Bob Macadoo Posted May 2, 2015 Report Share Posted May 2, 2015 C.A. has also locked a thread due to insults and trolling. Kind of funny since the definition of trolling seems to be completely arbitrary. This thread is now over a year old, and I see little improvement. It is a joke. He really thinks he's projecting he's the law-dog now. Whatever. I'll say again view the threads he's coming down on in.....and see who isn't participating in them......almost the only ones he doesn't.What a joke. Wait this is probably thread drift.......suspension-ho! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted May 25, 2015 Report Share Posted May 25, 2015 Michael Hardner, on 25 May 2015 - 2:16 PM, said: No I don't think that's more tasteful but let's get back to discussion rather than continuing to discuss the moderation. So calling into question, with humor, the assumption that women are simply not capable of consenting to sex after drinking (which for most circumstances is clearly ridiculous). Or that any man who chooses to allow a woman to have sex with him, after she has been drinking, no matter how much she wants to, makes him a defacto rapist, and also in effect makes her desires irrelevant, is somehow more objectionable than a 9/11 conspiracy theory, debunked thousands of times mind you, that ultimately includes the USA murdering thousands of its own people. That from a poster who does nothing but attack the USA in the vast majority of his posts. Well, if so, therein lies the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Anthony Posted May 26, 2015 Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 Do not misrepresent Michael Hardner's words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 26, 2015 Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 A conspiracy theory is a theory, that can be debated. So is the topic of consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 26, 2015 Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 I'd like to see moderators who appreciate rape humour to be removed from their post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted May 26, 2015 Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 I remember when humour was funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 26, 2015 Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 (edited) I think if we're going to have open ended discussions where people are allowed to express themselves, then we should do that. We shouldn't arbitrarily end conversations because they're off topic (like anything here isn't) or edit someone's post because there's a swear word in it (words have meaning and people should be able to express themselves). We also shouldn't hide from offensive speech or offensive ways of making speech (dark humour for example). If we're going to start censoring everything, there isn't really a point to having discussions. I've been here a long time, and this recent change isn't positive at all. Edited May 26, 2015 by Smallc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 26, 2015 Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 I think it's more complicated than simple censorship...the FHRITP thread demonstrates the potential for real backlash against certain language and behaviours that could invite unwanted attention and social media pressure to not only silence those points of view, but punish posters as well. Even an obscure web forum from southern Alberta (hosted in Texas) is not immune to such internal and external criticisms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 26, 2015 Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 I think it's more complicated than simple censorship...the FHRITP thread demonstrates the potential for real backlash against certain language and behaviours And that's a real problem isn't it? I suppose that's probably the issue, and I did consider that. That said, I don't feel that the language used was in any way promoting rape or making a joke of it. Obviously some differ in their interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 26, 2015 Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 And that's a real problem isn't it? I suppose that's probably the issue, and I did consider that. That said, I don't feel that the language used was in any way promoting rape or making a joke of it. Obviously some differ in their interpretation. The irony is that biting humour and sarcasm has long been at the fore of social commentary for numerous issues and causes, many at least as significant or much greater than sexual assaults. But this is what it is...so one just moves on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 26, 2015 Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 Social commentary that's dismissive of sexual assault and rape. The commentary itself is what's disgusting that you're using humour to make that commentary takes it to another level. You're both pathetic scumbags as far as I'm concerned. And Charles can go right ahead and ban me. I don't enjoy the company of filth like you two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 26, 2015 Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 No banning required.....just pity for such an angry, hate filled post. Lenny Bruce and Richard Pryor sold plenty of tickets for assault and rape jokes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 26, 2015 Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 Manufactured outrage aside, I believe my point has been made...the squeaky wheel got the grease. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted May 26, 2015 Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 Do not misrepresent Michael Hardner's words. Honestly, get over yourselves, shall we go back and review the time not so long ago when he misrepresented my words? It is you and he that sanction ludicrous conspiracy theories by allowing them and then at the same time ponder the legitimacy of questioning with humor the idea that women are not responsible enough to consent to sex while drinking, as if they were somehow lesser people than the men who apparently have all of the responsibility in that scenario. There is a serious lack of consistency in the standards displayed here, and that is your fault, not ours. You are continuously allowing the mockery of the deaths of thousands by terrorists, but questioning a woman's ability to have responsibility for her actions is somehow offside. Perhaps it comes down to the things you believe in, i personally don't believe the USA killed it's own people on 9/11, I also believe that women can drink and choose to have sex, but opinions seem to vary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 26, 2015 Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 (edited) Case in point: Petition calls for boycott of Canadian venues booking Black Pussy http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/petition-calls-for-boycott-of-canadian-venues-booking-black-pussy-1.3088058 But the band "Pussy Riot" is OK and to be cheered for bravery in Putin's Russia !!! Edited May 26, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 26, 2015 Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 You are continuously allowing the mockery of the deaths of thousands by terrorists, but questioning a woman's ability to have responsibility for her actions is somehow offside. I really don't see an inconsistency there. The people who question 9/11, though they are wrong (in my opinion), tend to be very serious about the implications of what they believe happened. They are not "mocking" as per your assertion. If you believe it to be a mockery, and are therefore offended then you're actually giving a reason to not allow real acknowledged mockery on here. Perhaps it comes down to the things you believe in, i personally don't believe the USA killed it's own people on 9/11, I also believe that women can drink and choose to have sex, but opinions seem to vary. I welcome your discussion on these topics 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 26, 2015 Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 I really don't see an inconsistency there. The people who question 9/11, though they are wrong (in my opinion), tend to be very serious about the implications of what they believe happened. You think that I don't seriously beleive that a woman who is drinking is capable of giving consent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 26, 2015 Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 I really don't see an inconsistency there. The people who question 9/11, though they are wrong (in my opinion), tend to be very serious about the implications of what they believe happened. So ? It doesn't make it any less offensive or "sensitive". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 26, 2015 Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 You think that I don't seriously beleive that a woman who is drinking is capable of giving consent? I don't know. Maybe you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 26, 2015 Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 So ? It doesn't make it any less offensive or "sensitive". Being offended by an opinion is your problem. If I make offensive jokes about a serious issue, then that's a problem I am making in our discussion. I don't follow the logic that "I'm serious about this topic, that's why I'm being ungentlemanly and trying to offend a good number of people who may take part in the discussion". Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 26, 2015 Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 Being offended by an opinion is your problem. If I make offensive jokes about a serious issue, then that's a problem I am making in our discussion. I don't follow the logic that "I'm serious about this topic, that's why I'm being ungentlemanly and trying to offend a good number of people who may take part in the discussion". Sorry. You are missing the point entirely...as it doesn't matter if I am offended or not. Save the sexist "gentlemanly" schtick for another era please...that only adds another ridiculous twist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 26, 2015 Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 Being offended by an opinion is your problem. Ummm.... offend a good number of people who may take part in the discussion". See above? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 26, 2015 Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 Save the sexist "gentlemanly" schtick for another era please...that only adds another ridiculous twist. No kidding. So many baseless assumptions. Apparently this is the first time anyone has ever made a point with humour on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 26, 2015 Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 You are missing the point entirely...as it doesn't matter if I am offended or not. Ok, then why are people complaining about being offended by 9/11 theories ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 26, 2015 Report Share Posted May 26, 2015 See above? You can express the opinion without offending people. Assuming you want to have a discussion, why not do that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts