Funny (political, religious) pictures

I've seriously often wondered sometimes if he wasn't really an alt of GB to make all liberals seem like extremist nutbags. Strawman by proxy, so to speak.
 

Necronic

Staff member
Ugh, that thread made me lose a lot of respect for this forum. Seriously, if you guys think Charlie looks like the dick in that thread you really have been drinking too much of the kool-aid.
 
Ugh, that thread made me lose a lot of respect for this forum. Seriously, if you guys think Charlie looks like the dick in that thread you really have been drinking too much of the kool-aid.
When the majority of people see that your opinion is wrong, sometimes, though not always, means your opinion might be wrong.
 

Necronic

Staff member
That sounds like a good a justification for mob mentality, which is all I saw there. But v0v, you have your choral approval, and apparently that's what some of you need.
 
That sounds like a good a justification for mob mentality, which is all I saw there. But v0v, you have your choral approval, and apparently that's what some of you need.
Sometimes its mob mentality. Sometimes its being on the right side of the situation. Whichever you want to call it is fine. It's all a matter of perspective, but when one party specfically asks you to stop because it's emotionally painful during an emotionally weak time, the morally right thing to do is apologize and stop. Not continue to make it worse. If you can't see that as wrong, well then I think which side of the coin you're on.
 

Necronic

Staff member
If I thought that what you guys did was about standing up for TNG then maybe I would buy that. But that wasn't about doing something nice for Nick. That was about jumping at an oppurtunity to shit on Charlie.
 
Charlie didn't leave because of what I or anyone else said to him; he left because he got thread-banned. If he could've kept arguing, he would have done so and he would've loved it. That's how he is. It's why he didn't stop of his own volition. He doesn't know how. I thought he had learned, but I was wrong.[DOUBLEPOST=1386014836,1386014719][/DOUBLEPOST]
If I thought that what you guys did was about standing up for TNG then maybe I would buy that. But that wasn't about doing something nice for Nick. That was about jumping at an oppurtunity to shit on Charlie.
You can think what you want, but I talk with Nick and know him. I also know what he's going through because I've seen my wife go through it, and the effect that people who acted the way Charlie did can have when a depressed person can grab onto one fragile and fleeting bit of positivity. They make easy targets and that's what Charlie was doing.
 
Aw, I missed the drama.
Oh, wait. I did see that, I just didn't see the farewell thread.
if you guys think Charlie looks like the dick in that thread you really have been drinking too much of the kool-aid.
We give Charlie a lot of shit, mostly because he gives us a lot of shit. But I have to agree with Necronic on this one. I think the general response was disproportionate to the stimulus, as though it was supplemented by leftover hostility from other threads.

--Patrick
 
PatrThom said:
I think the general response was disproportionate to the stimulus, as though it was supplemented by leftover hostility from other threads.

--Patrick
Of that, I have no doubt. But I don't see why each thread should be treated as wholly separate from the others. Charlie is an ass oftentimes, and that history/reputation leads to people having a low threshold for his bullshit. That is entirely a mess of his own making. I'm not going to shed a tear if the guy who is usually annoying, rude, and condescending decided to leave when people didn't respond nicely to him.

Then again, Zero had it right: he left because a mod gave him a time out, not because forumites were hard on him.
 
Perhaps the level of hostility towards him was disproportionate, but this was not about giving Charlie shit, at least not on my count, and if I recall correctly, I was probably the one being the most hostile. I don't get defensive when Charlie is picking on most of us or trying to get people pissed off. Most of the time he comes across as a cartoon character drawn by a right-wing political cartoonist to scare conservatives into action.

But the truth is that each of us on this forum is a real person. Charlie's target is a real person who had just come off a depressive episode and recovering from a suicide attempt. Charlie is a real person and should've dropped it.
 
I don't see why each thread should be treated as wholly separate from the others.
Agreed. I guess I expected people would've bled off their frustration elsewhere rather than saving it up and then exploding all at once. Pressures are getting high what with holidays and recent events, so I suppose that explains a lot.

--Patrick
 
I didn't want to ruin the Lego Movie thread with this, and this was the 2nd best choice.

LEGO MOVIE USED AS CORPORATE SHILL TO PUSH...

…Anti-business agendum? What did I just watch?

--Patrick
 
I didn't want to ruin the Lego Movie thread with this, and this was the 2nd best choice.

LEGO MOVIE USED AS CORPORATE SHILL TO PUSH...

…Anti-business agendum? What did I just watch?

--Patrick
I remember when they did this with the Muppets. Not enough eyerolls in the world.
 
Beyonce is just stupid through and through. All her songs are contradictory and actually push back female empowerment.

Oh god... is that what it feels like to be Charlie... I'm going to go and bleach my brain.

Honestly though, I can't stand her as an entertainer or as a person.
 
Beyonce is just stupid through and through. All her songs are contradictory and actually push back female empowerment.

Oh god... is that what it feels like to be Charlie... I'm going to go and bleach my brain.

Honestly though, I can't stand her as an entertainer or as a person.
Woah, did you not hear her song where she shows that she's a strong, independent, woman who don't need no man?
 
I'm Canadian so the 'ban bossy' thing isn't up here, but isn't it just an alliterative title (albit poorly choosen perhaps) for a program that aims at having adults not bully little girls who stand up for themselves? Like how young girls are signifigantly less likely to take on leadership roles and are consistently silenced, while boys are encourage to stand up and take the lead? So when a girl says 'we're doing x' she's called 'bossy' and basically shut down, whereas when a boy does the same thing it's accepted and priased? I can hunt down sorces if you insist, but really, the whole whining about a movement aimed at stopping people silencing (some say bullying, I'm not convinced, yes I know I used the term ealrier) little girls seems extraordinarily petty. Ther term may be sexless, but the application is far from that.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Granted, it's been a while... but my experience was girls were called "bossy" because it was gentler than what the boys got called - and believe you me, it wasn't praise.

But in any case, if they want to encourage girls (and women) into leadership/being assertive, this is not the most effective way to do it, to put it mildly.

Also, from an article on the subject - there are far worse words maybe we should look at first:

"Turn on the radio. Popular music is replete with the words bitch or trick … both of which, by the way, can be found in “Ban Bossy” spokeswoman Beyonce’s song “Bow Down.” (Quite a bossy title, if you ask me.)"
 
I'm Canadian so the 'ban bossy' thing isn't up here, but isn't it just an alliterative title (albit poorly choosen perhaps) for a program that aims at having adults not bully little girls who stand up for themselves? Like how young girls are signifigantly less likely to take on leadership roles and are consistently silenced, while boys are encourage to stand up and take the lead? So when a girl says 'we're doing x' she's called 'bossy' and basically shut down, whereas when a boy does the same thing it's accepted and priased? I can hunt down sorces if you insist, but really, the whole whining about a movement aimed at stopping people silencing (some say bullying, I'm not convinced, yes I know I used the term ealrier) little girls seems extraordinarily petty. Ther term may be sexless, but the application is far from that.
I think a good point was made in an article that said it shouldn't be about not using words (another one will crop up anyway), but about removing the stigma from 'bossy'. Nonetheless, "bossy" children are problematic in their own ways, at home especially; for instance my niece has taken to trying to run all conversations and lecture any other kids. Katie (my sister; her mom) does tell her not to be "bossy" but I've usually gone with "so-and-so already has a parent."
 
Hey, there's nothing preventing the Creationists from making their own series and then airing it on PBS.

--Patrick
 
Last edited:
Top