. So the conversation is totally spared that racism aspect of the argument which normally is unavoidable in public conversations, in part because, and this is the kind of funny part, it is often the people who ARE in fact a/ legal immigrants, b/ from (or parents or grandparents from) Mexico, and/or c/ black, who are most resentful of that situation, for their own focus reasons. Sometimes this helps keep the conversations more on track to be about ISSUES.

 

On the internet I think people often assume a lot about other people based on limited info. Cultural issues are far more about personalities and regions in my experience, except it seems nearly opposite on the left and greatly race/sexuality-related -- but that might be just the media faking me out, I admit, because they emphasize it with such hyperbole. And by that I mean the left media, not the right -- they are the ones that present so many things that way. But in my experience, outside the areas most influenced by that kind of school/media/social drive (to get anybody who is not straight or not white to vote dem as if it's some kind of moral obligation), people are whatever they are without regard to the issues of race or sexuality.

 

For example my next door neighbors are gun-totin' pickup-truck-drivin' jeans and boots-wearin' hard working manly men who love their country and are great guys. They're also gay. So what. Nobody cares. Why would anybody care? They fit right into the reddest-red-state of the nation (second reddest. OK ties with WY for every-county-red in national elections, but I expect culturally we are closer to center than them). These guys have just as much desire for the good of our country, protection of the nation, defense of the borders, enforcement of the laws, and so on, as any other citizen -- and why wouldn't they?! How bizarre and prejudiced it would be to see that someone is non-white or gay and think "Oh, well, they're probably anti-american sorts who support criminal behavior." How crazy and stupid would that be?! Yet if we believed the mainstream media outright about who/why people vote, that would actually become a truism, sheesh.

 

On the internet I think the lack of knowing people personally sometimes makes it easier to categorize them like a stereotype.

 

Of course sometimes it's just that the person typing (and it might be me) is obtuse. Or pedantic. Or a drama queen.

 

It isn't ok to be rude toward an individual here. I believe it should be ok to say mostly anything about individuals who are not here but are public figures -- within reason of course -- and in particular, about "generic groups" of people who are not here, by which I mean reference to 'the fbi' or to 'politicians' or things like that. If people are going to be offended they need to limit that to being offended for their own self. Their ego does not need to spread to encompass planet earth so any conversation about anything is sure to say something offensive. That's just looking for reasons to be offended. My kid was that way prior to adulthood. If you insulted a song she was offended because she liked the singer. She wasn't old enough to understand that it not only wasn't about the singer, but it definitely wasn't about her. People... are supposed to grow out of that. :-)  One cannot have honest conversation about controversial topics featuring public figures and groups and yet not be able to comment about them, directly or indirectly, in the negative. But like I said, being rude directly toward an individual in the conversation is not cool.

 

Some of this, I think people need education about it -- they literally seem a bit oblivious to it, not like they are horribly intentioned, but like this is just normal to them. I think rather than hide their post, or ban or punish them, it might be useful to provide an example of "a way to make the point that was less personalized." Not to put words in anybody's mouth/pen but to example how any point about a topic COULD be made WITHOUT being insulting to another bum. (Of course if the only point was "You're a dick!" then probably, that didn't need to be made LOL.)

One thing I've often thought about in these conversations. I read both left and right in social media / media at times, so I can say that in my view, sometimes Mother Jones has a point. Sometimes Brietbart has a point. Sometimes they both have a valid point but they're focusing on different aspects of the same topic. Sometimes nobody knows what's going on anyway. Even if someone DID get something from an obviously-biased source, that doesn't make it wrong. And assuming that people only get information from such sources -- vs. actually coming to a conclusion based on their own experience, or based on other data (e.g. I once spent all day gathering info from official government docs about illegal immigration stats, only to be accused somewhere of 'reading too much Brietbart') is just as irrationally prejudiced as thinking they only feel a certain way because of their race, location, etc. If the argument is about the topic then no matter what the source, the points made are what matter and ought to be what are addressed if anything.

 

Sometimes we're just not gonna agree. And that's ok. Sometimes we just want to talk to someone about something that is kind of important to us in the moment, and we'd rather talk to another bum, even one we disagree with a lot, than anybody else, because usually (not always) at least the other bums are reasonably thoughtful individuals. Or if they're not, they're just one or two; the OTHER people reading might be reasonably thoughtful individuals.

 

I mute people who offend me even if they aren't even talking to me. Saves a lot of angst. :-)

 

Luke is right -- we should be nicer to each other.

 

Maybe we should all agree to dogpile-tackle any direct-insult-of-another-member IN THE NICEST WAY -- the funniest way wins -- to use local peer-social behavior to try and help the "good people who are honestly challenged to avoid being insulting" learn to communicate in a way better suited to the good environment they -- and we -- surely deserve. :-)

 

RC

[liminal_luke]

23 minutes ago, redcairo said:

How bizarre and prejudiced it would be to see that someone is non-white or gay and think "Oh, well, they're probably anti-american sorts who support criminal behavior." How crazy and stupid would that be?!

 

As you rightly point out, the gay community is incredibly diverse. If only all gay men were anti-american sorts who supported criminal behavior --- it would be so much easier to find a politically compatible date on a Saturday night.  

 

(As always, thanks for the thoughtful post.  Stick to the issues is a great basic guideline.  So much of the time in the Trump Talk thread we`re not talking about Trump; we`re talking about each other.  That`s when things go south, imo.)  

[silent thunder]

It seems evident, that when one who is energetically sensitive and potent intends to inflict pain with words, they are effective.

 

And when those who are slung by intentional words of harm, are similarly sensitive and potent, a strong and potent response will be elicited.

 

I have only so much energy in any given day.... lately I find I have no energy available for harm.

 

 

[thelerner]

< I am weak&foolish.. must post again.. arrgghh> they keep pulling me in.

No. Not a video link, and the discussion about culling still exists.  The 'murder the children who won't renounce there parents' post was erased but I have a quote from it, and discussion I had with a mod over it. 

 

 

10 hours ago, Aetherous said:

 

Not trying to stir up anything negative, either for thelerner or joeblast...
But did joeblast really not say this?

If he did say it, it seems very out of character for him to talk about murdering children.
If he didn't, it seems very out of character for thelerner to accuse someone of speaking about murdering children.

Members shouldn't be permitted to say such things here, nor should they accuse others of saying such things when it didn't actually happen.

Totally agree and sent you a PM with what I have on the matter. 

FWIW it was banksters not the f

I'm willing to let it rest.ed.

Edited March 18, 2018 by thelerner