TurkeyChew

That’s just not accurate. If you pulled like a tableau report or something you’d find that 80% of the negs are from 20% of the posters. The exact reason why we have an ignore function. If you (the general you) are so emotionally compromised that my handle triggers you from past conversations and you just have to neg everything that gets said, ignore is the best thing for you, me, the community, etc. A handful of weirdos spending their lunch hours from the factory floor and their breaks in the teachers lounge to go back and neg posts in the CYHM and Movies and Music forums because I dare exist and have contradictory opinions and point of views that I want heard— most of the time knowing legitimate discussion that doesn’t conform to CR company line will be met with intolerance— does not a community ban make, is the point. If you don’t want to hear them, ignore. Because the handle will stay the same and the ignore is a longer term solution than trying to be censorious and ban someone who will just come back because the banning was illegitimate. Right?

By “community” do you mean the handful of people who stalk me and follow me around to neg me because they disagree with me? Why do a handful of mediocre posters with nothing but time on their hands and sad feelings because they disagree with me constitute a community? Also I’m not trolling and never have. I believe 100% in everything I’ve ever said or posted and I don’t post to get lulz or whatever trolls post to get. Just because you disagree with me and I’m a mix of persistent and consistent, doesn’t mean it’s a troll job. Lastly to the point I’ve been permabanned legitimely and just keep coming back— each it’s been a banning because someone like you would follow my post history back and spend literally a lunch hour, to neg me because they don’t like me or my takes. The better option if you are so thin skinned and emotionally unstable is the ignore button. TL:DR, I’m not a troll and neg stalking back so far that you are negging innocuous movie review posts because you got your feelings hurt in a CR discussion, is trolling. And yea I’ll admit being called a moron by immamac did sting a little bit.

We’ve conversed on her enough that you should know I never run or hide from direct questions. Instead of broadly assuming, or worse yet your favorite rhetoric trick of hyperbolizing and extrapolating to extreme and absurd equivalencies, you can simply ask if you need clarification. That said, one can like a politician and not be in love with everything that politician does. There is room to disagree, and in varying degrees. The opposite which you seem to think is the ideal, that if one supports a politician then they must support them fully and ride or die, is part of what is wrong with American politics today. I don’t like this as policy, I think it’s overreach and mostly not necessary. I also think there should be a more of an elegant solution if you are going to make a law— one that attempts to not other or criminalize. I said this a few pages ago, but at this point I believe this to be a purely political. It’s the dark, underbelly of politics that democrats decry the republicans are adept at and democrats don’t know how to play. This is a complete non-issue that has now been whipped up into a frenzy to both a) nip a burgeoning minority momentum in the bud before it realizes any power and influence and b) have Florida GOP and people create their own swarm of momentum and political fuel. It all feels like it was cut and paste from the CRT play of taking a non-issue and building votes around it.

Exactly!

I never stated my position as you have it characterized here. You’ve inferred that from my posts, but that’s not the case. I don’t believe people should be made other or criminalized based on their sexuality. At worst, I empathize with those parents who don’t want their children exposed to same sex conversations/families/books/whatever at a super young age and who can’t afford private school, but also don’t want to other or criminalize those folks either. At best, I actually don’t care what is going on in Florida at the public school level because I don’t live there (yet). I came to this thread because I like RD and would want him to be a Republican nominee in 2024 and actually joined the discussion mid-conversation when it was heated which is probably the source of a lot of confusion for everyone.

That’s actually cool.

Do you see what you are saying here?

I don’t know what half those words mean as it relates to me, but if you really have read every one of my posts you’d see they follow the same themes and POVs and I don’t waffle or troll. I’m earnest in my beliefs and stances (and thus posts) and because they fly in the other direction than most of you people, most of the time, doesn’t mean they are troll posts. What it means is there is an intolerance for specific beliefs that are a minority in these threads, yet represent a sizable population in America and are even the majority in certain population groups and communities. It’s my position that a minority or dissenting POV and opinion should be tolerated, if truthfully held and respectfully given. It can only help the discussion, right? What’s it hurt you? You have to read something you disagree with?

I’m guessing it has something to do with correcting an abuse by a handful of people who are trying to neg me to Bolivia for simply presenting, in a respectful and non-troll way, a different point of view and position. Also probably because those people have been warned and yet decided to continue to neg random posts indiscriminately and regardless of post content, context or merit (and on random threads in the movie or help me forums). I guess a lot of you don’t realize that’s actually against the rules of this site. Just a guess. Start a thread on board discussion though, this is not the place for it.

New here or not, personally attacking someone’s family or how they reasonably choose to raise their family is horribly unjustified, but especially as a retort in a discussion or debate about subjective values and politics. That poster didn’t deserve that IMO, and if anyone were to have responded in-kind to say, ‘Stache when he posted his family experience, it wouldn’t have been waved away as “oh we are just a bunch of scallywags on this site, is this your first day?”

That feels like such an out of bounds, personal statement. Wow.

Thanks for admitting it; post reported.

I see the usual suspects who follow me around and harass and neg every post, despite being warned, are out tonight trying to neg every bit of a discussion on this thread that doesn't explicitly fall into the "wow this is so horrible and we should be outraged by it" opinion category.

A response to this definitive-in-your-own-mind opinion you posted: “We are on societies moral compass. That’s how public services work.”

I see your point— that’s just ugly dirty politics. It’s getting out front of an issue and killing it before it’s bloomed or making a mountain out of a molehill for political momentum. It’s everything the Dems hate about their own politicians who never play the game and get dirty politically, when you read these sites where Dems are down on their own, etc. The CRT non-issue is another lighthouse example of that political gambit at work.

The truth is I don’t particularly care one way or another actually, as long as substitutes exist (e.g. private school, home school). I think it should be personal choice and freedom. You want to have a 10 year old with the experience that ‘stache shared? Great! Go for it! That experience doesn’t sound appealing for your offspring? Great, go for it in a different direction. Freedom to choose is what makes us great.

You must have missed where someone asked to explain how the word divisive worked in the sentence.

I disagree with your premise: public services are not societies moral compass services arm. They serve at the pleasure of the constituency.

That’s fair and I agree and be that as it may, it’s still divisive (as you seem to agree).

I think it was okay until the internet and the (inherently problematic, racist, and misogynistic) shared American fabric and aesthetic broke, which is argued was for the better. But now we have so many more fiefdoms and interests to please which is an impossible task as you can’t please everybody.

Have I done this? I don’t think so. Show me a post.

Just like normalizing hetero relationships; there are no inherent problems, unless they conflict with your value and belief system. I think it's for each person to decide on their own; you and I are not and should not be anyone else's moral compass. And certainly public school should not be where people look for moral or spiritual development.

Disagree, respectfully of course.

Fair enough; I'm not carrying water for it in this conversation with you. You asked the question and I did my best to answer it. Does showing heterosexual man/woman wife/husband books to kindergartners normalize heterosex? Yes. Of course. Would showing same sex couples to kindergartners normalize the opposite? Sure, it seems to stand to follow.

It's literally divisive because any change is going to be a form of conflict. You can't have change without conflict, whether it be direct or indirect. Let's look at this logically because when I say divisive, I don't attach a negative or positive value to that word: Because American society as we know it was dictated by the white, heterosexual man for the white heterosexual man hundreds of years ago, we can assume the conservative snowflake normative worldview is the beginning of the conversation. You can call it foundational or even fundamentally ground zero. Hence "Fundamentalists", even. Anything that "strays" from this, regardless of whether it's good progress or bad, would then be naturally divisive. You are dividing the way people feel about their resources and institutions via attention, time, emotions, desires, fears, etc.