Just A Reminder
Please Don't Forget
To Donate To FR
This Quarter
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
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.
Just so you don't go through too severe of withdrawals...
... here are some pictures of Lily!
Good—she went easy on you.
Which is easier said than done:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHB6muY-6WI
Well, just to be picky, “loupe”, “loop” and “lens” are all acceptable terms.
Reply please
Oh, crap.
I didn’t mean to out him... (her... it!)!!
Oh, CRAP!
I thought everyone knew!
Crap.
Sorry, Laz. I didn’t mean it. :(
I was headed to the fundraiser when I started having my posts deleted... first ever... by this narsisstic clown. I’ve been a two dollar a day donor for years, but if this is the new moderation team, posting vanities in the news forum, deleting nearly half of the responses, and especially covering the filthy history by removing post #73, then maybe “forum” is no longer a valid description of FR.
Posts 44 and 46 tell the story. Keywords were inactive. Can you post a vanity and deactivate keywords? Can you terminate someone’s session? Happened to me 5 times. Same with several other posters I emailed.
Yep, I saw the keyword section missing earlier. Now, it’s magically restored!
I think it was the work of just one rogue mod, and he seems to have been slapped down, since most of what he removed was restored and the suspensions were reversed. Hopefully his mod privileges were reversed as well.
Also magically restored were the (nearly half of the thread) “removed by moderator” posts. Maybe the Jim Beam ran out.
All except post 73, by Smokin Joe, which explained what was happening.
Thanks, musicman. I’ll head over after I cool off. Dollar-a-day and 300 club donor bump!
Thanks!!
Cause we aren't gay, duh.
hat tip
Excellent
fine line tween site owner and operated on opm
Just sayin
No sooner do I say something about the Lawrence Welk Society/cat ladies and...
That’s why I pinged you to this. ;p
It’s all in good fun. Lighten up a little.
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.