Example: This will be moved to the 'Political Board'

[4est_4est_Gump]

Because we do not want to have an honest conversation about race.

David Ruenzel knew, better than most, about the white privilege that killed him.

As a writer for the Southern Poverty Law Center, one of this favorite topics was rooting out racism. And how white racism is permanent. White racism is everywhere. And white racism explains everything.

This mantra of the Critical Race Theory and the Southern Poverty Law Center applied to all white people because, even if they were not personally cracking the whips, or breaking the skulls, white people benefitted from a racist system that did all that — and a lot more.

Ruenzel was writing about white privilege for the Southern Poverty Law Center as far back as 1997 — long before it became the rage at college campuses, newsrooms, churches, high schools and even grade schools.

By the time of his death, Ruenzel had accumulated many of the trappings of the white privilege he exposed: The job. The home. The intact family. And most importantly in his case, white privilege endowed Ruenzel with an expectation of safety in the Oakland neighborhood where last week two black people are suspected of killing him.

http://www.americanthinker.com/arti..._apologist_for_black_crime.html#ixzz3KqGfac29

 

[Adre]

Because we do not want to have an honest conversation about race.



http://www.americanthinker.com/arti..._apologist_for_black_crime.html#ixzz3KqGfac29

If you assume 'we' don't want an honest conversation, why does it matter what board it's on?

 

[RobDownSouth]

It's a great example, I agree, but not in the way you intended.

It's very typical of your shit-n-run cut-n-paste posting style, a one line commentary from you of a rancid American Thinker hit piece.

The General Board will be a much better place with this derp moved to a political board.

 

[RobDownSouth]

If you assume 'we' don't want an honest conversation, why does it matter what board it's on?

An American Thinker editorial disqualifies any sort of "honest conversation", which is of course exactly what AJ intended. It's merely a vehicle for him to mount his daily soapbox and bellow "THIS I BELIEVE", followed by "full victim mode" when he's criticized for his intolerance a dozen posts later.

 

[Pookie]

It's a great example, I agree, but not in the way you intended.

It's very typical of your shit-n-run cut-n-paste posting style, a one line commentary from you of a rancid American Thinker hit piece.

The General Board will be a much better place with this derp moved to a political board.

Bingo.

 

[miles]

I propose a dishonest conversation board.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I propose a dishonest conversation board.

*chuckle*

Notice how fast the trolls came a'running to create that atmosphere which causes people to want a separate board?

Immediate sputter and outrage regardless of the topic. Straight to personal attacks, but, of course, the problem with discourse at Lit, is the right-wing.



Just its very existence is enough.

What did it take? 90 seconds? less?

 

[Laurel]

No, it wouldn't be moved.

I have an idea. Instead of starting thread after thread asking "Will THIS be moved?" "How about THIS?" and getting progressively more agitated and upset, why don't you try reading the actual proposed guidelines, which answer your question?

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=62926275&postcount=1

THEN making a decision, instead of freaking out over what may or may not be?

I know - that's no fun, right?

 

[Pookie]

Because we do not want to have an honest conversation about race.



http://www.americanthinker.com/arti..._apologist_for_black_crime.html#ixzz3KqGfac29

Where is the conversation? This is spamming. What about the article do you want to discuss? That's the problem with threads like this. You don't want a discussion. You just want people to look at you.

 

[RobDownSouth]

An excellent example indeed!

Laurel, can we please get this stickied to the top during the political board voting period?

 

[Adre]

*chuckle*

Notice how fast the trolls came a'running to create that atmosphere which causes people to want a separate board?

Immediate sputter and outrage regardless of the topic. Straight to personal attacks, but, of course, the problem with discourse at Lit, is the right-wing.



Just its very existence is enough.

What did it take? 90 seconds? less?

So I ask a serious and reasonable question and I'm a troll? Where was my attack? I think I just decided my vote, so thanks.

 

[cowslinger64]

*chuckle*

Notice how fast the trolls came a'running to create that atmosphere which causes people to want a separate board?

Immediate sputter and outrage regardless of the topic. Straight to personal attacks, but, of course, the problem with discourse at Lit, is the right-wing.



Just its very existence is enough.

What did it take? 90 seconds? less?

Once again AJ posts something stupid... gets called on it, and whines like a little girl.

Stop trying so hard to get noticed, you got elected to the loser hall of fame.. that's your legacy.. just enjoy it and live out your golden years knowing you are among the best of a class of people that includes bunny.

 

[Adre]

An American Thinker editorial disqualifies any sort of "honest conversation", which is of course exactly what AJ intended. It's merely a vehicle for him to mount his daily soapbox and bellow "THIS I BELIEVE", followed by "full victim mode" when he's criticized for his intolerance a dozen posts later.

^^^^^^100% accurate.

 

[Adre]

Where is the conversation? This is spamming. What about the article do you want to discuss? That's the problem with threads like this. You don't want a discussion. You just want people to look at you.

Also 100% accurate. Maybe we need a board for hypocrites.

 

[Pookie]

No, it wouldn't be moved.

I have an idea. Instead of starting thread after thread asking "Will THIS be moved?" "How about THIS?" and getting progressively more agitated and upset, why don't you try reading the actual proposed guidelines, which answer your question?

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=62926275&postcount=1

THEN making a decision, instead of freaking out over what may or may not be?

I know - that's no fun, right?

Oh snap!

 

[RobDownSouth]

Once again AJ posts something stupid... gets called on it, and whines like a little girl.

Stop trying so hard to get noticed, you got elected to the loser hall of fame.. that's your legacy.. just enjoy it and live out your golden years knowing you are among the best of a class of people that includes bunny.

So I ask a serious and reasonable question and I'm a troll? Where was my attack? I think I just decided my vote, so thanks.

AJ Stage #1: Belligerent
AJ Stage #2: Defensive <------You Are Here
AJ Stage #3: Full Victim Mode

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

No, it wouldn't be moved.

I have an idea. Instead of starting thread after thread asking "Will THIS be moved?" "How about THIS?" and getting progressively more agitated and upset, why don't you try reading the actual proposed guidelines, which answer your question?

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=62926275&postcount=1

THEN making a decision, instead of freaking out over what may or may not be?

I know - that's no fun, right?

The guidelines, as I pointed out in the other thread (where the message got drowned out in all the clutter and accusation), are a variation on an old theme of yours, the election of Bush meant that his evangelical outlook would lead to shutting down Lit because of the way HE defined porn. What your guidelines are is actually an exercise in trying to formulate in a more erudite manner that which cannot be formulated, that you will 'know' a political thread when you see a political thread.

Now, this example is one that some people are going to look at as what they voted to put an end to, this is the kind of political nonsense that they want removed because it is hate-speech from a rw source. It also impugns their sense of thought code, that a white liberal cannot be blamed for being the victim of the very policies that he championed, which, if you think about it, is a critical commentary on those who think the 'know' what they are voting on. You see, in order to reach a bicameral yes or no vote, you get a lot of variety of reason lumped altogether, each confident that most are voting and thinking like they do, only to find out after the fact that they were still in a minority of their particular opinion.

But you guys are proving that you do not even try to think deeper than that 140-character limit.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Oh snap!

And the layup was blocked from behind since I started the thread to make a point and I scored a trey on the rebound...

 

[IrezumiKiss]

And the layup was blocked from behind since I started the thread to make a point and I scored a trey on the rebound...

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmsz0zpdZV1qgxpy0.gif

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Where is the conversation? This is spamming. What about the article do you want to discuss? That's the problem with threads like this. You don't want a discussion. You just want people to look at you.

No, I knew I could make a point, and I did.



Actually more than one and we now see some real idiocracy on display...

 

[RobDownSouth]

And the layup was blocked from behind since I started the thread to make a point and I scored a trey on the rebound...

You're getting delusional. At 5'10" and 240 pounds, you're not going to block anything.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Most certainly political board:

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1119599

 

[Adre]

On what board would we learn who you voted for to teach us all a lesson?

 

[Laurel]

The guidelines, as I pointed out in the other thread (where the message got drowned out in all the clutter and accusation), are a variation on an old theme of yours, the election of Bush meant that his evangelical outlook would lead to shutting down Lit because of the way HE defined porn. What your guidelines are is actually an exercise in trying to formulate in a more erudite manner that which cannot be formulated, that you will 'know' a political thread when you see a political thread.

Now, this example is one that some people are going to look at as what they voted to put an end to, this is the kind of political nonsense that they want removed because it is hate-speech from a rw source. It also impugns their sense of thought code, that a white liberal cannot be blamed for being the victim of the very policies that he championed, which, if you think about it, is a critical commentary on those who think the 'know' what they are voting on. You see, in order to reach a bicameral yes or no vote, you get a lot of variety of reason lumped altogether, each confident that most are voting and thinking like they do, only to find out after the fact that they were still in a minority of their particular opinion.

But you guys are proving that you do not even try to think deeper than that 140-character limit.

What the eff are you talking about?

You still haven't read the proposal, have you?

Why not? Is it really that hard?

Here, I'll post it so you don't have to click.

The creation of a separate forum within the General Board specifically for political issues.

Forum Title: Politics Board

One line opener (under the title): Step inside to post about politics, politicians, and the government.

Workable Definition in a Sticky:

This Politics Board is your political home. Post on anything concerning:

1. The government. Of any country, on any level. Its structure, legal documents, laws, proposed laws, including interpretation and implementation thereof.

2. Politicians. Current government office holders; those that are or may seek election or appointment to any government position; those that have held those positions; their staff and volunteers; and lobbyists thereto.

3. Political theory or agenda. Includes political party platforms. ​

 

[Adre]

Maybe he'll read it if you say it's from The American Thinker.