Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

«‹›106 »

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Were these people at the altar just like "penis penis penis vagina vagina vagina. This is a ceremony so that P goes into V. PIV, PIV, PIV."

Actually that makes a lot of sense.

# ? Jul 23, 2014 06:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 19, 2024 05:38

Teriyaki Hairpiece: Dec 29, 2006; I'm nae the voice o' the darkened thistle, but th' darkened thistle cannae bear the sight o' our Bonnie Prince Bernie nae mair.

Not a single bit of PIV involved in creating Jesus, and he took away all our sins. :smug:

# ? Jul 23, 2014 07:08

Shbobdb: Dec 16, 2010; by Reene

cheerfullydrab posted:

Not a single bit of PIV involved in creating Jesus, and he took away all our sins.

I'm not sure about that. At least all his of maternal great-grandparents had PIV. And Joseph's lineage involved a lot of PIV and was very important.

# ? Jul 23, 2014 08:24

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Shbobdb posted:

I'm not sure about that. At least all his of maternal great-grandparents had PIV. And Joseph's lineage involved a lot of PIV and was very important.

Yeah I never got how Joseph's lineage was supposed to matter if he never snuck it in.

# ? Jul 23, 2014 09:20

Shbobdb: Dec 16, 2010; by Reene

Look, the important thing is that we all agree that it matters. If nothing else, it gave Jesus's siblings something to brag about and I imagine they had a strong need to brag about something.

# ? Jul 23, 2014 09:24

ArchRanger: Mar 19, 2007; I'm tired of following my dreams, I'm just gonna ask where they're goin' and meet up with 'em there.

Spotted this in the wild today. Ten Reasons I Am No Longer A Leftist

quote:

Weekend Must-Read: Ten Reasons Why I Am No Longer a Leftist
By Danusha V. Goska

How far left was I? So far left my beloved uncle was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party in a Communist country. When I returned to his Slovak village to buy him a mass card, the priest refused to sell me one. So far left that a self-identified terrorist proposed marriage to me. So far left I was a two-time Peace Corps volunteer and I have a degree from UC Berkeley. So far left that my Teamster mother used to tell anyone who would listen that she voted for Gus Hall, Communist Party chairman, for president. I wore a button saying "Eat the Rich." To me it wasn't a metaphor.

I voted Republican in the last presidential election.

Below are the top ten reasons I am no longer a leftist. This is not a rigorous comparison of theories. This list is idiosyncratic, impressionistic, and intuitive. It's an accounting of the milestones on my herky-jerky journey.

10) Huffiness.

In the late 1990s I was reading Anatomy of the Spirit, a then recent bestseller by Caroline Myss.

Myss described having lunch with a woman named Mary. A man approached Mary and asked her if she were free to do a favor for him on June 8th. No, Mary replied, I absolutely cannot do anything on June 8th because June 8th is my incest survivors' meeting and we never let each other down! They have suffered so much already! I would never betray incest survivors!

Myss was flabbergasted. Mary could have simply said "Yes" or "No."

Reading this anecdote, I felt that I was confronting the signature essence of my social life among leftists. We rushed to cast everyone in one of three roles: victim, victimizer, or champion of the oppressed. We lived our lives in a constant state of outraged indignation. I did not want to live that way anymore. I wanted to cultivate a disposition of gratitude. I wanted to see others, not as victims or victimizers, but as potential friends, as loved creations of God. I wanted to understand the point of view of people with whom I disagreed without immediately demonizing them as enemy oppressors.

I recently attended a training session for professors on a college campus. The presenter was a new hire in a tenure-track position. He opened his talk by telling us that he had received an invitation to share a festive meal with the president of the university. I found this to be an enviable occurrence and I did not understand why he appeared dramatically aggrieved. The invitation had been addressed to "Mr. and Mrs. X." Professor X was a bachelor. He felt slighted. Perhaps the person who had addressed his envelope had disrespected him because he is a member of a minority group.

Rolling his eyes, Prof. X went on to say that he was wary of accepting a position on this lowly commuter campus, with its working-class student body. The disconnect between leftists' announced value of championing the poor and the leftist practice of expressing snobbery for them stung me. Already vulnerable students would be taught by a professor who regarded association with them as a burden, a failure, and a stigma.

Barack Obama is president. Kim and Kanye and Brad and Angelina are members of multiracial households. One might think that professors finally have cause to teach their students to be proud of America for overcoming racism. Not so fast, Professor X warned. His talk was on microaggression, defined as slights that prove that America is still racist, sexist, homophobic, and ableist, that is, discriminatory against handicapped people.

Professor X projected a series of photographs onto a large screen. In one, commuters in business suits, carrying briefcases, mounted a flight of stairs. This photo was an act of microaggression. After all, Professor X reminded us, handicapped people can't climb stairs.

I appreciate Professor X's desire to champion the downtrodden, but identifying a photograph of commuters on stairs as an act of microaggression and evidence that America is still an oppressive hegemon struck me as someone going out of his way to live his life in a state of high dudgeon. On the other hand, Prof. X could have chosen to speak of his own working-class students with more respect.

Yes, there is a time and a place when it is absolutely necessary for a person to cultivate awareness of his own pain, or of others' pain. Doctors instruct patients to do this -- "Locate the pain exactly; calculate where the pain falls on a scale of one to ten; assess whether the pain is sharp, dull, fleeting, or constant." But doctors do this for a reason. They want the patient to heal, and to move beyond the pain. In the left, I found a desire to be in pain constantly, so as always to have something to protest, from one's history of incest to the inability of handicapped people to mount flights of stairs.

9) Selective Outrage

I was a graduate student. Female genital mutilation came up in class. I stated, without ornamentation, that it is wrong.

A fellow graduate student, one who was fully funded and is now a comfortably tenured professor, sneered at me. "You are so intolerant. Clitoredectomy is just another culture's rite of passage. You Catholics have confirmation."

When Mitt Romney was the 2012 Republican presidential candidate, he mentioned that, as Massachusetts governor, he proactively sought out female candidates for top jobs. He had, he said, "binders full of women." He meant, of course, that he stored resumes of promising female job candidates in three-ring binders.

Op-ed pieces, Jon Stewart's "Daily Show," Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon posts erupted in a feeding frenzy, savaging Romney and the Republican Party for their "war on women."

I was an active leftist for decades. I never witnessed significant leftist outrage over clitoredectomy, child marriage, honor killing, sharia-inspired rape laws, stoning, or acid attacks. Nothing. Zip. Crickets. I'm not saying that that outrage does not exist. I'm saying I never saw it.

The left's selective outrage convinced me that much canonical, left-wing feminism is not so much support for women, as it is a protest against Western, heterosexual men. It's an "I hate" phenomenon, rather than an "I love" phenomenon.

8.) It's the thought that counts

My favorite bumper sticker in ultra-liberal Berkeley, California: "Think Globally; Screw up Locally." In other words, "Love Humanity but Hate People."

It was past midnight, back in the 1980s, in Kathmandu, Nepal. A group of Peace Corps volunteers were drinking moonshine at the Momo Cave. A pretty girl with long blond hair took out her guitar and sang these lyrics, which I remember by heart from that night:

"If you want your dream to be,

Build it slow and surely.

Small beginnings greater ends.

Heartfelt work grows purely."

I just googled these lyrics, thirty years later, and discovered that they are Donovan's San Damiano song, inspired by the life of St. Francis.

Listening to this song that night in the Momo Cave, I thought, that's what we leftists do wrong. That's what we've got to get right.

We focused so hard on our good intentions. Before our deployment overseas, Peace Corps vetted us for our idealism and "tolerance," not for our competence or accomplishments. We all wanted to save the world. What depressingly little we did accomplish was often erased with the next drought, landslide, or insurrection.

Peace Corps did not focus on the "small beginnings" necessary to accomplish its grandiose goals. Schools rarely ran, girls and low caste children did not attend, and widespread corruption guaranteed that all students received passing grades. Those students who did learn had no jobs where they could apply their skills, and if they rose above their station, the hereditary big men would sabotage them. Thanks to cultural relativism, we were forbidden to object to rampant sexism or the caste system. "Only intolerant oppressors judge others' cultures."

I volunteered with the Sisters of Charity. For them, I pumped cold water from a well and washed lice out of homeless people's clothing. The sisters did not want to save the world. Someone already had. The sisters focused on the small things, as their founder, Mother Teresa, advised, "Don't look for big things, just do small things with great love." Delousing homeless people's clothing was one of my few concrete accomplishments.

Back in 1975, after Hillary Rodham had followed Bill Clinton to Arkansas, she helped create the state's first rape crisis hotline. She had her eye on the big picture. What was Hillary like in her one-on-one encounters?

Hillary served as the attorney to a 41-year-old, one of two men accused of raping a 12-year-old girl. The girl, a virgin before the assault, was in a coma for five days afterward. She was injured so badly she was told she'd never have children. In 2014, she is 52 years old, and she has never had children, nor has she married. She reports that she was afraid of men after the rape.

A taped interview with Clinton has recently emerged; on it Clinton makes clear that she thought her client was guilty, and she chuckles when reporting that she was able to set him free. In a recent interview, the victim said that Hillary Clinton "took me through Hell" and "lied like a dog." "I think she wants to be a role model� but I don�t think she�s a role model at all," the woman said. "If she had have been, she would have helped me at the time, being a 12-year-old girl who was raped by two guys."

Hillary had her eye on the all-caps resume bullet point: FOUNDS RAPE HOTLINE.

Hillary's chuckles when reminiscing about her legal victory suggest that, in her assessment, her contribution to the ruination of the life of a rape victim is of relatively negligible import.

7) Leftists hate my people.

I'm a working-class Bohunk. A hundred years ago, leftists loved us. We worked lousy jobs, company thugs shot us when we went on strike, and leftists saw our discontent as fuel for their fire.

Karl Marx promised the workers' paradise through an inevitable revolution of the proletariat. The proletariat is an industrial working class -- think blue-collar people working in mines, mills, and factories: exactly what immigrants like my parents were doing.

Polish-Americans participated significantly in a great victory, Flint, Michigan's 1937 sit-down strike. Italian-Americans produced Sacco and Vanzetti. Gus Hall was a son of Finnish immigrants.

In the end, though, we didn't show up for the Marxist happily ever after. We believed in God and we were often devout Catholics. Leftists wanted us to slough off our ethnic identities and join in the international proletarian brotherhood -- "Workers of the world, unite!" But we clung to ethnic distinctiveness. Future generations lost their ancestral ties, but they didn't adopt the IWW flag; they flew the stars and stripes. "Property is theft" is a communist motto, but no one is more house-proud than a first generation Pole who has escaped landless peasantry and secured his suburban nest.

Leftists felt that we jilted them at the altar. Leftists turned on us. This isn't just ancient history. In 2004, What's the Matter with Kansas? spent eighteen weeks on the bestseller lists. The premise of the book: working people are too stupid to know what's good for them, and so they vote conservative when they should be voting left. In England, the book was titled, What's the Matter with America?

We became the left's boogeyman: Joe Six-pack, Joe Hardhat. Though we'd been in the U.S. for a few short decades when the demonization began, leftists, in the academy, in media, and in casual speech, blamed working-class ethnics for American crimes, including racism and the "imperialist" war in Vietnam. See films like The Deer Hunter. Watch Archie Bunker on "All in the Family." Listen to a few of the Polack jokes that elitists pelted me with whenever I introduced myself at UC Berkeley.

Leftists freely label poor whites as "redneck," "white trash," "trailer trash," and "hillbilly." At the same time that leftists toss around these racist and classist slurs, they are so sanctimonious they forbid anyone to pronounce the N word when reading Mark Twain aloud. President Bill Clinton's advisor James Carville succinctly summed up leftist contempt for poor whites in his memorable quote, "Drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find."

The left's visceral hatred of poor whites overflowed like a broken sewer when John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate in 2008. It would be impossible, and disturbing, to attempt to identify the single most offensive comment that leftists lobbed at Palin. One can report that attacks on Palin were so egregious that leftists themselves publicly begged that they cease; after all, they gave the left a bad name. The Reclusive Leftist blogged in 2009 that it was a "major shock" to discover "the extent to which so many self-described liberals actually despise working people." The Reclusive Leftist focuses on Vanity Fair journalist Henry Rollins. Rollins recommends that leftists "hate-gently caress conservative women" and denounces Palin as a "small town hickoid" who can be bought off with a coupon to a meal at a chain restaurant.

Smearing us is not enough. Liberal policies sabotage us. Affirmative action benefits recipients by color, not by income. Even this limited focus fails. In his 2004 Yale University Press study, Thomas Sowell insists that affirmative action helps only wealthier African Americans. Poor blacks do not benefit. In 2009, Princeton sociologists Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford demonstrated that poor, white Christians are underrepresented on elite college campuses. Leftists add insult to injury. A blue-collar white kid, who feels lost and friendless on the alien terrain of a university campus, a campus he has to leave immediately after class so he can get to his fulltime job at MacDonald's, must accept that he is a recipient of "white privilege" � if he wants to get good grades in mandatory classes on racism.

The left is still looking for its proletariat. It supports mass immigration for this reason. Harvard's George Borjas, himself a Cuban immigrant, has been called "America�s leading immigration economist." Borjas points out that mass immigration from Latin America has sabotaged America's working poor.

It's more than a little bit weird that leftists, who describe themselves as the voice of the worker, select workers as their hated other of choice, and targets of their failed social engineering.

6) I believe in God.

Read Marx and discover a mythology that is irreconcilable with any other narrative, including the Bible. Hang out in leftist internet environments, and you will discover a toxic bath of irrational hatred for the Judeo-Christian tradition. You will discover an alternate vocabulary in which Jesus is a "dead Jew on a stick" or a "zombie" and any belief is an arbitrary sham, the equivalent of a recently invented "flying spaghetti monster." You will discover historical revisionism that posits Nazism as a Christian denomination. You will discover a rejection of the Judeo-Christian foundation of Western Civilization and American concepts of individual rights and law. You will discover a nihilist void, the kind of vacuum of meaning that nature abhors and that, all too often, history fills with the worst totalitarian nightmares, the rough beast that slouches toward Bethlehem.

5 & 4) Straw men and "In order to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs."

It astounds me now to reflect on it, but never, in all my years of leftist activism, did I ever hear anyone articulate accurately the position of anyone to our right. In fact, I did not even know those positions when I was a leftist.

"Truth is that which serves the party." The capital-R revolution was such a good, it could eliminate all that was bad, that manipulating facts was not even a venial sin; it was a good. If you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs. One of those eggs was objective truth.

Ron Kuby is a left-wing radio talk show host on New York's WABC. He plays the straw man card hourly. If someone phones in to question affirmative action � shouldn't such programs benefit recipients by income, rather than by skin color? � Kuby opens the fire hydrant. He is shrill. He is bombastic. He accuses the caller of being a member of the KKK. He paints graphic word pictures of the horrors of lynching and the death of Emmett Till and asks, "And you support that?"

Well of course THE CALLER did not support that, but it is easier to orchestrate a mob in a familiar rendition of righteous rage against a sensationalized straw man than it is to produce a reasoned argument against a reasonable opponent.

On June 16, 2014, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank published a column alleging that a peaceful Muslim was nearly verbally lynched by violent Islamophobes at a Heritage Foundation-hosted panel. What Milbank described was despicable. Unfortunately for Milbank and the Washington Post's credibility, someone filmed the event and posted the film on YouTube. Panel discussants, including Frank Gaffney and Brigitte Gabriel, made important points in a courteous manner. Saba Ahmed, the peaceful Muslim, is a "family friend" of a bombing plotter who expressed a specific desire to murder children. It soon became clear that Milbank was, as one blogger put it, "making stuff up."

Milbank slanders anyone who might attempt analysis of jihad, a force that is currently cited in the murder of innocents -- including Muslims -- from Nigeria to the Philippines. The leftist strategy of slandering those who speak uncomfortable facts suppresses discourse and has a devastating impact on confrontations with truth in journalism and on college campuses.

2 & 3) It doesn't work. Other approaches work better.

I went to hear David Horowitz speak in 2004. My intention was to heckle him. Horowitz said something that interrupted my flow of thought. He pointed out that Camden, Paterson, and Newark had decades of Democratic leadership.

Ouch.

I grew up among "Greatest Generation" Americans who had helped build these cities. One older woman told me, "As soon as I got my weekly paycheck, I rushed to Main Ave in Paterson, and my entire paycheck ended up on my back, in a new outfit." In the 1950s and 60s, my parents and my friends' parents fled deadly violence in Newark and Paterson.

Within a few short decades, Paterson, Camden, and Newark devolved into unlivable slums, with shooting deaths, drug deals, and garbage-strewn streets. The pain that New Jerseyans express about these failed cities is our state's open wound.

I live in Paterson. I teach its young. My students are hogtied by ignorance. I find myself speaking to young people born in the U.S. in a truncated pidgin I would use with a train station chai wallah in Calcutta.

Many of my students lack awareness of a lot more than vocabulary. They don't know about believing in themselves, or stick-to-itiveness. They don't realize that the people who exercise power over them have faced and overcome obstacles. I know they don't know these things because they tell me. One student confessed that when she realized that one of her teachers had overcome setbacks it changed her own life.

My students do know -- because they have been taught this -- that America is run by all-powerful racists who will never let them win. My students know -- because they have been drilled in this -- that the only way they can get ahead is to locate and cultivate those few white liberals who will pity them and scatter crumbs on their supplicant, bowed heads and into their outstretched palms. My students have learned to focus on the worst thing that ever happened to them, assume that it happened because America is unjust, and to recite that story, dirge-like, to whomever is in charge, from the welfare board to college professors, and to await receipt of largesse.

As Shelby Steele so brilliantly points out in his book White Guilt, the star of the sob story my students tell in exchange for favors is very much not the black aid recipient. The star of this story, still, just as before the Civil Rights Movement that was meant to change who got to take the lead in American productions, was the white man. The generous white liberal still gets top billing.

In Dominque La Pierre's 1985 novel City of Joy, a young American doctor, Max Loeb, confesses that serving the poor in a slum has changed his mind forever about what might actually improve their lot. "In a slum an exploiter is better than a Santa Claus� An exploiter forces you to react, whereas a Santa Claus demobilizes you."

That one stray comment from David Horowitz, a man I regarded as the enemy, sparked the slow but steady realization that my ideals, the ideals I had lived by all my life, were poisoning my students and Paterson, my city.

After I realized that our approaches don't work, I started reading about other approaches. I had another Aha! moment while listening to a two minute twenty-three second YouTube video of Milton Friedman responding to Phil Donahue's castigation of greed. The only rational response to Friedman is "My God, he's right."

1) Hate.

If hate were the only reason, I'd stop being a leftist for this reason alone.

Almost twenty years ago, when I could not conceive of ever being anything but a leftist, I joined a left-wing online discussion forum.

Before that I'd had twenty years of face-to-face participation in leftist politics: marching, organizing, socializing.

In this online forum, suddenly my only contact with others was the words those others typed onto a screen. That limited and focused means of contact revealed something.

If you took all the words typed into the forum every day and arranged them according to what part of speech they were, you'd quickly notice that nouns expressing the emotions of anger, aggression, and disgust, and verbs speaking of destruction, punishing, and wreaking vengeance, outnumbered any other class of words.

One topic thread was entitled "What do you view as disgusting about modern America?" The thread was begun in 2002. Almost eight thousand posts later, the thread was still going strong in June, 2014.

Those posting messages in this left-wing forumpublicly announced that they did what they did every day, from voting to attending a rally to planning a life, because they wanted to destroy something, and because they hated someone, rather than because they wanted to build something, or because they loved someone. You went to an anti-war rally because you hated Bush, not because you loved peace. Thus, when Obama bombed, you didn't hold any anti-war rally, because you didn't hate Obama.

I experienced powerful cognitive dissonance when I recognized the hate. The rightest of my right-wing acquaintances -- I had no right-wing friends -- expressed nothing like this. My right-wing acquaintances talked about loving: God, their family, their community. I'm not saying that the right-wingers I knew were better people; I don't know that they were. I'm speaking here, merely, about language.

In 1995 I developed a crippling illness. I couldn't work, lost my life savings, and traveled through three states, from surgery to surgery.

A left-wing friend, Pete, sent me emails raging against Republicans like George Bush, whom he referred to as "Bushitler." The Republicans were to blame because they opposed socialized medicine. In fact it's not at all certain that socialized medicine would have helped; the condition I had is not common and there was no guaranteed treatment.

I visited online discussion forums for others with the same affliction. One of my fellow sufferers, who identified himself as a successful corporate executive in New Jersey, publicly announced that the symptoms were so hideous, and his helpless slide into poverty was so much not what his wife had bargained for when she married him, that he planned to take his own life. He stopped posting after that announcement, though I responded to his post and requested a reply. It is possible that he committed suicide, exactly as he said he would -- car exhaust in the garage. I suddenly realized that my "eat the rich" lapel button was a sin premised on a lie.

In any case, at the time I was diagnosed, Bush wasn't president; Clinton was. And, as I pointed out to Pete, his unceasing and vehement expressions of hatred against Republicans did nothing for me.

I had a friend, a nun, Mary Montgomery, one of the Sisters of Providence, who took me out to lunch every six months or so, and gave me twenty-dollar Target gift cards on Christmas. Her gestures to support someone, rather than expressions of hate against someone -- even though these gestures were miniscule and did nothing to restore me to health -- meant a great deal to me.

Recently, I was trying to explain this aspect of why I stopped being a leftist to a left-wing friend, Julie. She replied, "No, I'm not an unpleasant person. I try to be nice to everybody."

"Julie," I said, "You are an active member of the Occupy Movement. You could spend your days teaching children to read, or visiting the elderly in nursing homes, or organizing cleanup crews in a garbage-strewn slum. You don't. You spend your time protestingand trying to destroy something -- capitalism."

"Yes, but I'm very nice about it," she insisted. "I always protest with a smile."

Pete is now a Facebook friend and his feed overflows with the anger that I'm sure he assesses as righteous. He protests against homophobic Christians, American imperialists, and Monsanto. I don't know if Pete ever donates to an organization he believes in, or a person suffering from a disease, or if he ever says comforting things to afflicted intimates. I know he hates.

I do have right-wing friends now and they do get angry and they do express that anger. But when I encounter unhinged, stratospheric vituperation, when I encounter detailed revenge fantasies in scatological and sadistic language, I know I've stumbled upon a left-wing website.

Given that the left prides itself on being the liberator of women, homosexuals, and on being "sex positive," one of the weirder and most obvious aspects of left-wing hate is how often, and how virulently, it is expressed in terms that are misogynist, homophobic, and in the distinctive anti-sex voice of a sexually frustrated high-school misfit. Haters are aware enough of how uncool it would be to use a slur like "fag," so they sprinkle their discourse with terms indicating anal rape like "butt hurt." Leftists taunt right-wingers as "tea baggers." The implication is that the target of their slur is either a woman or a gay man being orally penetrated by a man, and is, therefore, inferior, and despicable.

Misogynist speech has a long tradition on the left. In 1964, Stokely Carmichael said that the only position for women in the Civil Rights Movement was "prone." Carmichael's misogyny is all the more outrageous given the very real role of women like Rosa Parks, Viola Liuzzo, and Fannie Lou Hamer.

In 2012 atheist bloggers Jennifer McCreight and Natalie Reed exposed the degree to which misogyny dominates the New Atheist movement. McCreight quoted a prominent atheist's reply to a woman critic. "I will make you a rape victim if you don't gently caress off... I think we should give the guy who raped you a medal. I hope you loving drown in rape semen, you ugly, mean-spirited cow� Is that kind of like the way that rapists dick went in your pussy? Or did he use your rear end in a top hat� I'm going to rape you with my fist."

A high-profile example of leftist invective was delivered by MSNBC's Martin Bashir in late 2013. Bashir said, on air and in a rehearsed performance, not as part of a moment's loss of control, something so vile about Sarah Palin that I won't repeat it here. Extreme as it is, Bashir's comment is fairly representative of a good percentage of what I read on left-wing websites.

I could say as much about a truly frightening phenomenon, left-wing anti-Semitism, but I'll leave the topic to others better qualified. I can say that when I first encountered it, at a PLO fundraising party in Marin County, I felt as if I had time-traveled to pre-war Berlin.

I needed to leave the left, I realized, when I decided that I wanted to spend time with people building, cultivating, and establishing, something that they loved.

Quite a bit of projection and STDH in there.

# ? Jul 23, 2014 12:34

ProperGanderPusher: Jan 13, 2012

I was just about to post that.

It's funny how he brings up What's the Matter With Kansas?. The book basically says that poor Americans are often swayed by culture war bullshit, namely the narrative of honest God-fearing, hard-working, home-owning folks vs. godless, effete, elitist academics and lazy urban poors. In other words, the book denounces exactly the attitude the author is espousing.

There's also a lot of "a few leftists I knew were dicks so gently caress left-wing politics" sentiment there as well.

# ? Jul 25, 2014 01:00

Pththya-lyi: Nov 8, 2009; THUNDERDOME LOSER 2020

Missionaries of Charity is very religiously conservative - extremely ascetic, very much against birth control, etc. They believe that suffering is a blessing from God and that's why you should only do the bare minimum to help the poor. MoC can't really be compared with secular liberal organizations.

# ? Jul 25, 2014 01:25

Ghost of Reagan Past: Oct 7, 2003; rock and roll fun

ArchRanger posted:

Spotted this in the wild today. Ten Reasons I Am No Longer A Leftist

Quite a bit of projection and STDH in there.

There's so much great stuff there it's hard to pick out the best parts.

quote:

How far left was I? So far left my beloved uncle was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party in a Communist country. When I returned to his Slovak village to buy him a mass card, the priest refused to sell me one. So far left that a self-identified terrorist proposed marriage to me. So far left I was a two-time Peace Corps volunteer and I have a degree from UC Berkeley. So far left that my Teamster mother used to tell anyone who would listen that she voted for Gus Hall, Communist Party chairman, for president. I wore a button saying "Eat the Rich." To me it wasn't a metaphor.

In this we learn that leftism is carried in the blood, terrorists propose to leftists, everyone who does Peace Corps is a loving commie mutant traitor, every single person who goes to Berkeley is a leftist, leftism is carried in the blood, and a button labeled "Eat the Rich" makes you a leftist!

quote:

I was a graduate student. Female genital mutilation came up in class. I stated, without ornamentation, that it is wrong.

A fellow graduate student, one who was fully funded and is now a comfortably tenured professor, sneered at me. "You are so intolerant. Clitoredectomy is just another culture's rite of passage. You Catholics have confirmation."

Apparently all academics and leftists are relativists!
Apparently Democrats are leftists! (never mind that anyone who self-identified with far-left politics would never, ever call Democrats leftists)

I could go on. But I won't.

# ? Jul 25, 2014 01:43

Pththya-lyi: Nov 8, 2009; THUNDERDOME LOSER 2020

quote:

I wore a button saying "Eat the Rich." To me it wasn't a metaphor.

I missed this part. This guy's saying he literally wanted to eat the rich. As in kill them, carve them up, cook them, put them in his mouth, chew and swallow them. Being a liberal means wanting to be a cannibal.

# ? Jul 25, 2014 01:48

MaxxBot: Oct 6, 2003; you could have clapped

you should have clapped!!

I love how as opposed to trying to make that article somewhat believable that this guy is a former liberal he has to go straight to LIBERALS ARE NAZIS, they just can't hold back.

# ? Jul 25, 2014 05:28

Mr Interweb: Aug 25, 2004

Wait, we support the idea of female genital mutilation now?

I really have to start having better attendance at those meetings.

# ? Jul 25, 2014 06:12

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

It's just a wordier version of the tools that call up CSPAN to say "I used to be a Democrat but after [Democrat politician] voted for [thing that democrats have historically been for] I will NEVER VOTE FOR THEM AGAIN!" I don't know who that's supposed to fool; even when I was drinking the conservative kool-aide in high school I knew that was bullshit.

Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 14:12 on Jul 25, 2014

# ? Jul 25, 2014 14:09

Zeroisanumber: Oct 23, 2010; Nap Ghost

Pththya-lyi posted:

I missed this part. This guy's saying he literally wanted to eat the rich. As in kill them, carve them up, cook them, put them in his mouth, chew and swallow them. Being a liberal means wanting to be a cannibal.

I'm not going to say that it's a good idea, but I am going to point out that we haven't tried it yet and we shouldn't just reject an idea without at least giving it a whirl.

Mr Interweb posted:

Wait, we support the idea of female genital mutilation now?

I really have to start having better attendance at those meetings.

He's mad that we're not freaking out about what barbarians all Muslims are 24/7.

# ? Jul 25, 2014 15:35

TLM3101: Sep 8, 2010

Zeroisanumber posted:

I'm not going to say that it's a good idea, but I am going to point out that we haven't tried it yet and we shouldn't just reject an idea without at least giving it a whirl.

Far, far too much fat and not enough meat on them, I suspect. Also, the population is too limited to actually serve as a proper food-source. On the other hand, chasing after them wearing the traditional english fox-hunting garb would serve as entertainment, at least.

Zeroisanumber posted:

He's mad that we're not freaking out about what barbarians all Muslims are 24/7.

It's also not a practice limited to Muslims. FGM has been around, as best we can tell, since the time of the Pharaos, and it's being practiced not as an exclusively religious ceremony ( though it clearly has been integrated into the religion ), but as an ethnic/cultural ceremony:

Wikipedia posted:

Practitioners see the rituals as reinforcing community values and ethnic boundaries, and the procedure as an essential element in raising a girl.[78] Mackie compares FGM to footbinding, which was outlawed in China in 1911; he writes that, like FGM, footbinding was an ethnic marker carried out on young girls, was nearly universal where practised, controlled sexual access to women, was tied to ideas about honour, appropriate marriage, health, fertility and aesthetics, was supposed to enhance male sexual pleasure, and was supported by the women themselves.
[...]
FGM has also been practised by Christian groups, including the Copts in Egypt and Sudan; the Coptic Orthodox Church opposes FGM.[107] The only Jewish group known to have practised it are the Beta Israel of Ethiopia; Judaism requires male circumcision, but does not allow FGM.[108]

Link to full article here

So, yeah. This one is not about Muslims being barbarians, it's about an ancient ( and barbaric ) cultural practice that we should all do our level best at stamping out, and the charge to do just that has been led mostly by... Leftists. The whole thing reads like massive STDH, but this particular instance is so over the top that it really is impossible to take seriously.

TLM3101 fucked around with this message at 11:01 on Jul 30, 2014

# ? Jul 30, 2014 10:44

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

I just want to point out that the author of that giant piece of bullshit is female.

Hints include the name of the author, the story about a terrorist proposing and the focus on women's issues such as female genital mutilation, rape and women in high positions.

Seriously though, it's a great checklist of bullshit anti-leftist rhetoric.

Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 15:59 on Jul 30, 2014

# ? Jul 30, 2014 15:57

A Fancy 400 lbs: Jul 24, 2008

The thing about FGM isn't that it's good, it's that it's bad when people try to bring it up as an Islamic thing and use it to smear Muslims and then ignore it when it's done by Christians/Jews/Animists/etc. It should be condemned, but it should be condemned in full and because of it's own merits, not just because "Some Muslims do it and I don't like Muslims".

# ? Jul 30, 2014 19:13

thefncrow: Mar 14, 2001

The Times of Israel contributes a serious entry in the category of terrible opinion pieces with When Genocide is Permissible. It's a link to a mirror of the piece, since they pulled the piece down after initial publication.

# ? Aug 1, 2014 17:22

Pththya-lyi: Nov 8, 2009; THUNDERDOME LOSER 2020

thefncrow posted:

The Times of Israel contributes a serious entry in the category of terrible opinion pieces with When Genocide is Permissible. It's a link to a mirror of the piece, since they pulled the piece down after initial publication.

quote:

Most of the reports coming from Gazan officials and leaders since the start of this operation have been either largely exaggerated or patently false. The truth is, it�s not their fault, falsehood and deceit is part of the very fabric of who they are and that will never change.

quote:

Obama and Kerry have clearly stated that no one could be expected to sit idle as thousands of rockets rain down on the heads of its citizens, placing them in clear and present danger.

# ? Aug 2, 2014 01:27

Teriyaki Hairpiece: Dec 29, 2006; I'm nae the voice o' the darkened thistle, but th' darkened thistle cannae bear the sight o' our Bonnie Prince Bernie nae mair.

I get such a serious :godwinning:

vibe from this letter, I'm not even 100% sure it's real.

quote:

Wasn't it nice our president came to Delaware to inspect the bridge reconstruction? It appears the other "major" issues within our country take second precedence. And what about the issue of allowing a number of the illegal immigration of children to be housed in Delaware? These immigrants are bringing lice and diseases into our country. Of course, this will end up being the U.S. taxpayers' responsibility to pay for all of this. When are our government officials going to wake up and set the proper priorities?

Patricia Scott

Newark

Emphasis mine.

# ? Aug 3, 2014 19:07

rkajdi: Sep 11, 2001; by LITERALLY AN ADMIN

cheerfullydrab posted:

I get such a serious vibe from this letter, I'm not even 100% sure it's real.

Emphasis mine.

That stuff is a Drudge talking/article titling point, so that's where I'd expect he got it from. It still is hella creepy however.

# ? Aug 3, 2014 19:11

Zeroisanumber: Oct 23, 2010; Nap Ghost

cheerfullydrab posted:

I get such a serious vibe from this letter, I'm not even 100% sure it's real.

Emphasis mine.

That's not :godwin:

at all, that's good-old all-American nativism. That whole "immigrants are foreign and probably bring disease! :ohdear:

" thing has been around since before George Washington's time.

# ? Aug 3, 2014 20:22

Berke Negri: Feb 15, 2012; Les Ricains tuent et moi je mue
Mao Mao
Les fous sont rois et moi je bois
Mao Mao
Les bombes tonnent et moi je sonne
Mao Mao
Les bebes fuient et moi je fuis
Mao Mao

Zeroisanumber posted:

That's not at all, that's good-old all-American nativism. That whole "immigrants are foreign and probably bring disease! " thing has been around since before George Washington's time.

Yeah, it isn't a new thing:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5176177

# ? Aug 3, 2014 21:08

Teriyaki Hairpiece: Dec 29, 2006; I'm nae the voice o' the darkened thistle, but th' darkened thistle cannae bear the sight o' our Bonnie Prince Bernie nae mair.

Zeroisanumber posted:

That's not at all, that's good-old all-American nativism. That whole "immigrants are foreign and probably bring disease! " thing has been around since before George Washington's time.

What made it :godwinning:

to me was specifically the mention of lice. Something about that made it stand out to me.

# ? Aug 3, 2014 23:19

TheGrizzle: Jul 3, 2007

thefncrow posted:

The Times of Israel contributes a serious entry in the category of terrible opinion pieces with When Genocide is Permissible. It's a link to a mirror of the piece, since they pulled the piece down after initial publication.

And along comes David Horowitz to ~~engage in damage control~~ conscientiously object to the despicable content.

# ? Aug 5, 2014 12:54

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Does somebody wanna help me out with this? I promise I am not trying to police sexuality but as far as I know words are supposed to have meaning.

quote:

I�m a lesbian marrying a man

Friends don't understand: My sexual orientation never changed. I simply fell in love with a very unexpected person

I was in a bar in Chicago when I told a close friend of 20 years that, despite being a lesbian, I was marrying a man. My friend and I hadn�t seen each other in a while, but we fell back quickly into our old intimacy � those long, rambling conversations we used to have in coffee shops all over Minneapolis. When the subject shifted to an activist group she was part of, I said I�d be glad to help, if they needed a lesbian on their board. She laughed, dismissively. �You can�t call yourself that anymore.�

Of all the weird reactions I�d gotten to my engagement, that one pissed me off most.

I had not been not surprised when my fianc�s friends � Washington insiders with the respect for convention that city inspires � expressed shock when they discovered I was a dyke. We came from different worlds; with my long brunette hair and short skirts, I hadn�t read as queer to them. But no one had presumed to relabel me, to retrofit me to their categories � at least, not to my face.

But here was my fabulous Portland pal, trying to claim me for the Bi-Het team (which sounded like a synagogue rather than a sexual identity, and certainly not my own). She wasn�t the only one: An ex-girlfriend and a sophisticated poet cousin said the same thing, as if my lesbian license had been revoked.

So let me be clear, since I can�t be the only one: I am a lesbian marrying a man.

This is not semantics, or splitting hairs; it is fundamental to who we are � my fianc� and I. Immutable as height or eye color.

Call it a kind of intermarriage. I am 5-foot-9, brunette, lesbian, that won�t alter because of our vows; nor will my love of women, though I won�t be dating them. If either of us had to pretend otherwise, I wouldn�t be marrying this man. It is precisely because our love makes room for us to be who we are, rather than cutting us to fit convention, that I want to spend my life with him.

One of the things I cherished about coming out as a lesbian years ago was the wonderful sense I had that I was leaving behind received forms of love, those that seemed to have disappointed my parents and friends. We were free to invent our own, something authentic, not roles we shrugged on like a borrowed coat.

Still, I can�t blame those I love for trying to recast me in more familiar terms � as bisexual or straight. I�ve done the same sort of mislabeling myself. I did this with the man I love when we first met.

* * *

When I first sat down beside the man I would marry, I thought, �Too many sport coats, too little hair.� It was ungallant of me, a glib assessment, born of a writerly habit of sizing up characters. I didn�t recognize this habit as defensive, a way of trying to contain what was foreign to me, what might unsettle my world.

My world, if I�d had to sum it up then, was composed of lesbian activists and writers, with a smattering of hip-ish academics at the university in D.C. where I taught then. People in my world subscribed to the Nation and the New York Review of Books, and understood that a reference to the Times always means New York�s. People in my world did not wear sport coats (except perhaps ironically to a �Mad Men� party).

But there was something about this guy that I liked, despite my initial reflexive dismissal. Sitting next to him, I understood for the first time the term �take a cotton to.� I felt as if the fibers of my body were stretching toward him, affectionately, or like iron filings toward a magnet. As he will later tell the story, we�d come to meet other people, but in the crowded wood-paneled lounge we�d ended up next to each other, sharing a drink.

Over that drink, I learned he had been a graduate student in New Haven when I was an undergraduate there. In those days, he had recently returned from the Peace Corps in the Solomon Islands and North Africa, while I was slowly, painfully coming out, finding my way from an economics major to books. We talked about languages we speak � Arabic, Portuguese, pidgin, lousy French � and Shakespeare plays we love, of which he could quote an impressive amount. He told me about early navigation by stars, about having been a race-car mechanic at Monaco, climbing the world�s tallest mountains, his former work with NASA, his current work with a commercial space company charged with being the garbage collectors of the International Space Station, delivering underwear and chocolate bars to the space station and picking up its trash.

Through it all, I found it hard to look at him: The wonderful smell of this man made me want to laugh out loud with pleasure, as did the lovely, slightly mannered, slightly pompous way he spoke (so like my own slightly mannered, slightly pompous speech). And I recognized in that delight, to my great surprise, desire. Later, I will realize that he looks a great deal like my first girlfriend (who looked a great deal like the writer Peter Matthiessen � slender, weathered face, salt and pepper hair) and my last cat (the same green eyes and self-satisfied smile). But when the drink was done, I left without looking back, without imagining anything could come of this.

In fact, we fell in love � through email and a series of long phone conversations and occasional dates over several months, but we were slow to introduce each other to our friends, worried about how they would take news of us.

His friends are mostly astronauts, charmingly cheerful guys, who seem to be straining to seem like ordinary guys, when in fact they have done truly extraordinary things: They have left the loving planet; they have orbited the earth. When they hear that I am a writer, they are kindly enthusiastic and look up my work online. Then, one by one, the men come to my fianc� and say, with evident concern, �Do you know that she�s a lesbian?� �Yup,� he says. �I know.� Their wives are a little less friendly after that, but they are scrupulously polite.

My cosmopolitan, artist friends are no less shocked. �Wow, when a lesbian falls off the wagon, she really falls off the wagon,� my friend Deirdre says. She was raised in Beirut, has lived and taught all over the world with her Japanese-American husband. But she is clearly a little shocked by our decision to marry. (�We want to get a divorce,� she says of the husband she adores, �so we can go back to being lovers.� They married for the sake of immigration ease but object on principle to the state�s interference in private lives).

Deirdre affectionately calls my fianc� Hem, short for Hemingway, because he is tall and built and owns a rifle and has hunted lion in Africa and has climbed most of the big mountains in the world and builds rockets for a living and a hobby. He is a sort of Freudian projection of a man, and I am a lesbian.

* * *

So why does the label matter? Why care about terms?

Because I learned long ago that it corrodes a life to lie about who you are.

I know plenty of people who identify as bisexual; I am not. The term simply doesn�t apply. I am not, as a rule, attracted to men. I simply fell in love with this person and didn�t hold his gender against him. That won�t change because of our vows, any more than my eye color will. My fundamental coordinates are unaltered.

Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire explains it better than I can: He scoffs at the idea that the Church of England may consecrate gay priests as long as they�re celibate, not actively gay. �At what point is it gay?� he asks. Are two men holding hands gay? What about two men sharing a bedroom with twin beds?

His point is that it is absurd to imagine a demarcation point for gayness � because it misunderstands the nature of being gay or lesbian.

�Gay is not something we do,� Robinson says, �it�s something we are.� It is not about whether you �practice� (though that makes perfect!), or whether you have a partner, or what you do with that partner, or even that partner�s gender (as any gay person trapped in a het marriage knows). It is about who you are, how you experience the world, the eyes you look through, the skin you�re in.

Queer people have understood this for years: For many of us, long before we �came out� as gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender, long before we had a partner to mirror back to us love and chosen identity, we had to choose ourselves. We had to consciously decide who we were and embrace it, aware that we experienced the world in a manner often at odds with the dominant culture, our lives informed by desires different from what we�re told ours should be. That doesn�t change because a partner does.

It�s the difference between a life judged by external versus internal criteria: Who I am internally has not changed, any more than it would have if I had married a woman. What matters are the eyes we see through, not how we are seen.

It isn�t easy coming out, as sad stats on queer-teen suicide and anti-gay violence attest. I tried to avoid coming out for years before realizing I�d not survive; coming out was coming into myself. To pretend I�m straight or bi- would be a lie against who I�ve been, and am.

There are plenty of compromises one must make in a relationship, but compromising who you are fundamentally is not one of them. For me, that�s non-negotiable. Love changes us, but when it�s good, it makes us more fully who we are, not less; it challenges expectations, disburdens us of constraints, to reveal a love that dares speak its name even if it is hard to sum up.

I�ve been changed by this love: I am calmer, fatter, pregnant. But my fundamental coordinates have not changed. It is precisely because our love makes room for us to be who we are, rather than cutting us to fit convention, that I want to spend my life with him, as I�ll affirm when we stand before the rabbi and say, I do.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 02:32

cafel: Mar 29, 2010; This post is hurting the economy!

As a person of mixed race I can understand wanting to pick your own labels even if they're are ones that 'fit' better and getting upset when people try to define you for yourself. On the other hand she kind of seems to be missing the point that people go through major changes through out their life and that you sometimes you shouldn't be overly invested in the labels you've built up for yourself. I wouldn't call it terrible though, maybe unnecessary.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 02:42

The Macaroni: Dec 20, 2002; ...it does nothing.

Amazingly terrible comments on an article in one of my old hometown's newspapers. The article discusses restaurants that offer discounts to patron who publicly pray before their meals and whether that runs afoul of Federal laws. (Spoiler: oftentimes it does, though one restaurant charmingly extended their discount to atheists who presented evidence of having attended an "atheists' gathering" in lieu of a church bulletin.)

Most of the comments are of the libertarian "let 'em discriminate and the market will sort it out" variety, but one comment in particular stood out, responding to a comment that rightly pointed out the similarities to Jim Crow laws:

quote:

jskains
Orem, UT
@cocosweet There are too many assumptions for your statement to be absolutely true. It was "mommy" government who created the problems in the first place. It was "mommy" government that wrote the Jim Crow laws. So perhaps if government had stayed out of it in the first place, we'd be a lot further along in the race relations area than we are now. Often "bigotry" and "ignorance" work themselves out naturally in a much faster way than government playing social engineer.

That's right, Southern whites lived in loving harmony with blacks all the way up until that nasty "mommy" government wrote Jim Crow laws and tore the two groups apart. :psyduck:

# ? Aug 6, 2014 19:11

Pope Guilty: Nov 6, 2006; The human animal is a beautiful and terrible creature, capable of limitless compassion and unfathomable cruelty.

A discount for praying publicly? Can I get one for telling poor people that they have to sit on the floor, too? Since that's another thing Jesus explicitly said not to do.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 21:32

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

SedanChair posted:

Does somebody wanna help me out with this?

It's not that hard: if you get gay enough, you loop back around and begin loving the opposite sex.

The same thing happens with straights, just check out any frat or military barracks. Get too straight and you'll find yourself sucking dick. It's like a law of nature: one day you're a proud, manly-man Prussian general, shooting and riding and camping with the boys, disdaining women and throwing off femininizing influences in society, worshiping the masculine ideal of brotherhood, the strong manly form, and then oh poo poo.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 22:24

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

VitalSigns posted:

It's not that hard: if you get gay enough, you loop back around and begin loving the opposite sex.

I know you are kidding but I wish it was that easy.

SedanChair posted:

Does somebody wanna help me out with this? I promise I am not trying to police sexuality but as far as I know words are supposed to have meaning.

Think Kinsey scale. She might be considered a 1.0001 (or 5.9999 I forget the direction it goes). She just found the exception to her general rule. That said

cafel posted:

you shouldn't be overly invested in the labels you've built up for yourself. I wouldn't call it terrible though, maybe unnecessary.

I'd say this fits. If she continues to run around for the rest of her life going "BUT IM A LESBIAN EVEN THOUGH IM IN AN EXCLUSIVE MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIP WITH THIS MAN" it would be weird and probably obnoxious for everyone around her. But for whats most likely happening for her right now, if you've seen Chasing Amy think about the scene where she tells her lesbian friends that she is dating a man and how they react. She's may be getting a lot of outrage and maybe even accusations of deceit or betrayal from people around her, so it could be important for her to take this stand.

# ? Aug 6, 2014 23:29

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Nevvy Z posted:

I know you are kidding but I wish it was that easy.

Think Kinsey scale. She might be considered a 1.0001 (or 5.9999 I forget the direction it goes). She just found the exception to her general rule. That said

5.999 is correct

# ? Aug 7, 2014 00:02

Badger of Basra: Jul 26, 2007

VitalSigns posted:

5.999 is correct

Weird how 2 looks the gayest out of all of them.

# ? Aug 7, 2014 03:39

Centripetal Horse: Nov 22, 2009; Fuck money, get GBS

This could have bought you a half a tank of gas, lmfao -
Love, gromdul

VitalSigns posted:

5.999 is correct

So, is the inverse relationship between homosexuality and amount of clothing worn part of their data? It doesn't seem to be labeled.

# ? Aug 7, 2014 04:13

ponzicar: Mar 17, 2008

Shouldn't the guy on the left be embracing a woman, and the guy in the middle have one arm around a woman, and his other around a man?

# ? Aug 7, 2014 04:33

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

ponzicar posted:

Shouldn't the guy on the left be embracing a woman, and the guy in the middle have one arm around a woman, and his other around a man?

I think it's meant to bait homophobes, so no.

# ? Aug 7, 2014 04:35

My Q-Face: Jul 8, 2002; A dumb racist who need to kill themselves

ArchRanger posted:

Quite a bit of projection and STDH in there.

quote:

After all, Professor X reminded us, handicapped people can't climb stairs.

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ? Aug 19, 2014 18:36

botany: Apr 27, 2013; by Lowtax

SedanChair posted:

Does somebody wanna help me out with this? I promise I am not trying to police sexuality but as far as I know words are supposed to have meaning.

So I take it you've never heard about gay men marrying women before or what? Also meaning is use, etc. etc.

# ? Aug 19, 2014 22:07

Nathilus: Apr 4, 2002; I alone can see through the media bias.

I'm also stupid on a scale that can only be measured in Reddits.

I don't object to that lady calling herself a lesbian. I'd probably feel the same way about calling myself bi if some dude happened to worm his way into my heart and pants. At some point you have to be self-aware enough to realize that such a situation starts sounding like really bad fic material though!

# ? Aug 20, 2014 01:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 19, 2024 05:38

Valhawk: Dec 15, 2007; EXCEED CHARGE

This op-ed made me sick with disgust. If you ever wanted to watch a cop shameless lift the logic of a spousal abuser in the pages of the Washington Post, Sunil Dutta of the LAPD is here to provide.

I mean Jesus Christ, all it needs is some racial slurs and a tank and it'd be everything wrong with modern policing.

# ? Aug 20, 2014 19:28

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

«‹›106 »