The Klartext Landfill for Absurd, Ignorant, and Deplorable Posts VI

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

Isn't omegascarlet also pro-eugenics/"mandatory abortions"? So Mortimer's views aren't uncommon on this forum...

Pretty sure Scarlet dropped those views.

Yeah Scarlet had a few posts regarding it, and they were very reasonable.

^I had some pretty nasty altercations with her about this in the past, but I'm totally willing to bury the hatchet if she is. I don't think I've explicitly said so yet.

[Figueira]

I'm pretty liberal on lgbtq issues, but I do find it funny how liberals think it's a terrible crime for people to consider changing their sexual orientation, but at the same time encourage people to not accept their biological gender.

[Kingpoleon]

Out. Anyone adult who is in the closet in 2016 is probably a religious nutcase.

[Xing]

All things equal diversity is a weakness and not a strength. 

[Santander]

All things equal diversity is a weakness and not a strength. 

Yeah, that was one of the worst posts I've seen in a very long time.

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

This isn't necessarily "objectively bad" but I'm putting it here to register extreme displeasure both with the attitudes involved and in the fact that this is what the author came back for.

Merry Christmas everyone!

Here is a 'holiday special' post (because this issue matters a great deal to me and I can't not respond to it)


People who are severely mentally or physically disabled are a burden. A huge burden. As are the elderly and most children for that matter (I'll leave that there for reasons that should be obvious) A massive part of my old job was acting in a medical-legal capacity with children who were severely disabled. I have first hand experience of the family difficulties and the support difficulties surrounding this. I have allocated funding, medical treatment, respite care and long term residential care. I've communicated with those who can communicate. I've appointed legal advocates for them. I have went to court for them.

It's taxing and ludicrously expensive. You can love someone to the point you'd do anything for them, but they are still a burden. Saying someone is a 'burden' or a 'strain' says nothing and implies nothing with respect to how you actually view that person. Pretending otherwise, or feigning obliviousness is in fact, a backhanded insult. If you couch a 'burden' in neutral 'loving' terms, that leads to people not taking your requirements and your needs for help and assistance seriously. Because 'didn't you say they weren't a burden?' We're already seeing this (in the UK at least) when it comes to residential provision. I'm sorry Nathan, but saying that caring for someone who can't care for themselves is a 'privilege and honor' is nothing but wank. It's not. It's a duty. It's a burden. And if you're doing it or thinking about it as some form of self reflection of penance then you'd last 5 minutes either caring for a loved one or for others in a voluntary or professional capacity.

That's point one. Point two, and on a different line of thought entirely, is that those who have an debilitating or inhibitive disability that is hereditary and that they would not wish upon their childrenas much they are able to deal with it in themselves, tend to be the most supportive of ways and means to mitigate this. Which pro-life fetishists tend not to have much time for because that involves both the act of termination and the use of embryology (founded as it is on the destructive study of embryos in the first instance, and the selective manner of implantation) as factors. The alternative is not having biological children; surrogacy or adoption. And while all of these are wonderful and noble things to do, it is a slap in the face to someone who can use these means in order to have their own biological children.

[Figueira]

This isn't necessarily "objectively bad" but I'm putting it here to register extreme displeasure both with the attitudes involved and in the fact that this is what the author came back for.

Merry Christmas everyone!

Here is a 'holiday special' post (because this issue matters a great deal to me and I can't not respond to it)


People who are severely mentally or physically disabled are a burden. A huge burden. As are the elderly and most children for that matter (I'll leave that there for reasons that should be obvious) A massive part of my old job was acting in a medical-legal capacity with children who were severely disabled. I have first hand experience of the family difficulties and the support difficulties surrounding this. I have allocated funding, medical treatment, respite care and long term residential care. I've communicated with those who can communicate. I've appointed legal advocates for them. I have went to court for them.

It's taxing and ludicrously expensive. You can love someone to the point you'd do anything for them, but they are still a burden. Saying someone is a 'burden' or a 'strain' says nothing and implies nothing with respect to how you actually view that person. Pretending otherwise, or feigning obliviousness is in fact, a backhanded insult. If you couch a 'burden' in neutral 'loving' terms, that leads to people not taking your requirements and your needs for help and assistance seriously. Because 'didn't you say they weren't a burden?' We're already seeing this (in the UK at least) when it comes to residential provision. I'm sorry Nathan, but saying that caring for someone who can't care for themselves is a 'privilege and honor' is nothing but wank. It's not. It's a duty. It's a burden. And if you're doing it or thinking about it as some form of self reflection of penance then you'd last 5 minutes either caring for a loved one or for others in a voluntary or professional capacity.

That's point one. Point two, and on a different line of thought entirely, is that those who have an debilitating or inhibitive disability that is hereditary and that they would not wish upon their childrenas much they are able to deal with it in themselves, tend to be the most supportive of ways and means to mitigate this. Which pro-life fetishists tend not to have much time for because that involves both the act of termination and the use of embryology (founded as it is on the destructive study of embryos in the first instance, and the selective manner of implantation) as factors. The alternative is not having biological children; surrogacy or adoption. And while all of these are wonderful and noble things to do, it is a slap in the face to someone who can use these means in order to have their own biological children.

Nah, I'd say that's an objectively bad post. And I'm pro-choice.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This isn't necessarily "objectively bad" but I'm putting it here to register extreme displeasure both with the attitudes involved and in the fact that this is what the author came back for.

Merry Christmas everyone!

Here is a 'holiday special' post (because this issue matters a great deal to me and I can't not respond to it)


People who are severely mentally or physically disabled are a burden. A huge burden. As are the elderly and most children for that matter (I'll leave that there for reasons that should be obvious) A massive part of my old job was acting in a medical-legal capacity with children who were severely disabled. I have first hand experience of the family difficulties and the support difficulties surrounding this. I have allocated funding, medical treatment, respite care and long term residential care. I've communicated with those who can communicate. I've appointed legal advocates for them. I have went to court for them.

It's taxing and ludicrously expensive. You can love someone to the point you'd do anything for them, but they are still a burden. Saying someone is a 'burden' or a 'strain' says nothing and implies nothing with respect to how you actually view that person. Pretending otherwise, or feigning obliviousness is in fact, a backhanded insult. If you couch a 'burden' in neutral 'loving' terms, that leads to people not taking your requirements and your needs for help and assistance seriously. Because 'didn't you say they weren't a burden?' We're already seeing this (in the UK at least) when it comes to residential provision. I'm sorry Nathan, but saying that caring for someone who can't care for themselves is a 'privilege and honor' is nothing but wank. It's not. It's a duty. It's a burden. And if you're doing it or thinking about it as some form of self reflection of penance then you'd last 5 minutes either caring for a loved one or for others in a voluntary or professional capacity.

That's point one. Point two, and on a different line of thought entirely, is that those who have an debilitating or inhibitive disability that is hereditary and that they would not wish upon their childrenas much they are able to deal with it in themselves, tend to be the most supportive of ways and means to mitigate this. Which pro-life fetishists tend not to have much time for because that involves both the act of termination and the use of embryology (founded as it is on the destructive study of embryos in the first instance, and the selective manner of implantation) as factors. The alternative is not having biological children; surrogacy or adoption. And while all of these are wonderful and noble things to do, it is a slap in the face to someone who can use these means in order to have their own biological children.

Nah, I'd say that's an objectively bad post. And I'm pro-choice.

I find the "I'm a social worker, so I know" attitude annoying. No, social workers and case workers don't know what families like mine have been through. In fact, the social worker (a particularly egregious woman) if anything delayed and hindered the process of getting my brother into a group home while the state was threatening to Baker Act him.

And then there is the rest of the post.

[Figueira]

Massive FF. Will make an excellent Ambassador. The left's reaction has been wonderfully amusing so far.

[DC Al Fine]

But a consciousness doesn't exist in either. One common argument against abortion I see is "how would you feel if you were aborted. But I didn't exist as a person until around the time my body left the womb. So aborting the fetus that became me would have been preventing me from coming into existence in the first place, not killing me. Having contraceptives at the moment of said fetus's conception or not having done it in the first place would have had a basically identical effect on my consciousness.

A classic case of a does not follow b

[DC Al Fine]

This isn't necessarily "objectively bad" but I'm putting it here to register extreme displeasure both with the attitudes involved and in the fact that this is what the author came back for.

Merry Christmas everyone!

Here is a 'holiday special' post (because this issue matters a great deal to me and I can't not respond to it)


People who are severely mentally or physically disabled are a burden. A huge burden. As are the elderly and most children for that matter (I'll leave that there for reasons that should be obvious) A massive part of my old job was acting in a medical-legal capacity with children who were severely disabled. I have first hand experience of the family difficulties and the support difficulties surrounding this. I have allocated funding, medical treatment, respite care and long term residential care. I've communicated with those who can communicate. I've appointed legal advocates for them. I have went to court for them.

It's taxing and ludicrously expensive. You can love someone to the point you'd do anything for them, but they are still a burden. Saying someone is a 'burden' or a 'strain' says nothing and implies nothing with respect to how you actually view that person. Pretending otherwise, or feigning obliviousness is in fact, a backhanded insult. If you couch a 'burden' in neutral 'loving' terms, that leads to people not taking your requirements and your needs for help and assistance seriously. Because 'didn't you say they weren't a burden?' We're already seeing this (in the UK at least) when it comes to residential provision. I'm sorry Nathan, but saying that caring for someone who can't care for themselves is a 'privilege and honor' is nothing but wank. It's not. It's a duty. It's a burden. And if you're doing it or thinking about it as some form of self reflection of penance then you'd last 5 minutes either caring for a loved one or for others in a voluntary or professional capacity.

That's point one. Point two, and on a different line of thought entirely, is that those who have an debilitating or inhibitive disability that is hereditary and that they would not wish upon their childrenas much they are able to deal with it in themselves, tend to be the most supportive of ways and means to mitigate this. Which pro-life fetishists tend not to have much time for because that involves both the act of termination and the use of embryology (founded as it is on the destructive study of embryos in the first instance, and the selective manner of implantation) as factors. The alternative is not having biological children; surrogacy or adoption. And while all of these are wonderful and noble things to do, it is a slap in the face to someone who can use these means in order to have their own biological children.

Nah, I'd say that's an objectively bad post. And I'm pro-choice.

I find the "I'm a social worker, so I know" attitude annoying. No, social workers and case workers don't know what families like mine have been through. In fact, the social worker (a particularly egregious woman) if anything delayed and hindered the process of getting my brother into a group home while the state was threatening to Baker Act him.

And then there is the rest of the post.

Never quite understood this logic. I've done tax returns for a lot of poor people. I don't pretend I understand what its like to be poor.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Afleitch's argument is like why you don't see people doing a lot of 540s in ski competitions.  You start with a lot of spinning and when you land you're dizzy and facing the wrong way.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This isn't necessarily "objectively bad" but I'm putting it here to register extreme displeasure both with the attitudes involved and in the fact that this is what the author came back for.

Merry Christmas everyone!

Here is a 'holiday special' post (because this issue matters a great deal to me and I can't not respond to it)


People who are severely mentally or physically disabled are a burden. A huge burden. As are the elderly and most children for that matter (I'll leave that there for reasons that should be obvious) A massive part of my old job was acting in a medical-legal capacity with children who were severely disabled. I have first hand experience of the family difficulties and the support difficulties surrounding this. I have allocated funding, medical treatment, respite care and long term residential care. I've communicated with those who can communicate. I've appointed legal advocates for them. I have went to court for them.

It's taxing and ludicrously expensive. You can love someone to the point you'd do anything for them, but they are still a burden. Saying someone is a 'burden' or a 'strain' says nothing and implies nothing with respect to how you actually view that person. Pretending otherwise, or feigning obliviousness is in fact, a backhanded insult. If you couch a 'burden' in neutral 'loving' terms, that leads to people not taking your requirements and your needs for help and assistance seriously. Because 'didn't you say they weren't a burden?' We're already seeing this (in the UK at least) when it comes to residential provision. I'm sorry Nathan, but saying that caring for someone who can't care for themselves is a 'privilege and honor' is nothing but wank. It's not. It's a duty. It's a burden. And if you're doing it or thinking about it as some form of self reflection of penance then you'd last 5 minutes either caring for a loved one or for others in a voluntary or professional capacity.

That's point one. Point two, and on a different line of thought entirely, is that those who have an debilitating or inhibitive disability that is hereditary and that they would not wish upon their childrenas much they are able to deal with it in themselves, tend to be the most supportive of ways and means to mitigate this. Which pro-life fetishists tend not to have much time for because that involves both the act of termination and the use of embryology (founded as it is on the destructive study of embryos in the first instance, and the selective manner of implantation) as factors. The alternative is not having biological children; surrogacy or adoption. And while all of these are wonderful and noble things to do, it is a slap in the face to someone who can use these means in order to have their own biological children.

Nah, I'd say that's an objectively bad post. And I'm pro-choice.

I find the "I'm a social worker, so I know" attitude annoying. No, social workers and case workers don't know what families like mine have been through. In fact, the social worker (a particularly egregious woman) if anything delayed and hindered the process of getting my brother into a group home while the state was threatening to Baker Act him.

And then there is the rest of the post.

Never quite understood this logic. I've done tax returns for a lot of poor people. I don't pretend I understand what its like to be poor.

That is a good bit different. You're doing a service in which they contract you to help them. A social worker is a public employee. They serve the public and they are paid by the public. They should absolutely come from a sympathetic point of view and work on the patients behalf, especially when an other element of the bureaucracy was threatening to remove my brother from us by force and lump him with schizophrenics and other people.

Now, I have nothing against the mentally ill obviously. The phrase "lumped in" reads worse than I mean it to. Unfortunately, at least down here in South Florida, the local municipal group homes where they send anyone who is "Baker Acted" to reside usually involve lumping apples and oranges together. That denies care to both the mentally ill and the mentally disabled (a clear difference between the two) decent care, it is unfair to the caregivers who work very hard, and lastly, gyps the taxpayers.

There was a reason why my parents sent my other brother, who is battling heroin addiction, to a cabin in the North Carolina mountains with four or five other junkies to recover in the wilderness. We simply can't afford to send him to another ineffective residential treatment program, nor would my parents send him to the county run facilities, which is basically a half-way house system run with Medicare funds.

There needs to be serious reform in our social welfare system's handling. I'd prefer if the government outsourced the actual residential programs to privately owned, for profit facilities like the one where my autistic brother resides. Of course, there'd be a need for an incredible amount of oversight to root out the temptation for Medicare fraud, but I don't think local, state, or federal government could run a group home like the one where my brother resides. My brother's group home, while rather stark, is in a nice, small house in a working class neighborhood, is secured, and is safe. My brother loves it there, and actually gets impatient to return home after visits here. Every American family in my families situation should have the same access to the same quality care that my brother Harry receives, which combines the best aspects of a market and the best aspects of a public system.

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

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, Sanchez, but why on earth should it be for-profit?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, Sanchez, but why on earth should it be for-profit?

It provides a motive for people to go in and give it their best. As long as their goal is making a comfortable living while still offering quality care, it can work. People who love what they do tend to do it a lot better as well as living a lot better, regardless of profession. If the motive is purely profit, than the quality of care will of course suffer. Which is why a strong regulatory framework should and hopefully would be in place.

[Mr. Smith]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, Sanchez, but why on earth should it be for-profit?

It provides a motive for people to go in and give it their best. As long as their goal is making a comfortable living while still offering quality care, it can work. People who love what they do tend to do it a lot better as well as living a lot better, regardless of profession. If the motive is purely profit, than the quality of care will of course suffer. Which is why a strong regulatory framework should and hopefully would be in place.

For-profits have a way of stiffing whatever service they are supposed to give in favor of cutting expenses wherever, even when there is regulatory oversight.

This is simply not a good risk to take with people's lives on the line and precisely why healthcare is as effed up as it is.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, Sanchez, but why on earth should it be for-profit?

It provides a motive for people to go in and give it their best. As long as their goal is making a comfortable living while still offering quality care, it can work. People who love what they do tend to do it a lot better as well as living a lot better, regardless of profession. If the motive is purely profit, than the quality of care will of course suffer. Which is why a strong regulatory framework should and hopefully would be in place.

For-profits have a way of stiffing whatever service they are supposed to give in favor of cutting expenses wherever, even when there is regulatory oversight.

This is simply not a good risk to take with people's lives on the line and precisely why healthcare is as effed up as it is.

So what do we do, just throw people into subpar, mismanaged, municipally owned and operated facilities where the same problems would exist anyway? This attitude that it somehow can't be done is
he reason why it's rarely tried.

All I know is that my brother lives in a privately owned, for profit facility, which is paid for by Medicare. The house is reasonably maintained, the caregivers are very transparent and truly love the children with whom they live with for half the week, and my brother and his five or six other housemates love it there.

[Mr. Smith]

awww safe spaces even extend to online now

Do you get upset when people say Happy Holidays?

No?

Just checking. A lot of people who go on about "safe spaces" are the same who need a safe space when someone says "happy holidays"

I just say "all holidays matter"

Right-wing PC is worse than left-wing PC in many, if not most, cases.

Anyways, happy generic non-denominational winter solstice holiday (TM Cathcon-I think).

There's no "right-wing PC" - there's only PC implemented from the Left and it gets people killed like yesterday in Berlin.

This one's low hanging fruit, but still needed.

[Lachi]

awww safe spaces even extend to online now

Do you get upset when people say Happy Holidays?

No?

Just checking. A lot of people who go on about "safe spaces" are the same who need a safe space when someone says "happy holidays"

I just say "all holidays matter"

Right-wing PC is worse than left-wing PC in many, if not most, cases.

Anyways, happy generic non-denominational winter solstice holiday (TM Cathcon-I think).

There's no "right-wing PC" - there's only PC implemented from the Left and it gets people killed like yesterday in Berlin.

This one's low hanging fruit, but still needed.

damn it, was just about to post this.

[SATW]

Massive FF. Will make an excellent Ambassador. The left's reaction has been wonderfully amusing so far.

Lmaoooo appreciate it

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The context is cringeworthy

It's becoming clearer and clearer each day now that we have certainly let too many of these disturbed invaders into our countries ...

[Mr. Smith]

Not mean-spirited, bigoted, or ignorant by any measure. But definitely absurd and disturbing.

what this really is is a lesson to never elect a Republican, no matter how moderate they may seem.

Normally this would go straight to the BPG, but seeing as I am a Cooper supporter, can't really do that for a post from this specific thread without looking hypocritical. If you care about not seeing your posts in the BPG, consider yourself lucky.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Not mean-spirited, bigoted, or ignorant by any measure. But definitely absurd and disturbing.

what this really is is a lesson to never elect a Republican, no matter how moderate they may seem.

Normally this would go straight to the BPG, but seeing as I am a Cooper supporter, can't really do that for a post from this specific thread without looking hypocritical. If you care about not seeing your posts in the BPG, consider yourself lucky.

Maxwell got a lucky break there!

[Lachi]

 Today at 09:59:58
in Re: Now that Sanders has...
by realisticidealist

RIP, FF

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Today at 09:59:58
in Re: Now that Sanders has...
by realisticidealist

RIP, FF

Wrong thread, presumably.