itt a strange man asks if you saw the ass on that one

I think, contenderizer, the position most people are taking is that it's not fair to judge someone for something they may or may not be thinking, but it is absolutely okay to judge someone for what they do/say. (Your judgment may not be correct but the act itself is certainly within your right.)

see, to me, this reads like "if hes aware that his image is wrong, than his image is not wrong"

Completely OTM; what I think you're trying to say is "if he's aware his would be wrong to act on in his current context, then that's okay" which is, to varying degrees, what practically everyone else is saying; obviously if he meets someone who is both receptive to that line of thought and receptive to that line of thought coming from him, the context makes it okay to express it.

To use an extreme example, I think the German dude from a few years ago who put out an ad for someone to fuck, kill and eat is pretty disturbed but the guy who answered it was even more disturbed and, at the end of the day, they are adults I don't know and I never would have known about it had it not been a weird news story; as such, I think they were deeply fucked up and in need of help but I'm not convinced that they committed a crime.

O_O

― ice cr?m hand job (deej), Friday, December 4, 2009 10:00 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

And I think there's probably a difference between someone who is "consumed" by certain thoughts and one who just has them every now and then.

he was just checking out the ass on that one

xp

ok but if he IS consumed by them but doesn't do anything, we still can't judge him because they're just thoughts

To use an extreme example, I think the German dude from a few years ago who put out an ad for someone to fuck, kill and eat is pretty disturbed but the guy who answered it was even more disturbed and, at the end of the day, they are adults I don't know and I never would have known about it had it not been a weird news story; as such, I think they were deeply fucked up and in need of help but I'm not convinced that they committed a crime.

― Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Friday, December 4, 2009 12:03 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

wtfffffffffffff

what the fuck is wrong with you internet people

the position most people are taking is that it's not fair to judge someone for something they may or may not be thinking, but it is absolutely okay to judge someone for what they do/say. (Your judgment may not be correct but the act itself is certainly within your right.)

see, to me, this reads like "if hes aware that his image is wrong, than his image is not wrong"

Completely OTM; what I think you're trying to say is "if he's aware his would be wrong to act on in his current context, then that's okay" which is, to varying degrees, what practically everyone else is saying; obviously if he meets someone who is both receptive to that line of thought and receptive to that line of thought coming from him, the context makes it okay to express it.

― Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Friday, December 4, 2009 10:03 AM (52 seconds ago) Bookmark

otm! this is exactly what i was getting at. i'm not sure we see eye-to-eye 100%, because there still seems to be some perception of disagreement, but yeah, cosign.

the line i draw would wr2 consensual kink probably lies well to the south of mutual murder & cannibalism, but hey, that's just me...

yr asserting that ppl here think consensual kink = 'wrong' but no one here has said anything of the sort

well i did suggest flogging people is wrong but i wasn't aware contenderizer was talking about a consensual flogging

hey do u wanna come over sometime, maybe i could flog u?

pretty sure im just into thinking about flogging, not actually doing it -- that would be wrong

okay so "I'm not sure they committed a crime" is rhetorical overstatement, just so folks are clear; yes, I am aware they committed a crime

And I think there's probably a difference between someone who is "consumed" by certain thoughts and one who just has them every now and then.

― Nuyorican oatmeal (jaymc)

yeah, that's fair. i have a tendency to go for the maximum overstatement of whatever point i'm trying to make, as a sort of rhetorical device. like i wanna paint the situation in the starkest and most polarizing terms possible, in order to make the distinction i'm making stand out more clearly.

but it often causes more trouble than it's worth, polarization being polarizing, after all. example works just as well (and probably better) if we assume we're talking abouot someone who tends to bondage and dominance fantasies, rather than someone who is fiendishly "consumed" but them.

yr asserting that ppl here think consensual kink = 'wrong' but no one here has said anything of the sort

― ice cr?m hand job (deej), Friday, December 4, 2009 10:10 AM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

yeah how about when you said I was being puritanical for saying the people who never express racist or sexist thoughts who nevertheless go on and on about the right to have racist and sexist thoughts make me think they have a hell of a lot of racist and sexist thoughts

yeah how about when you said I was being puritanical for saying the people who never express racist or sexist thoughts who nevertheless go on and on about the right to have racist and sexist thoughts make me think they have a hell of a lot of racist and sexist thoughts

― Huckabee Jesus lifeline (HI DERE), Friday, December 4, 2009 10:18 AM (40 seconds ago) Bookmark

point is, that was bullshit. i shouldn't have accused you of/used you as an example of puritanism. my apologies.

we are opening up a whole can of worms with the question of s&m & kink & consent

is there a special word for "worm fetish"

yeah we are gonna run out of worm cans soon

hey, can you guys tell i'm unemployed?

a "duner"
a "wriggler"
"bait"

"night crawlers"

dirt chomper

he was just checking out the ass on that one

O_O
13

I'd google it but I'm sure there will be pictures.

Didn't work; move the eyes to the right half an inch.

      O_O
13

what is this?

oh it's a butt

@_@ 13

bah that works better in the other font

It's a butt on a "1".

that works better in the other font

lol - works pretty good in this one (console emulator stylesheet)

the idea that American culture has become LESS tolerant of "the voicing of troublesome thoughts" has me boggling. Is this some some type of "political correctness gone mad" argument? i mean, the needle has certainly moved on what is "troublesome" but UH.

yup, you got it! more technically, i argued that thought has moral content. i guess this is debatable -- if you think that "moral content" exists entirely-and-only in an effect on not-you, then no, thought has no moral content at all, good or bad. (everyone basically agrees that actions have moral content) but thinking, i believe, has an effect on you, and therefore eventually on others, in time. but this gets into philosophical and scientific territory where i'm not educated and i'm basically talking out of my ass anyway.

I am super down with this, in a lot of ways this is an issue of character w/r/t thoughts and reactions to people. Harsh, maybe, but that's what this boils down to in my view.

http://www.aces-cracked.net/forum/images/smiles/smiley_boobs.gif

which is the thing - there's this dumb-ass pop psych idea that any suppression is "bad for you."

^^^ This thread has gotten really interesting to me now!

cock boxing

okay, elmo. that statement got some eye rolls yesterday, too. and i don't know that i really have a good handle on what i'm trying to say, here - that's why i suggested that it maybe doesn't belong in this thread. but okay...

it seems to me that in the late 60s and 70s, american culture pushed itself to "open up" on an incredible number of fronts. though this coincided with an increasing sense that racism and sexism were intolerable, people were given a fair amount of license to "let it all hang out" (if you'll forgive the parlance), so long as it seemed their hearts were in the right place. i grew up in that culture, in what seems to me to have been a very permissive and tolerant culture in comparison with what emerged, probably in response, in the 1980s.

in the 80s, it seems to me, the exploratory permissiveness of liberal/progressive culture, having seemingly reached its apex, began to recede. mainstream liberals seemed to loose their interest in exploring the "frontiers of freedom (or whatever). this makes sense to me, as conservatives had gained the upper hand, both socially and politically, and a position of defensive retrenchment on the part of liberals was probably prudent (and inevitable besides).

one of the consequences of this was an increasing focus throughout the culture on defining the unacceptable in social discourse and zealously policing the boundaries. this seems very obvious to me (not that i'm necessarily correct about it), and it disappoints me sometimes, though i can certainly see the value in, say, actively condemning racist speech.

that in response to:

the idea that American culture has become LESS tolerant of "the voicing of troublesome thoughts" has me boggling. Is this some some type of "political correctness gone mad" argument? i mean, the needle has certainly moved on what is "troublesome" but UH.

― elmo leonard (elmo argonaut), Friday, December 4, 2009 10:36 AM (18 minutes ago) Bookmark

i think you're overstepping big time with "american culture" but i kinda sorta know what you mean.

one thing that happened is that "as long as their hearts were in the right place" was no longer an acceptable excuse for racism or sexism

the other thing that i think youre missing is that political correctness didnt grow out of some... re-entrenchment by out-of-power liberals--much of it is people of color and women growing to increasingly prominent positions in politics, entertainment and academia, and therefore being allowed more power in shaping discourse in this country--meaning that there were more, and more powerful, advocates for political correctness (also known as, "not being an asshole")

one thing that happened is that "as long as their hearts were in the right place" was no longer an acceptable excuse for racism or sexism

― max, Friday, December 4, 2009 10:59 AM (27 seconds ago) Bookmark

again, not that it's an entirely bad thing.

you are cuckoo

Que you can't say that, it's unacceptable

the other thing that i think youre missing is that political correctness didnt grow out of some... re-entrenchment by out-of-power liberals--much of it is people of color and women growing to increasingly prominent positions in politics, entertainment and academia, and therefore being allowed more power in shaping discourse in this country

― max, Friday, December 4, 2009 11:02 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

nevertheless feel that what was lost was of value. or at least potentially of value.

"what we lost" being the ability for white people to be unthinking dicks?

rip white dicks