-
Posts
679 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Posts posted by TurkeyChew
-
-
41 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:
And the community has told this guy to fuck off multiple times, but for some reason, you're not only not OK with that, but have actually taken action to protect him. Why?
By “community” do you mean the handful of people who stalk me and follow me around to neg me because they disagree with me? Why do a handful of mediocre posters with nothing but time on their hands and sad feelings because they disagree with me constitute a community?
Also I’m not trolling and never have. I believe 100% in everything I’ve ever said or posted and I don’t post to get lulz or whatever trolls post to get. Just because you disagree with me and I’m a mix of persistent and consistent, doesn’t mean it’s a troll job.
Lastly to the point I’ve been permabanned legitimely and just keep coming back— each it’s been a banning because someone like you would follow my post history back and spend literally a lunch hour, to neg me because they don’t like me or my takes. The better option if you are so thin skinned and emotionally unstable is the ignore button.
TL:DR, I’m not a troll and neg stalking back so far that you are negging innocuous movie review posts because you got your feelings hurt in a CR discussion, is trolling.
And yea I’ll admit being called a moron by immamac did sting a little bit.
- 3
-
16 minutes ago, Captainant said:
So you don't really care about the policy, and actually don't want people to be criminalized (but othered is just fine?)...
BUT!
You really like the policy's architect, RD, and want his ideas to grow outside of Florida to the rest of the nation.
Do you not see how these concurrent positions are inherently in conflict? You're either lying to yourself or lying to us. But it sure as fuck seems like trolling to me.
You're using the same shitty argument strategy as Jordan Peterson and Anastasis. You make broad statement after broad statement, and when someone tries to summarize those broad statements into a specific position on an issue, draw back into victimization with "well I never said THAT!" and continue your trolling.
We’ve conversed on her enough that you should know I never run or hide from direct questions. Instead of broadly assuming, or worse yet your favorite rhetoric trick of hyperbolizing and extrapolating to extreme and absurd equivalencies, you can simply ask if you need clarification.
That said, one can like a politician and not be in love with everything that politician does. There is room to disagree, and in varying degrees. The opposite which you seem to think is the ideal, that if one supports a politician then they must support them fully and ride or die, is part of what is wrong with American politics today.
I don’t like this as policy, I think it’s overreach and mostly not necessary. I also think there should be a more of an elegant solution if you are going to make a law— one that attempts to not other or criminalize.
I said this a few pages ago, but at this point I believe this to be a purely political. It’s the dark, underbelly of politics that democrats decry the republicans are adept at and democrats don’t know how to play. This is a complete non-issue that has now been whipped up into a frenzy to both a) nip a burgeoning minority momentum in the bud before it realizes any power and influence and b) have Florida GOP and people create their own swarm of momentum and political fuel. It all feels like it was cut and paste from the CRT play of taking a non-issue and building votes around it.
- 1
-
1 minute ago, Immaculate Vibes said:
You act like you have no kids. You’ve never had a situation where you didn’t have time or didn’t feel like explaining something novel to a small child?
Everybody’s family is different, Johnny. Now everybody get their notebooks out.
No big deal. Move on.
You’re not dismissing it. You’re not validating it. If Johnny wants to ask his parents at home about it, he will.
The teacher won’t cry themselves to sleep at night because they didn’t get explain two dads to Johnny. And little Emma that has two moms will not feel unsafe. There’s a middle ground that respects parents’ wishes.
Exactly!
-
7 minutes ago, Captainant said:
It's my position that you have very helpfully illustrated the paradox of tolerance here. You hold an inherently intolerable position of "people deserve to be criminalized and made other on the basis of their sexuality".
The same rhetoric strategy of using tolerance as a shield and weapon against progressive policy and ideals is as old as fascism.
I never stated my position as you have it characterized here. You’ve inferred that from my posts, but that’s not the case. I don’t believe people should be made other or criminalized based on their sexuality.
At worst, I empathize with those parents who don’t want their children exposed to same sex conversations/families/books/whatever at a super young age and who can’t afford private school, but also don’t want to other or criminalize those folks either. At best, I actually don’t care what is going on in Florida at the public school level because I don’t live there (yet). I came to this thread because I like RD and would want him to be a Republican nominee in 2024 and actually joined the discussion mid-conversation when it was heated which is probably the source of a lot of confusion for everyone.
- 1
-
-
1 minute ago, cactusflinthead said:
Try dissenting in a game day thread. Pick a sport.
GTFO
Do you see what you are saying here?
- 6
-
12 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:
negs without merit? You earned every one of them. There was nothing random about it. I read every one of your self righteous, pontificating, sanctimonious posts.
You have chosen to continually troll and shit all over threads.
I don’t know what half those words mean as it relates to me, but if you really have read every one of my posts you’d see they follow the same themes and POVs and I don’t waffle or troll. I’m earnest in my beliefs and stances (and thus posts) and because they fly in the other direction than most of you people, most of the time, doesn’t mean they are troll posts. What it means is there is an intolerance for specific beliefs that are a minority in these threads, yet represent a sizable population in America and are even the majority in certain population groups and communities.
It’s my position that a minority or dissenting POV and opinion should be tolerated, if truthfully held and respectfully given. It can only help the discussion, right? What’s it hurt you? You have to read something you disagree with?
- 1
-
4 minutes ago, Captainant said:
Wait but really @hayden_horn and @immamac what's going on with Chrispy/Donkey/Turkey's rep? He's got 495 rep on a total of -136 points lol
I’m guessing it has something to do with correcting an abuse by a handful of people who are trying to neg me to Bolivia for simply presenting, in a respectful and non-troll way, a different point of view and position. Also probably because those people have been warned and yet decided to continue to neg random posts indiscriminately and regardless of post content, context or merit (and on random threads in the movie or help me forums). I guess a lot of you don’t realize that’s actually against the rules of this site. Just a guess.
Start a thread on board discussion though, this is not the place for it.
- 11
-
3 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:
If you weren't on your fourth or fifth sock I would ask if you were new here. Alas.
As I stated before, the Florida bill does not specify what "classroom instruction" is. That leaves it open to parental interpretation and a lawsuit. A lawsuit that is mediated by an appointed special investigator. A teacher does not have to have a lesson plan on sexual _______, to have a parent decide 'they' know best about how to define 'classroom instruction.' After all, 'they' know what 'socialism' and 'CRT' are, right? Right?
It's Florida. Nothing could possibly go wrong there.
New here or not, personally attacking someone’s family or how they reasonably choose to raise their family is horribly unjustified, but especially as a retort in a discussion or debate about subjective values and politics. That poster didn’t deserve that IMO, and if anyone were to have responded in-kind to say, ‘Stache when he posted his family experience, it wouldn’t have been waved away as “oh we are just a bunch of scallywags on this site, is this your first day?”
-
2 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:
Condolences to your kids. It must suck to have someone like you as a parent. I feel sorry for them.
That feels like such an out of bounds, personal statement. Wow.
- 1
-
8 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:
Don't take it personally, but I neg all of your posts immediately without reading because you've already been crowdsourced and came back with a new username and I neg everyone like that. But if I bothered to read your posts, I'd probably neg them anyways, because you're a pathetic hateful shitstain, and you can take that personally if you'd like. Also, go fuck yourself.
Thanks for admitting it; post reported.
- 18
-
I see the usual suspects who follow me around and harass and neg every post, despite being warned, are out tonight trying to neg every bit of a discussion on this thread that doesn't explicitly fall into the "wow this is so horrible and we should be outraged by it" opinion category.
- 1
- 21
-
Just now, hobbes2702 said:
What is this gibberish
A response to this definitive-in-your-own-mind opinion you posted: “We are on societies moral compass. That’s how public services work.”
- 1
- 3
-
4 minutes ago, 'stache said:
The point that was being made is that these aren't divisive topics until your side makes them divisive, and they do so intentionally and with horrid intent. Worse of all, that they outright lie to create non-existent problems that they use to divide. That's the fucking problem.
I see your point— that’s just ugly dirty politics. It’s getting out front of an issue and killing it before it’s bloomed or making a mountain out of a molehill for political momentum. It’s everything the Dems hate about their own politicians who never play the game and get dirty politically, when you read these sites where Dems are down on their own, etc.
The CRT non-issue is another lighthouse example of that political gambit at work.
- 1
- 5
-
2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:
That’s the point. Neither needs to be normalized. Only one side is full of adults acting like babies about it. You basically want one group of people to give up their rights so snowflakes won’t be uncomfortable. Fuck that and fuck you for being their apologist
The truth is I don’t particularly care one way or another actually, as long as substitutes exist (e.g. private school, home school). I think it should be personal choice and freedom.
You want to have a 10 year old with the experience that ‘stache shared? Great! Go for it!
That experience doesn’t sound appealing for your offspring? Great, go for it in a different direction.
Freedom to choose is what makes us great.
- 1
- 5
-
2 minutes ago, 'stache said:
Sure. "Webster's defines divisive as..."
Keen insight there.
You must have missed where someone asked to explain how the word divisive worked in the sentence.
- 1
- 3
-
45 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:
We are on societies moral compass. That’s how public services work. Societies mora compass shouldn’t demonize people for not being “normal”. Which is what you are trying to do. So again what is the problem with normalizing queer folk?
I disagree with your premise: public services are not societies moral compass services arm. They serve at the pleasure of the constituency.
- 1
- 4
-
1 minute ago, 'stache said:
It's made divisive by people who want it to be divisive. In this case, republican state legislatures and governors who are lying about fake problems concerning race and gender and public schools and making laws to address these fake problems.
That’s fair and I agree and be that as it may, it’s still divisive (as you seem to agree).
- 1
- 5
-
24 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:
Public school was ok before one side decided to culture war the fuck out of every fucking thing.
I think it was okay until the internet and the (inherently problematic, racist, and misogynistic) shared American fabric and aesthetic broke, which is argued was for the better. But now we have so many more fiefdoms and interests to please which is an impossible task as you can’t please everybody.
- 6
-
3 minutes ago, Foosters said:
Why are you so committed to arguing in favor of a bill that you so clearly detest?
Have I done this? I don’t think so. Show me a post.
-
1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:
What would be the problem in normalizing non heterosexual relationships/people?
Just like normalizing hetero relationships; there are no inherent problems, unless they conflict with your value and belief system. I think it's for each person to decide on their own; you and I are not and should not be anyone else's moral compass. And certainly public school should not be where people look for moral or spiritual development.
- 1
- 11
-
23 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:
Yeah you absolutely are carrying water for this argument, even in this post.
A committed homosexual relationship is not the “opposite“ of a committed heterosexual relationship. Looking at it that way is wrong and is the basis for how something as simple as a loving family being portrayed can become “divisive“. Use your fucking brain and don’t buy into this theocratic bullshit.
Disagree, respectfully of course.
- 5
-
Just now, Sawbonz said:
Fuck every last bit of that
Fair enough; I'm not carrying water for it in this conversation with you. You asked the question and I did my best to answer it.
Does showing heterosexual man/woman wife/husband books to kindergartners normalize heterosex? Yes. Of course.
Would showing same sex couples to kindergartners normalize the opposite? Sure, it seems to stand to follow.
- 1
- 3
-
1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:
Why is anything that strays from a conservative snowflake’s normative worldview considered “divisive?”
I’ll hang up and listen
It's literally divisive because any change is going to be a form of conflict. You can't have change without conflict, whether it be direct or indirect.
Let's look at this logically because when I say divisive, I don't attach a negative or positive value to that word:
- Because American society as we know it was dictated by the white, heterosexual man for the white heterosexual man hundreds of years ago, we can assume the conservative snowflake normative worldview is the beginning of the conversation. You can call it foundational or even fundamentally ground zero. Hence "Fundamentalists", even.
- Anything that "strays" from this, regardless of whether it's good progress or bad, would then be naturally divisive. You are dividing the way people feel about their resources and institutions via attention, time, emotions, desires, fears, etc.
- 2
I need a scorecard for socks
in Please do this better?
Posted · Edited by TurkeyChew
That’s just not accurate. If you pulled like a tableau report or something you’d find that 80% of the negs are from 20% of the posters. The exact reason why we have an ignore function. If you (the general you) are so emotionally compromised that my handle triggers you from past conversations and you just have to neg everything that gets said, ignore is the best thing for you, me, the community, etc.
A handful of weirdos spending their lunch hours from the factory floor and their breaks in the teachers lounge to go back and neg posts in the CYHM and Movies and Music forums because I dare exist and have contradictory opinions and point of views that I want heard— most of the time knowing legitimate discussion that doesn’t conform to CR company line will be met with intolerance— does not a community ban make, is the point.
If you don’t want to hear them, ignore. Because the handle will stay the same and the ignore is a longer term solution than trying to be censorious and ban someone who will just come back because the banning was illegitimate.
Right?