Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
Geezer said he would "mansplain" his temp ban if asked about it. I asked about it. I suspect if not me somebody else would have. I had no agenda when asking. I had no expectations of what he may say. I certainly didn't anticipate his getting banned again. I was curious what he had to say because I too was banned for the same offense. This is the moderation thread and this was a
Apparently not.
Geezer said he would "mansplain" his temp ban if asked about it. I asked about it. I suspect if not me somebody else would have. I had no agenda when asking. I had no expectations of what he may say. I certainly didn't anticipate his getting banned again. I was curious what he had to say because I too was banned for the same offense. This is the moderation thread and this was a
I was completely baffled by your last ban. I defended you by pointing out that I specifically said I would 'mansplain' my temp-ban to anyone who asked. I have no idea why you would get temp-banned for asking.
I'm sure we will get a reasoned response from whoever issued the ban.
(I believe it was KingSpew who issued the ban, but not positive.)
I’m not a misandrist, but even if I were, comparing that to misogyny is a false symmetry as women lack the institutional power to oppress.
So, since you have "the institutional power to oppress" in this forum, none of us men can be guilty of misogyny?
addendum: It's not even a 'false symmetry', since you have ALL the power.
What a time to be alive š
Obviously this was the plan all along
DEI hire ~> Avenge ancestors ~> Oppress betas
It really is
So, since you have "the institutional power to oppress" in this forum, none of us men can be guilty of misogyny?
addendum: It's not even a 'false symmetry', since you have ALL the power.
I think this is an excellent point sir. seems like an excellent loophole for men to stop being oppressed on 2p2.
I’m not a misandrist, but even if I were, comparing that to misogyny is a false symmetry as women lack the institutional power to oppress.
Depends on what institution. 77% of teachers are women (in the US), and they certainly have power over the children in their classroom. So if women oppress male children for being males would this not be a way for women to oppress men institutionally?
Depends on what institution. 77% of teachers are women (in the US), and they certainly have power over the children in their classroom. So if women oppress male children for being males would this not be a way for women to oppress men institutionally?
Sometimes I’m embarrassed for you on your behalf. I’m not going to explain why. The ones who know, know.
Yes, like tumbling around and somersaulting. Literally having your heels over your head.
But the question would be if the idiom ever actually referred to a person somersaulting or rolling down a hill.
It seems unlikely those actions were ever regularly done by someone because they were in love.
I dread to think that "balls in a vice" had its genesis in a historical practice.
Depends on what institution. 77% of teachers are women (in the US), and they certainly have power over the children in their classroom. So if women oppress male children for being males would this not be a way for women to oppress men institutionally?
The answer, of course, is "Yes."
Looking forward to CN's answer.
Just visited RGT to see who you were talking about.Wurlitzer seems like a smart guy.He's Roman Catholic, which I am not.And by his own testimony, he has only been a Christian for a relatively short period of time. I've been a believer for 37 years.If I was to create an alt over there, I wouldn't represent myself as either a Catholic or a recent convert.addendum: If you're con
Hilarious. The guy who admitted to having a mental illness and having created a second account (about which everyone is totally ok btw) claims not having created a third account (which posts in the exact same style)
Take your pills, Chuck.....
But the question would be if the idiom ever actually referred to a person somersaulting or rolling down a hill.
It seems unlikely those actions were ever regularly done by someone because they were in love.
“Heels over head” appeared in the 14th century, referring to the physical act. The word order changed in the 18th century (we aren’t exactly sure why), but was still used to describe the literal, physical act. In the 1800s, it finally started to be used more metaphorically, describing the recklessness of emotions and typically tied to being in love (but continued literal usage was not uncommon). In modern usage, it has essentially lost all literal meaning in favor of the metaphorical, synonymous with being madly in love. The literal usage is still technically valid, but is basically defunct.
Spoiler
wow ok
at least those other 23% of teachers are nice.
Hilarious. The guy who admitted to having a mental illness and having created a second account (about which everyone is totally ok btw) claims not having created a third account (which posts in the exact same style)
Take your pills, Chuck.....
The bolded is what is especially hilarious.
And it is far from the truth that "everyone is totally ok" with me being allowed back here at all. I'm only here because CN graciously allowed me back in.
If you're gonna troll, please at least be factually correct. Thanking you in advance.
