Zone1 Calling/accusing other members "groomer"

[AMart]

It's actually beyond allow when they actively protect him.

He absolutely LOVES rubbing people noses in the fact that he is promoting the sexualization of children through the use of gay pornography, and the mods are sending him the message that they have his back.

He's only going to rub it in more now that he's helping to craft the rules.

That is fucking disgusting. However if everyone puts him on ignore that is a defacto ban.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

No, all you really have to say is "You are a bigot, homophobe poopoohead and I will show gay porn to any damn child I want!!"

That will earn their approval instead of scorn.

I think you need to take a break. You are having a meltdown of epic proportions on here.
Maybe burn some witches or something.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The protectorate has spake!

The lectures delivered from on high do get old.

 

[Zincwarrior]

It should be illegal to accuse ANYBODY of committing ANY crime in an open forum here.

That's actually a good idea. Is there a lot of that occurring? I have not seen it, hence my query.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Because it's just a word to describe what you stand for in that circumstance. We call each other every other name in the book? Why ban specifically that word and the G word?

Its offensive. and can have consequences.If you think someone is a paedo then you have a duty to report tham and help protect kids.
If you dont report them you are a part of the problem.

 

[playtime]

The lies flow

what a snowflakey thing to say.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I think you need to take a break. You are having a meltdown of epic proportions on here.
Maybe burn some witches or something.

Actually I am the one targeted for burning here, chubby boy.

Aren't you forgetting that this is all being done for you so you can provoke and taunt the living daylights out of anybody who was abused as a child?

It makes you feel SO good about yourself when you make people squirm with disgust, doesn't it?

 

[Toro]

That’s not a sign of corruption as I interpret it.

It is more a sign of cowardice.

And because it didn't happen.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Actually I am the one targeted for burning here, chubby boy.

Aren't you forgetting that this is all being done for you so you can provoke and taunt the living daylights out of anybody who was abused as a child?

It makes you feel SO good about yourself when you make people squirm with disgust, doesn't it?

You are insane. Just follow the rules of the site and you will be ok.
They really arent complicated.

 

[miketx]

what a snowflakey thing to say.

Typical defender.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You are insane. Just follow the rules of the site and you will be ok.
They really arent complicated.

Ooh -- it's that insanity accusation.

Support my wanting to have the little kiddies viewing gay porn or else you're insane!!

 

[toobfreak]

That's actually a good idea. Is there a lot of that occurring? I have not seen it, hence my query.

I've been called everything from a PEDO to a Russian operative. Repeatedly.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Coyote said:
Please. Spare us the disingenuous claims of innocence.

You: let’s see how close I can get to the line by a accusing members of being pedo without quite literally saying the P word.

Play with fire, you are going to get burned.

Generally speaking, that whole use of ''close to the line'' language is a slippery slope and normalizes collective acceptance that mauderation may perform maud actions without being bound by the chains of the rules themselves, but rather quite literally upon their feelings, should one so arbitrarily choose. It's quite literally placing the rules themselves aside in order to interject and stop one from taking dialogue where one may arbitrarily feel or perceive that one may be going if one does not personally agree that a given discussion should go in said direction, irrelevant of the broad nature of much of th topical content. Perception, of course, can be and often is mediated by one's own worldview and/or any entities/special interests which may have groomed that worldview. And therein lies the major malfunction. This is where it becomes personal rather than clerical. Here it becomes "Shut up! Listen!"

You either break a rule or you don't. It really is that simple.

The rules as they are written ARE the line.

To try to establish some arbitrary territory around that line is placing the line...the rules themselves as they are written... aside and can and does at times place the core template secondary to arbitrarily enforcing one's own worldview or perception onto others and serves largely as a utility which may or may not be incorporated to steer a discussion where one personally wants it to go (if one is functioning more so along the lines of a dirty, rotten, filthy, stinking, underhanded activist rather than a board clerk)

To quote the late Carl Sagan...''If we are not allowed to ask skeptical questions...to interrogate those who tell us that something is true...to be skeptical of those in authority....then we're up for grabs for the next charlatan who comes hambling along.''

Does anyone at all disagree with him? I sure don't. I think he nailed it.

Placing that aside, I will end with this. Until people learn to do dangerous things. To demonstrate courage to say dangerous things others may find uncomfortable. They will never in any way be seen as dangerous or as a threat to anyone or any entity who would put you in chains to empower themselves. Not yesterday. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not any day. One does not and should not ever sacrifice and relinquish a legitimate perspective in order to placate the feelings of others. Their feelings are unimportant. And that's quite literally what that arbitrary ''close to the line'' language encourages people to do. To shut up and just listen. Where one ''feels'' that you may be taking the discussion, whther they find that direction uncomfortabe or not, is just...like..their opinion, man.

That doesn't mean to break rules. But that doesn't mean to be fearful of crossing some arbitrary circle drawn around a legitimate line in some arbitrary way after the fact either.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Excuse me, but Biden supporters are enabling the destruction of this country. What is the difference?

Here we go. Here's where the term is really being used.

I've been called everything from a PEDO to a Russian operative. Repeatedly.

Being a Russian operative is not illegal that I know of.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Ooh -- it's that insanity accusation.

Support my wanting to have the little kiddies viewing gay porn or else you're insane!!

Heather has two moms is not "Gay porn". You are insane if you think so.

 

[The Duke]

um .... neither critical thinking or reading comp seem to be yer forte. whatever accusatory thing you wrote re: oakland school districts is most certainly a false equivalency - given the exact quote by q-anon veronica AND the revolting 'christmas' pic she & her spawn posed for in my signature.




suck it up buttercup.

Grooming armed children in America has nothing to do with sex and is not illegal.

 

[playtime]

Typical defender.

being a pedophile is against the law ... being a gun hoarding rw nutter is not.

no mention of diddling. see the diff? of course not, because whiney snowflakes are immune to critical thinking just the same as buttercups.

 

[The Duke]

Heather has two moms is not "Gay porn". You are insane if you think so.

That is not the norm, or normal, and has no business being actively promoted as such in general society.

 

[playtime]

Grooming armed children in America has nothing to do with sex and is not illegal.

exactly. now 'splain that to 'american' citizen.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I've been called everything from a PEDO to a Russian operative. Repeatedly.

But you aren't an authoritarian leftist so it's o.k.

I had Coyote tell me I was projecting when I referenced a known pedophile, but that is perfectly fine and dandy because of who she is and who I am. Sure -- it was a FAR more direct insinuation than anything I have ever come close to saying, but everything here is about identity.

Different rules for different identities.