While we are guessing at the motives of others, I would say that most gave up saying anything because it proved perfectly useless. He has his own facts.
That’s a persecution fantasy, not reality.
Your “and” should have been a comma. Possibly followed by “you know,”. But that’s purely a stylistic thing.
I’d suggest a colon, but you’ve already shown us yours.
So libtard is banned because it is insulting. Tea bagger is also insulting but it is allowed because it was 1) inadvertently used by ONE lone member who referred to the group as such and 2) it has been around too long to change???
This is the parsing of the rule so as to allow a leftist insult?
How about the term “queers” to describe gay/homosexual persons? It must fit under the new rule because 1) it is used by some in the homosexual community to describe the group and 2) it has been around as an insult WAY longer than “teabagger”.
But, I’m going to guess that there is extra nuance that would forbid a poster from creating a thread topic entitled “Queer Marriage in New York. Are our children safe?” I wait for the distinction.
I find the subsequent liberal sexual connotation attached to it quite telling.
How quickly it was seized upon in the media, entertainment industry and even government officials at the highest level even more so.
No, there was no reference to the group at all. It was used as a verb, not a name, nickname or in any way referencing the people or the tea party themselves at all.
The liberals dreamed that and the gay sex part up all by themselves:
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2009-03-18-tea_bag_dems.jpg
Actually, it is not.
code_grey used the word several times in a short period while posting rants in other threads and was told to dial it back. I have no intention of telling anyone that they may not use “libtard” unless they engage in the identical behavior.
Tea bagger, like “fundy,” “white trash,” “PC police,” “progs,” and numerous other insults, (recall the cries of “coward,” “treason,” and “traitor” during the run up the the invasion of Iraq), will be permitted as long as they are directed against outsiders and not used to denigrate other posters, directly.
Actually, it fits under the old rules because we never ruled against it as long it was not being used to insult a poster.
You are free to post that thread. As long as it appears to be a legitimate debate and not a BBQ Pit rant in disguise, I suspect that there would be no repercussions. (On that topic, the poster who has had the most threads moved out of GD for off-the-wall rants typically has a pro-homosexual purpose for his posting.)
Or, you know, just avoid trying to figure out what labels one can get away with.
This is where I disagree. Far better to call them out and declare them unwanted and not allowed than to allow them because most posters are going to think, “Oh, it’s that moron again. I can skip his post.” Even if most members have learned to ignore those inflammatory posts because they come from a jackass, that doesn’t make the post less inflammatory. Just means some jackassness is allowed - but only if you’re a known jackass.*
You are confused. jtgain was speaking about a specific incident on this board, not some protest rally or whatever.
And I’m not sure who that sign is endorsing. Sounds like a slam against Liberal Dems. YMMV.
*No specific poster in mind. Menally fill in as appropriate.