The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery

[Ebowed]

Is this the sort of thing we're supposed to put in here?

Just let it go.  Pressing the issue is no reason to create even more unhappiness for you and for your family (which it will).  Maybe Torie's suggestion of a letter will work, but I'm not so sure.

Without knowing your entire situation, are you separate from them financially?  If so, then you should (1) really let it go or (2) tell them and be willing to accept the possibility that they'll shut you out of their life permanently - you have to be emotionally ready for that.

If you are not separate from them financially, you should aim for creating a situation for yourself where you are not reliant on them in this way, otherwise you could be shoved again into the same bad situation as you were 17.

Perhaps as the supposed gay-hater role I play with a certain amount of seriousness in the points I make sometimes, I can tell you this with some honesty.  Your parents and your sister would prefer you being gay and not knowing a whit about it, your lifestyle or even the fact that you are, as opposed to knowing about it and more importantly, throwing it in their faces.  

Always remember that, unless, of course, you don't really care about your relationship with them emotionally.

[Ebowed]

This thread got exactly what it deserved.

[Ebowed]

Fitting as that's supposed to be King's last post on this forum (he's moved to AAD.)

Maybe should rename this the "King Memorial Good Post Gallery"? He deserves it more than Spade tbh.

^^ It's so annoying this forum doesn't have a 'like' feature.

[Ebowed]

There's a stereotype of Canada, that Canadians don't know what their national culture is, except that they're not the United States.

There's a stereotype of Americans, that Americans think everything has to do with them and that everyone is defined by them.

I don't object to America's existence any more than I object to Canada's, but I do object to the way they act when they travel abroad.

[Ebowed]

It's a bit unfair to call them "Clinton welfare reforms" with how reluctant he was to sign them and even vetoed them twice but still horrible and yes he deserves condemnation for folding.

People think of Chamberlain before Hitler when they talk about Munich for reasons that are understandable. You expect Congressional Republicans to have horrifying morals. Just as we are unsurprised by the blue-avatared troglodytes in this thread who are gloating over single mothers working menial jobs while their increasingly marginalized children languish in substandard daycare or in front of mind-numbing cable television programming.

One side is evil almost to the point of seeming to lack its own agency - not that they don't bear responsibility, but for those of us condemned to share this planet with them, they are more like a natural disaster, or the maw of some great, Satanic beast sent here from hell to torment us mortals. Think of how contemporary accounts describe someone like Attila the Hun. We have our equivalent, personified in Newt Gingrich's flabby paunches and the right-wing horrors who have joined us right here, on this forum. All that we can do is weep, pray, and wonder.

Came here to quote this.

[Ebowed]

I think people have a very shallow understanding of how moderation (for good reasons) happen.

Most of us don't read most posts. That is, most of us read a very, very tiny fraction of all posts. This is why a lot of people get by without being banned, because most moderators aren't accessing all information. This is also why there are always people shouting angrily on this board about "how can you ban poster X and let poster Y run freely!" Usually when that happens I have no idea who poster Y is or what their offence is. When for whatever reason someone becomes a focal point it often emerges that they should have been banned long ago. This was a case like that.

Now, let's keep in mind that this is a 7 day ban. That's a really short time. As such, it can be considered a warning. The melodrama people create over a 7 day ban is pretty over the top.

A separate issue is whether you think freedom of speech should allow posters on Dave's forum to advocate rape. You might of course think so. I'm sure other forums like AAD can accommodate that sort of thing. If Dave doesn't want it he's entitled to not have it. If you can't bear to be without comments about how rape victims are sluts who have it coming, well, the internet is a big place. There are plenty of forums where you can satisfy that urge and get to "engage intellectually" with those people. There is an odd obsession with some Atlas posters that Atlas Forum should serve all their needs, whether it be porn or defending rape but I never really understood that.

I've seen a lot more rape apologism on this forum than AAD.  What a strange, almost projective, comment to make.

This "good post gallery" is literally named after a rape apologist / PUA MRA.

[Ebowed]

This "good post gallery" is literally named after a rape apologist / PUA MRA.

Who now exclusively posts on AAD.

Fair, though he has been largely MIA since October.

His vague predictions passing off as brilliance schtick fell apart, it seems.