Posted on 11/11/2014 12:44:00 AM PST by Secret Agent Man
The Cranberries prior posting about the gal singer who assaulted the flight attendant and cop was the last stupid straw about posting about guilt based on looks. (Note I am not a big Cranberries fan, I have no dog in this particular hunt - it's just an example.)
I am not against posts that discuss a person's looks per se. Particularly if it factors into the issue being discussed. If it's relevant, it's relevant.
What I am objecting to are the stupid inane posts that add nothing of value to the thread and detract from the reputation of this site as being a far better place than any liberal discussion site out there.
I am just so flipping tired of idiots claiming to be conservatives posting comments of absolutely zero value about the guilt or innocence of - almost always - a female person, based solely on her looks.
It's stupid. After being done a billion times, it's not even funny. Why so-called conservatives here think this is appropriate every time a female is in a news story that has potential criminal/illegal actions, what it really is is just tiresome. It adds nothing substantive to the thread. It makes the image of this place look crass.
And it makes light of actual crimes committed by people based on if they have breasts and vaginas. And it's entirely one way. Note we do not have thousands of post replies over the years discussing the guilt or innocence of male criminals based on how good looking they are. The female conservatives here (and the pervy guys who post all the time about females) have somehow restrained themselves from any posts of this kind, yet they cannot help themselves to go this way when there's a legal controversy with a female. Then it's find a photo, and let the idiotic guilt or innocence comment postings commence.
Can we just try to keep it classy here? Do we always have to devolve to appeal to the lowest common denominator of gutter humor here when women make the news for bad behavior/crimes? Don;t we have better standards as conservatives? Having a sense of humor is important, but why is it funny that a woman is innocent or guilty because of her looks? What makes this funny? Because ugly women deserve to be locked up? Because hot women can always get out of crimes or bad behavior and ugly women can't? This is the funny stereotype these comments are playing off of?
And when the crimes are sexual crimes, as they often are, in the articles these comments surface in, why should this be made fun of? Because there aren't any negative consequences that occur to a young boy or girl when an adult female decides to satisfy their sexual urges with usually an underage boy or girl? The same stuff isn't treated lightly or humorously when an adult male does it, in fact death threat statements and the like are posted. But it's all fun and games and smart-ass humor when a woman does it.
What makes it wrong is conservatives ought to know better. They do know that there are negative consequences to teens who have sex with adults, BOTH men and women. It's not victimless only if a woman does it. It screws up their viewpoint of sex and male-female relationships. In both cases these posters KNOW that it's wrong to have an adult authority figure having sex with kids they are in positions of overseeing. It's wrong for male and female adults to look at students as potential personal sexual conquests.
This is sick behavior for a site supposedly made up of conservatives.
Well played...
“I’m guessing you don’t know how the tradition came about.”
My thoughts as well. I’m sure plenty of folks see the posts and do not realize the backstory, even a lot of the people joining in the fun.
It is both Hugh and Series!
Well, point that out to the mods. Oh wait, the OP is a mod, apparently deleting posts on his own thread after he got an unexpected backlash.
*shrug*
“...why isn’t guilty or not found on the threads where the genders are reversed?”
It has to do with the origin of the practice, and the meaning of it, which is not what the “offended” posters around here seem to think it is.
Wow, I had to read 92 posts to find someone who actually explained the practice to these offended noobs. A few others seemed to know, but didn’t really spell it out.
I think that rule was in place when I was in school.
When I’m feeling sophisticated, I might go with “pansy” or “pillow biter”. For less refined moods, there is always “turd burglar” and “fudge packer”.
For all around usage though, “faggot” still gets you the most bang for the buck.
My preferred method is just to saw 3/4 of the way through the chair legs at the dinner table before hosting fatties. Effective and amusing!
And he has the nerve to point to heaven to try to blame it on God! He who denied it supplied it!
It’s going to vary state by state, but I do believe most states go by that definition, and that is the definition the DOJ uses when compiling crime statistics.
More importantly, why does the UK have so many more terms than us? I know they have a longer history, but this is a national embarrassment.
What? That’s obviously Rod Stewart, check the “rooster cut” hair-do.
Off hand that looks to be about 75 points of round brilliant AAA1.
Or it could be a CZ or even a YAG for that matter.
Let me get my loop and scale.
Am hoping you survived your first night with Lillian.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.