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

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

what was lost? what would you like to say that you can't anymore? yeah xpost

that's true. but it also became unacceptable (or at least much more socially dangerous) to naively voice ideas that might conceivably sound racist or sexist or depraved or whatever, in an attempt to come to a better understanding of things. and i think that's sad. i think it's cost us a small part of our ability to honestly understand and accept ourselves, as individuals and as a culture.
again, not that it's an entirely bad thing.

― a dimension that can only be accessed through self-immolation (contenderizer), Friday, December 4, 2009 2:04 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

ok i really have no clue what youre talking about here, i cant actually think of a situation where the kind of statement that would be externally 'policed' or shouted down or whatever would contribute to a better understanding of our culture

i really enjoy my right to tell people expressing hateful ideas to stfu

i'm still having trouble with this, c -- it kinda sounds like you're lamenting the erosion of the type of social privilege that sexist, racist, or homophobic utterances serve and exploit.

As I said upthread, not being stingy with apologies when you offend someone goes a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong way back towards opening discourse back up; the bigger issue I see is that society has taken the tack of turning apologies into something that automatically invalidates whatever you were trying to say.

i think you are saying that i find more things offensive than you do? maybe?

one must consider, for just a moment, the suggest ban

*considers*

thought-google (censored) and find contenderizer