Am I the only one who thinks the phrase “reverse racism” is bullshit? Black on white racism may not be as bad, but it’s not “reverse racism.” It’s just “racism.”
No, you’re not, Sparky. That’s why I put it in quotes. Most people don’t like the term, but it made sense to use the in context of my post.
Glad to hear you’re okay and that you have a sensible wife. 
All’s I know is: That Xtisme is one sassy, fiery Latino, correct? ¡Ay chihuahua!
Roxy, a local nightclub, had a long-running promotion called Monday Night Fights, where you could fight your friends (or complete strangers) as long as you were within 25 lbs. of each other.
Unfortunately, the state legislature banned all types of amateur hand-to-hand combat after a woman was killed in a Jell-O wrestling match in Fort Myers.
Have fun in AA.
Regards,
Shodan
Wait a minute! She wrestled Jell-O and lost?!
This is the part where I totally agree with you and, although I don’t believe violence is the answer, their jumping into your conversation (and being hostile and belligerent) is where it all starts.
Even if your original post stood, what right did these people have to butt into your conversation? I can also agree with others, again, that violence is not the answer but (i) I’m surprised that many started with the “no violence” angle and not the invasion of your conversation angle, and (ii) sometimes, especially if this second version is true, you have to defend yourself. Yes, you were in a bar and no, you didn’t know exactly who might be listening, reacting, etc., but who cares. It was an invasion, if not of privacy then of the Court-of-Public-Opinion-decided variety known as “A-B-C.”*
I’ve been in situations where I’ve overheard people verbally bashing gays and/or blacks and/or Mississippians (I’m all three) but I had the common sense to know it was not my place to insinuate myself into their conversation and educate on what they should really think! If it’s a conversation I’m involved in, that’s a different story.
- This is a conversation between “A” and “B,” “C” your way out of it.
Knife fight!
Me too. By staying home I only have to deal with one drunk asshole at a time.
It’s a bad combination.
How did the third guy ‘sucker punch’ you?
You stomped guy one and punched guy two and you weren’t expecting guy 3 to defend himself?
No sucker punch there. I’m glad you’re not dead though.
Noooh! please don’t ask that! :eek: just go search his name and postings!
Oh, and because even though we’re in the BBQ Pit, this is still the Straight Dope, so:
[nitpick][del]Visa[/del] Mastercard commercials…priceless[/nitpick] 
In all seriousness, I’m glad you survived with only a shiner and bruises, but I would hate to see your name on Marley’s “in memoriam” list, so please re-consider your bar fight policy.
I get that fighing is bad and all that stuff. Hooray for us!
But fuck those homophobic assholes.
That OP is sad in so many ways.
What? The OP had everything! Drunk Mexicans, hillbilies, fights, queers. It was awesome.
Oh yeah? You wanna take it outside and back that up, old man? I didn’t think so.
Why? No poodles were given haircuts in the making of the OP.
xtisme, my brain says you’re a fucking moron, but my guts say way to go.
For what part of human history and in what cultures has marriage had the same legal rights and implications as it currently does? Same-sex marriage might be a recent thing, but so is legal marriage as it’s practiced in the U.S. (Unless you want to try to convince me that you had to be married to your opposite-sex partner in the Eurasian Steppe in 1324 to get on their health insurance.) Oh, and it looks like there may be some historical precedents for same-sex marriages after all.
Hah! I was about to respond to the exact same post with the exact same suggestion. I’ve been saying for years that all legal “marriages” should be civil unions, and “marriages” should be reserved for what’s performed by a religious institution. That way, intolerant religions can forbid same-sex marriage all they want without it affecting people’s actual, y’know, lives.
If you’d quoted the whole of my post you’d probably have noticed that I don’t actually think that’s a valid argument, y’know.
I read the whole thing. You’re saying it exists but it’s not a legitimate reason to currently outlaw same-sex marriages; I’m questioning whether it even exists at all.