Liberals On Here Care To Respond?

[Link]

Reading these kinds of threads is like examining the site of a mass bombing.

If anyone I knew knew what I did on this site I could never live it down.

[Governor Scott]

Last night when I saw this, I was initially going to post on it and give a big lecture about how weak and childish it is to paint the other side with a broad brush and stuff, but I decided not to because it looked too stupid for it to be worth it.  I can't believe this abomination has reached 11 pages in less than 24 hours.

Where exactly did I paint an entire side with a broad brush? People added that to my post, I didn't say that.

From what I read, you seemed to have been expecting every liberal on the forum to either apologize for or defend the actions of one man, implying that this guy speaks for us all.

No. I just expected expected a couple people to be like "Wow that's sad" and the thread would be buried beyond page 1 by now.

Clearly, it wasn't only that.  Look at the first reply you made to the thread.  "These answers and the lack of answers are very telling", then you went off on a rant about how Democrats are bigots.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Ban Wonkish1.

Yes.

Whoa!  Do you have any idea how boring this place would be today if this masterpiece hadn't been created?  Wonkish1 did not debate in this thread all by himself.  There was a sick need on the part of multiple forum members to post and keep posting.  It's like my Rush Limbaugh theory.  My hunch is there are a chunk of Limbaugh listeners who are Libs or Dems.  They like the show because they like to be outraged.  I was actually fascinated by how this thing kept growing.  Every time I came back there was another page.

Exactly! Don't ban Wonkish1; if anything, ennoble Wonkish1 for services to drama.

[Wonkish1]

Clearly, it wasn't only that.  Look at the first reply you made to the thread.  "These answers and the lack of answers are very telling", then you went off on a rant about how Democrats are bigots.

The bigot rants were directed at specific people that had already posted and I stand by those remarks. I never referred to "Democrats as bigots." That would be a blanket statement that would be untrue probably a lot more than it could be true.

The answers received were very telling. The lack of answers I probably should have said were odd! Since this ended up being a lot more hot button looking back being even more specific and clear probably would have solidified me as beyond reproach as to my motives on here. But even then I believe I've handled the onslaught pretty well considering.

[Wonkish1]

Reasonable!

I actually thought about it in the interest of harmony here, but I don't see how you could point to me as a bad guy here in posting this thread.

This should have been a boring thread.

It's pretty disingenuous to claim this thread wasn't purposely inflammatory. Hence the discussion having almost nothing to do with the stated purpose. But anyway, I'm pretty sure everyone in here knows that and is here for that very implicit purpose. So carry on, ignore me.

The notion that this thread was created for inflammatory purposes simply isn't true. At the very most it was created to show that these types of things can happen to gay conservatives as well.

Every criticism leveled against me on this thread have been based on something people saw implicitly or based on what people are guessing as to my motivations without any evidence. That is a very weak position to attempt to criticize me from.

[Wonkish1]

Well, it doesn't really matter what the intended purpose was if it's universally received differently, does it? Hence - disingenuous. If you really didn't intend to inflame you would have noticed the reaction and altered the course of discussion. You love the discussion being all about you and instead of encourage a discussion on the actual issue raised, you're wallowing in the personal battles you can now engage in. Like I said, it's obvious you and everyone in here is participating for that very purpose, so carry on without me. As I allow myself to fall into the whole mess...ugh

That isn't the definition of disingenuous.

I wonder how much it was "universally received differently" because that was warranted vs. people piggybacking on others and not liking the article even being posted. Either way just because a certain group of people believe something as a person's motives doesn't make it true especially when they have no evidence.

I am not reveling in this. Nor did I ever want to make it about me. I'm simply not going to stand to the side and let people have the last word on grossly incorrect posts going after my motives without evidence, my intelligence, calling me a liar, etc. Ever since page one I have been defending myself and in a few instances going after those that deserved condemnation for their posts on here.

I don't know what I have to do to prove that what I thought and what I hoped for from a few Democrats on this forum was to just say something as small as "sad" and move on. I've made that clear since page 1. And still people go after my motives and act like I'm getting off on this.

[Wonkish1]

You're only convincing yourself, so when you're finally on the same page as everyone else...well, even then we won't be interested, so whatever. God, I can't believe I've even posted in this thread...humiliating

LOL think what you want it doesn't make it true.

[BigSkyBob]

LOL "open season on their a$$" was kind of funny and still is! A very minor attempt to add a little bit of humor to a not funny situation doesn't constitute me having sinister plans here to make liberals look bad. Instead you want to read into that to make me the subject of this thread because you don't like anything that make any liberals look bad.

The lengths people will go to, to make their party and their side of the aisle as clean as the wind driven snow is unbelievable.

Add ulterior motives to me, call the guy a liar, and in at least 1 instance say it was justified because he supports the KKK/NAZI's = GOP.

I don't know that I've said anything even related to politics, but alright. I just think the thread's stupid responses should be expected given the stupid premise. There was nothing to discuss. Vandalism and violence are bad, that's not even up for debate.

When posters claim that violent acts didn't really happened, but, instead were faked, that minimizes the violence. When posters claim that it more odious that the violence was reported on this forum than that it happened, that is minimizing the violence. When the violence is characterized as less important than the motives of the reporter, that is minimizing the violence.

Either you acknowledge how unacceptable what happened is, or you try minimize it.

You're minimizing it.

That's bad.

Pointless discussion stemming from a pointless topic aimed in a pointless direction.

Again, that is minimizing the violence.  What message are you sending to marginally stable individuals whom feel so strongly about a position that they feel they are justified in vandalizing property and brutually assaulting people when you minimize their crimes?   Posters here are sending the message, "We'll cover for you!" That is practically giving them a green light to act out their mental illness.

[BigSkyBob]

Last night when I saw this, I was initially going to post on it and give a big lecture about how weak and childish it is to paint the other side with a broad brush and stuff, but I decided not to because it looked too stupid for it to be worth it.  I can't believe this abomination has reached 11 pages in less than 24 hours.

Where exactly did I paint an entire side with a broad brush? People added that to my post, I didn't say that.

From what I read, you seemed to have been expecting every liberal on the forum to either apologize for or defend the actions of one man, implying that this guy speaks for us all.

And, from what I read, he did none of these things, and, you are assigning to him strawman motivations to argue ad hominem against him.

[BigSkyBob]

Well, it doesn't really matter what the intended purpose was if it's universally received differently, does it?

1) It wasn't "universally received." I, for one, did not receive it that way.

2) The logic is totally specious.

3) The notion that taking a collective decision to react like a pouting child somehow has intellectual power is itself offensive.

Hence - disingenuous. If you really didn't intend to inflame you would have noticed the reaction and altered the course of discussion. You love the discussion being all about you and instead of encourage a discussion on the actual issue raised, you're wallowing in the personal battles you can now engage in.

This is blaming the victim. It was other posters that questioned his motives. They are the ones that personalized it.

Like I said, it's obvious you and everyone in here is participating for that very purpose, so carry on without me. As I allow myself to fall into the whole mess...ugh

Wasn't obvious to me.

[bgwah]

I noticed there was another tweet from John Hill, one of the "A-list" producers, congratulating you on the incident getting press coverage. That tweet also was removed.


...Garrett declined to wait for physical evidence services — or PES — which means police weren’t able to take photographs or attempt to get fingerprints from the side of the vehicle.

[Former Moderate]

I should have done this a long time ago, but considering that 90% of the posts in this thread are useless bickering garbage discussing posters being hacks and not the actual issue presented, I'm locking the thread.