I disagree with this call out 99%. Someone asked for solutions for current societal problems. I correctly pointed out that there are solutions and that they’ve worked elsewhere but those solutions would not be accepted by the right. I did not mention any dope member nor did I imply the reaction of joy would be from any dope member. Are you saying I was calling out a specific poster because of my “drawl” comment? No way, I feel the typical person with that mindset is from the poorly educated southern masses and was mocking them. Again, not allowed?
As for the last 1% If you are saying we cannot be graphic in saying that some people would be overjoyed physically at the prospect of seeing people punished, well I guess I will let my subscription expire and take my money elsewhere because that’s ridiculous.
[ol][li]The first is that when having a discussion, moving from the individual to the general can be a way to criticize other posters without running afoul of the rules. In a previous thread I said this:[/li]
So then the question is whether or not your post which attacks the right is inseparable from an attack on a poster. I don’t think it was exactly, but it was a judgment call - though not super close in my estimation. But given the nature of the comment, I thought it was a good idea to remind you and others about a different rule in GD and Elections. That leads to the second reason:
[li]Characterizing people with opposing views as cumming in their pants is pretty crass. We don’t want to have debate peppered with discussion about who is cumming, how often, where, etc. This combined with #1 merited a note as a reminder of the rules of the forum.[/ol][/li]
That being the case, the next step is what should the note say or direct. I identified the issue you raise here, that you did not mention any dope member, but nevertheless the implication may be there. Combine that with the nature of the commentary offered, and I instructed to refrain from this type of base sexual commentary. This means we can stunt threads that may resort to discussing who cums, where, when, and how much.
If you want a forum in GD and Elections where you can discuss the cumming patterns of those that you disagree with, then I’m going to say you’re going to have to get used to disappointment. Maybe try the Pit to talk about cumming if that’s your cup of tea.
Note the poster asked for general solutions from presumably Democrats, not specific posters who may lean that way. I took that to mean that the solutions offered would be general aimed, and not to only satisfy the poster. Hence my answer about the right not being satisfied with known solutions.
If you feel that my graphic description is crass well there’s nothing I can do about that except not repeat it. I’ve heard that description used many a time in my life and never gave it a second thought.
But I get it. I guess I’ll have to be more careful. As to you all who pointed out my guest status, take note I am paid up now. Thanks for your gentle reminders.
It seems like an originalist argument to me. It’s based on what a moderator thinks the poster was thinking when he wrote something not on the actual words that are written.
Not intentional but I’m going to pretend it was.