The Good Post Gallery

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Wow.  That actually makes a lot of sense.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

God almost always gets people lost.  That's how God does businesses and how people's lives become meaningful.  God doesn't let people stay at home with their feet up on the couch nursing their bubbly and Doritos, while the Toyota rests waiting in the garage.  God sends people into deserts, gives them missions to release people who don't trust them from slavery, sends people to give ominous prophecies to nations that ignore them, and, as the story goes, even let his own child be unjustly executed.  If you really want God to navigate your journey, you'd better be prepared to end up somewhere unsafe.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wow.  That actually makes a lot of sense.

Indeed. Credit where it's due.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

The SPLC has labeled legitimate groups, like the Family Research Council, as hate groups.

Well, the FRC has said that gays are pedophiles who want to abolish age of consent laws... If you're saying that 'gay behavior' should be a criminal offense because gays pose a danger to children, an idea that completely goes against basically all research on the issue - what descriptor besides hate group would be appropriate here?

They pretend to “fight hate” but almost exclusively follow right wing groups, and are involved heavily with “rightwingwatch.com.”

Well yes. That speaks more to an ugly association between the American Right and anti-gay, xenophobic, anti-Muslim, and occasionally white nationalist (neo-confederate, racist, etc) groups than anything on the SPLC's part. They do follow people like black separatists as well.

They continued to put groups like this in the same category as the KKK, the WBC, and the American Freedom Party. They have viciously attacked groups including the Tea Party movement for not agreeing with them, in the same style that they criticize the Tea Party for inciting violence.

Of those, only the WBC is included in the 'anti-gay' category - and it makes sense. Both oppose what they call the 'homosexual agenda' and view it as destructive of American society. That's what they've defined anti-gay group as meaning, and both fit into the category.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t particularly care for the Family Research Council or its goals. But all religious opposition to gay marriage should be respected, in the same manner that the SPLC demands that all other religions be respected.

The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord was acting on their religious beliefs. Should that be respected? Should the WBC's beliefs be respected? The Army of God acts on their religious beliefs too, as do the Hutaree. Why should it be acceptable to use religion as a shield for bigotry?

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I'm a chauvinist for all things Northeastern and I prefer Krispy Kreme to Dunkin'.

[Kung Fu Kenny]

I'm a chauvinist for all things Northeastern and I prefer Krispy Kreme to Dunkin'.

I prefer any type of coffee to Dunkin Donuts coffee. And Krispy Kreme is better.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I guess I just like living life dangerously. How many threads are put up per week by someone making sweeping grand unified theory statements as to just how horrible the Pubs are? And curiously, I don't see the obverse much, which obverse of course (with the blue avatar on top and all over the red one), would immediately be labeled (particularly by those red avatars who enjoy as indulging in this sort of thing) as well, you guessed it, trolling!

Carry on. The blue team is used to the insults, and perhaps in a rather masochistic way, rather enjoy the brickbats. But if I have anything to say about it, a blue avatar will never get punished via death points or whatever, for "trolling" in this way. If one does, a lot of other avatars should go down with him would be my case in the cave. Thank you.

Just a beautiful post.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Voted FC by accident. Awful, and part of the reason why the LA metro area sucks balls compared to its wonderful New York counterpart.

[Kitteh]

I actually heard the opposite theory, that it accelerated the gay rights movement.  This is based on the idea that the most important weapon in the advance of gay rights has been the increasing visibility of glbt people in every arena of life.

In the 1970's, according to the theory, openly gay people were a phenomenon mainly of a few large cities.  Most Americans knew a "confirmed bachelor" or two women who were "roommates" for 30 years, but they didn't know any "gay" people.  And closeted gay people enjoyed the freedom of not having to deal with any backlash.  Don't ask, don't tell.

AIDS changed everything.  Gay men started getting visible lesions, starting dying, all over the country.  In tons of families.  In tons of workplaces.  And their friends and relatives were forced to face the harsh light of reality for the first time.

For those gay men not infected, they spent their time going to more funerals than most 80-year-olds, while society at large seemed completely indifferent.  Keeping their mouths shut suddenly had less appeal.

According to the theory, it was AIDS that destroyed the "closet", both for those infected and for those who weren't.  And once gay people were everywhere, gay rights became pretty much unstoppable.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I actually heard the opposite theory, that it accelerated the gay rights movement.  This is based on the idea that the most important weapon in the advance of gay rights has been the increasing visibility of glbt people in every arena of life.

In the 1970's, according to the theory, openly gay people were a phenomenon mainly of a few large cities.  Most Americans knew a "confirmed bachelor" or two women who were "roommates" for 30 years, but they didn't know any "gay" people.  And closeted gay people enjoyed the freedom of not having to deal with any backlash.  Don't ask, don't tell.

AIDS changed everything.  Gay men started getting visible lesions, starting dying, all over the country.  In tons of families.  In tons of workplaces.  And their friends and relatives were forced to face the harsh light of reality for the first time.

For those gay men not infected, they spent their time going to more funerals than most 80-year-olds, while society at large seemed completely indifferent.  Keeping their mouths shut suddenly had less appeal.

According to the theory, it was AIDS that destroyed the "closet", both for those infected and for those who weren't.  And once gay people were everywhere, gay rights became pretty much unstoppable.

Never really thought much about this topic, but that's really a convincing argument.

[opebo]

He'll probably be paroled in ten years or so, which would be an appropriate punishment. At the end of the day, things like this need to be illegal, or else the country can't really function at all.

^THIS.

if you feel invested in the power system, that leeches off us all, feel invested in its fuctioning, that is.  Tolstoy said, in The Law of Love/Law of Violence, if you all want to put all these young males into militaries, and arm them, and have them kill people, and treat the wounded, and all of it, go do it yourself, don't drag me into it.  that's how I feel -- that's why I say, there is no national interest.  when the US murders Pakistani and Yemeni kids that doesn't represent me, that's not in my interest, that's not my country.  nothing about the US foreign policy occurs with my consent beyond my implicit consent of paying taxes, (which I don't because I earn almost no money), and so it goes.  I'm not invested in the whole game.  nobody who is acting on my behalf was exposed by Bradley Manning.  so God Bless him.  if Lief feels otherwise, that's his deal, his responsibility to justify it.

[TNF]

What you guys perceive as bigotry rings as mundane, mostly anonymous insensitivity at worst to enough people that you come off as neurotic blowhards more often than not. memphis is some guy on the internet who says things you might not really like or agree with, not some boss hoss who sexually harasses and deflates the wages of his female underlings. This sexist farce you've invented for him appears to be little more than limp-dicked retribution against a person who broke formation in your weird slacktivist column and must be made to know better, which anyone with two firing brain cells can see and roll their eyes at every time it pops up.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I should also mention that a lot of ignorant/absurd/horrible things that get said are often the result of obliviousness or ignorance rather than active malice, and I do think it's best to assume a lack of active malice from most everyone, most of the time- and furthermore, to realize that defensiveness regarding one's not-very-deeply-considered beliefs is both very common and still not a marker of active malice.  Of course, said defensiveness should be pointed out and challenged- but perhaps in a way that does not attempt to automatically taint the entire person as an HP?

I should probably remember this more often, myself.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I should also mention that a lot of ignorant/absurd/horrible things that get said are often the result of obliviousness or ignorance rather than active malice, and I do think it's best to assume a lack of active malice from most everyone, most of the time- and furthermore, to realize that defensiveness regarding one's not-very-deeply-considered beliefs is both very common and still not a marker of active malice.  Of course, said defensiveness should be pointed out and challenged- but perhaps in a way that does not attempt to automatically taint the entire person as an HP?

I should probably remember this more often, myself.

Very true. And the last sentence applies to me as well.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Memphis is misogynist? When did he say/do/become this?

I've asked this before and got a less than satisfactory response.

(actually I can barely remember what the response was other than that there was one)

Ah dammit i'm gonna have to repost all of this

actually, i'll screencap my original post

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Isn't it enough that she will lose 35 years of her life in prison? Why should she also be forced to also endure being psychologically unwell by being forced to live as a man? I'm biased, of course, but it makes sense to me. Yes, it costs the state money - but disallowing it amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. If you happened to have a chronic but not life threatening disease when you entered prison, would the services and medication you need remain unavailable? Only because people struggle to empathise with her specific condition do they question her. Some of you need to grow up.

HShe should pay for it himself. Any other (non criminal) American would have to.

Unlike any other (criminal or non criminal) Brit or Canadian (in almost all provinces) or German or Swede or Australian or Brazilian or Cuban or even Iranian (yes, really). You know, it upsets me too that Americans in prison have access to better healthcare than most Americans, but the solution to that is to give better healthcare to most Americans, not take it away from American prisoners.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If Cory's goals were simply to eradicated genetically linked maladies and diseases, I could sympathise with him somewhat.

What he fails to grasp is that genetically altering people would create its own set of problems with which he has no tools to combat.

Perfection in this physical sense is mostly relative and holes form as soon as you start to unify and eradicate anything. It also assumes that psychological and physical development is completely independent from nurture and experience. The way someone acts and is is far more important than what they look like.

It is also an innate aspect of humanity to seek partners genetically different from ourselves because the result of mating (a more diverse set of genes) increases the likelihood of survival. If broad shoulders were eradicated, broad shoulders may become attractive. The goalposts would continue to move forever further away from whatever we decided they ought to be right now.

But let's give in and say you've created the perfect human prototype to which all humans are manufactured (ugh). Have you then really reached a goal? Well, no, because even the perfect human sample is only perfect in regards to the present. A more perfect human would be capable of flight. An even "more" perfect being would be able to replicate itself without the same physical limitations as a human. Or perhaps a perfect human would feel no need to replicate as its time could be better spent further improving society or itself in whatever way. Suddenly what you've created has ceased to be human at all, and then you yourself are outdated.

It's rubbish is what it is. It's a dream that ruins itself when it seems about to come true. If I could make all food taste like chocolate, chocolate would become loathsome and would start to taste less sweet.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

If Cory's goals were simply to eradicated genetically linked maladies and diseases, I could sympathise with him somewhat.

What he fails to grasp is that genetically altering people would create its own set of problems with which he has no tools to combat.

Perfection in this physical sense is mostly relative and holes form as soon as you start to unify and eradicate anything. It also assumes that psychological and physical development is completely independent from nurture and experience. The way someone acts and is is far more important than what they look like.

It is also an innate aspect of humanity to seek partners genetically different from ourselves because the result of mating (a more diverse set of genes) increases the likelihood of survival. If broad shoulders were eradicated, broad shoulders may become attractive. The goalposts would continue to move forever further away from whatever we decided they ought to be right now.

But let's give in and say you've created the perfect human prototype to which all humans are manufactured (ugh). Have you then really reached a goal? Well, no, because even the perfect human sample is only perfect in regards to the present. A more perfect human would be capable of flight. An even "more" perfect being would be able to replicate itself without the same physical limitations as a human. Or perhaps a perfect human would feel no need to replicate as its time could be better spent further improving society or itself in whatever way. Suddenly what you've created has ceased to be human at all, and then you yourself are outdated.

It's rubbish is what it is. It's a dream that ruins itself when it seems about to come true. If I could make all food taste like chocolate, chocolate would become loathsome and would start to taste less sweet.

^^^ Tik really is one of the best.

[Lief 🗽]

Yeah that's an amazing post.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

Apparently Nathan objects to the term 'invisible sky wizard'. Generic it may be, but accurate nonetheless.

Any scholar of religion with two brain cells to rub together would at the very least have concerns about using it to describe Christianity, unless Christianity is being understood solely on the level of its symbolism (without reference to what those things are supposed to be symbols of), in which case one is essentially sneering at people for having different taste in art than oneself and is as such an even more insufferably smug piece of work. I actually doubt that this is the case, however. I think that most of the people who say this sort of thing think that it is actually a fair characterization of what Christians (or Muslims, or Jews, or whoever else) believe, and that isn't really worth going to the trouble of holding in contempt.

Actually, any scholar of religion with two brain cells to rub together would object, either out of genuine sympathetic and humane feeling or simply for fear of gaining a richly earned bad name and being known as a terrible excuse for a scholar of religion ever after, to reducing people's beliefs to demeaning cliches regardless of accuracy, but why allow those kinds of considerations to interrupt our thinking when we obviously know what's best?

[Paul Kemp]

It's hilarious that people in this thread are basically saying "rape happens, unfortunately, so being a feminist won't change that" when the idea of feminism is to change society so rape doesn't happen

We don't deny that rape happens, we deny that it is the woman's fault and we accept that men should control their urges instead of raping women

So keep digging me for being a feminist, i'm gonna take my "slacktivism" everywhere I go, because I constantly tell people not to slut-shame, victim blame or make rape jokes if i'm in the room unless they want a stern lecturing (ooooh badass, right?)

If you people don't believe society can't change, you're sorely mistaken.

The legion of strawmen you just destroyed with this post brings to mind ancient myths of Egyptian Pharaohs singlehandedly wiping out their enemies on the field of battle as their armies cower in fear behind them.

The problem with this "debate" isn't posters like, say, Nathan who actually know what the f they're talking about and have some knowledge of academic feminism. It's the bravery bandwagon of teenagers like you and Snowstalker who have apparently decided to latch on to shallow Tumblr "feminism" as their latest affectation in the long string of ideologies they'll passionately subscribe to for a couple of months.  I get, you're liberal or whatever now. You don't need to keep attempting to prove such by spending your days existing in a state of perpetual outrage.

I am covered in buzzword vomit, and it's not pleasant.

Shockingly, I also believe that rape is a bad thing. You don't get any justice brownie points for that groundbreaking and courageous opinion. It is actually possible to admit there are situations where rape is more likely to occur and that it's wise for women to try and avoid said while - wait for it! - still thinking rape is an abhorrent crime! I hope that's not too complex to process. It's awful that rape is a thing that happens, but it doesn't constitute "victim blaming" to suggest that people minimise the risk, and it's obscene and offensive to suggest that those of us who think that's (unfortunately) a sensible position are somehow blaming the victim or are in any way okay with rape.

I don't think it's absurd to suggest that people can change society. I do think it's absurd to act like calling out some random people on an internet forum with a litany of empty buzzwords and moral posturing is an example of anything approaching productive discourse.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

It's hilarious that people in this thread are basically saying "rape happens, unfortunately, so being a feminist won't change that" when the idea of feminism is to change society so rape doesn't happen

We don't deny that rape happens, we deny that it is the woman's fault and we accept that men should control their urges instead of raping women

So keep digging me for being a feminist, i'm gonna take my "slacktivism" everywhere I go, because I constantly tell people not to slut-shame, victim blame or make rape jokes if i'm in the room unless they want a stern lecturing (ooooh badass, right?)

If you people don't believe society can't change, you're sorely mistaken.

The legion of strawmen you just destroyed with this post brings to mind ancient myths of Egyptian Pharaohs singlehandedly wiping out their enemies on the field of battle as their armies cower in fear behind them.

The problem with this "debate" isn't posters like, say, Nathan who actually know what the f they're talking about and have some knowledge of academic feminism. It's the bravery bandwagon of teenagers like you and Snowstalker who have apparently decided to latch on to shallow Tumblr "feminism" as their latest affectation in the long string of ideologies they'll passionately subscribe to for a couple of months.  I get, you're liberal or whatever now. You don't need to keep attempting to prove such by spending your days existing in a state of perpetual outrage.

I am covered in buzzword vomit, and it's not pleasant.

Shockingly, I also believe that rape is a bad thing. You don't get any justice brownie points for that groundbreaking and courageous opinion. It is actually possible to admit there are situations where rape is more likely to occur and that it's wise for women to try and avoid said while - wait for it! - still thinking rape is an abhorrent crime! I hope that's not too complex to process. It's awful that rape is a thing that happens, but it doesn't constitute "victim blaming" to suggest that people minimise the risk, and it's obscene and offensive to suggest that those of us who think that's (unfortunately) a sensible position are somehow blaming the victim or are in any way okay with rape.

I don't think it's absurd to suggest that people can change society. I do think it's absurd to act like calling out some random people on an internet forum with a litany of empty buzzwords and moral posturing is an example of anything approaching productive discourse.

That's beautiful.

[DC Al Fine]

It's hilarious that people in this thread are basically saying "rape happens, unfortunately, so being a feminist won't change that" when the idea of feminism is to change society so rape doesn't happen

We don't deny that rape happens, we deny that it is the woman's fault and we accept that men should control their urges instead of raping women

So keep digging me for being a feminist, i'm gonna take my "slacktivism" everywhere I go, because I constantly tell people not to slut-shame, victim blame or make rape jokes if i'm in the room unless they want a stern lecturing (ooooh badass, right?)

If you people don't believe society can't change, you're sorely mistaken.

The legion of strawmen you just destroyed with this post brings to mind ancient myths of Egyptian Pharaohs singlehandedly wiping out their enemies on the field of battle as their armies cower in fear behind them.

The problem with this "debate" isn't posters like, say, Nathan who actually know what the f they're talking about and have some knowledge of academic feminism. It's the bravery bandwagon of teenagers like you and Snowstalker who have apparently decided to latch on to shallow Tumblr "feminism" as their latest affectation in the long string of ideologies they'll passionately subscribe to for a couple of months.  I get, you're liberal or whatever now. You don't need to keep attempting to prove such by spending your days existing in a state of perpetual outrage.

I am covered in buzzword vomit, and it's not pleasant.

Shockingly, I also believe that rape is a bad thing. You don't get any justice brownie points for that groundbreaking and courageous opinion. It is actually possible to admit there are situations where rape is more likely to occur and that it's wise for women to try and avoid said while - wait for it! - still thinking rape is an abhorrent crime! I hope that's not too complex to process. It's awful that rape is a thing that happens, but it doesn't constitute "victim blaming" to suggest that people minimise the risk, and it's obscene and offensive to suggest that those of us who think that's (unfortunately) a sensible position are somehow blaming the victim or are in any way okay with rape.

I don't think it's absurd to suggest that people can change society. I do think it's absurd to act like calling out some random people on an internet forum with a litany of empty buzzwords and moral posturing is an example of anything approaching productive discourse.

That's beautiful.

Brought a tear to my eye brah!

[Kung Fu Kenny]

I don't pretend to be more educated than Nathan on Feminism, as I've only been looking into it for a few months, and yes, god forbid I take a cue from Tumblr. I'll be happy to come back and talk to Oakvale about it once I'm in college, but unfortunately I haven't the resources (nor the life experience) that Nathan has, and Nathan is certainly a thousand times more intelligent than I am (and a lot of people on this forum are)

The thing is, Oakvale has never liked me, so he certainly loves getting a crack at me anytime he has the opportunity. I'm not in a "state of perpetual outrage" considering the majority of my posts on this forum are either in response to polls on who I'd vote for in a hypothetical race or in threads about the exploits of forumites. I don't post a whole lot about Feminism, contrary to what that post would lead one to believe, and I only got outraged at memphis' post(s) and the rampant transphobia in the Chelsea Manning thread.

But yes, I understand why that post is here and I agree with Oakvale to an extent that my outrage does go too far when I allow it to. I have been far too hard on memphis and I promise to tone down my teenrage from now on.

[Vosem]

I'm not in a "state of perpetual outrage"

Nobody's confusing you with Oakvale.