Looks like "guns" is no longer a GD discussion "exception,"

[Eleanors38]

as per Skinner's ATA response on Monday. During the exception period, for the most part the stuff in GD amounted to local stories of shootings & misadventures posted as an excuse to condemn, smear and encourage male anatomy criticisms of gun-owners in general and DU members in particular. Though late in coming, this decision may improve the overall atmosphere of DU, and might lead to a more respectable dialog regarding the Second Amendment.

[Scuba]

1. Can you please provide an example of something ...

.... "posted as an excuse to condemn, smear and encourage male anatomy criticisms of gun-owners in general and DU members in particular."

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. If you haven't asked you haven't paid attention

https://www.google.com/search?q=guns+manhood&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com

[ileus]

5. you just want to be a man.

LOL....

Good search results.

Of course no one on DU would use these childish clichés.

[Scuba]

6. So when asked to substantiate your claims, your reply is "search for it yourself"?

I already know how to use the search function, but it was you who said there were posts made as ane excuse to "condemn, smear and encourage male anatomy criticisms of gun-owners in general and DU members in particular".

If you can't cite specific posts doing this, why don't you self-delete?

[beevul]

7. What you're asking is tantamount...

What you're asking is tantamount to asking to substantiate a claim that we are surrounded by an atmosphere containing oxygen.


Everyone knows what goes on, you included. Pretending otherwise, just insults everyones intelligence.

[Lizzie Poppet]

10. Disingenuous questions don't deserve ANY response, much less a search link.

Anyone who bothered to read even a small cross-section of gun threads in GD knows full well that they contained countless examples of just the sort of shitposting she referred to. Don't be a troll.

[ileus]

13. The search provided 100's

Open any one...

[derby378]

20. What, you're too lazy to make two mouseclicks?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. How about a search for "gun humpers"?

[NYC_SKP]

12. Scuba. January 13, 2013: "Derision works. Proven in countless studies."

.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2136574

res ipsa loquitur

I like you Scuba, but you shouldn't ask questions if you aren't willing to hear the answers.

2A supporters take WAY more shit than the other team yet we remain civil and reasonable and don't block members from the group.

[Scuba]

16. Skip, I guess my point has been lost ....

Eleanor claimed that DU members were writing posts to "condemn, smear and encourage male anatomy criticisms of gun-owners in general and DU members in particular." The latter part of that claim implies a violation of TOS and should result in an alert/hide.

The fact that I advocate using derision to help effect change does not mean I condone smearing other members, and that includes broad-brush smears like claiming DU members are writing posts to "condemn, smear and encourage male anatomy criticisms of gun-owners in general and DU members in particular."

[NYC_SKP]

17. Oh I don't think you condone smears, but you have to admit that it exists, that it's done by others.

The comments are out there that generally and in childish language try to belittle gun-rights advocates. Examples abound and there are three or so members who do this regularly, mostly from the comfort of their protected group but also in the big forums when they have the chance.

The references to male anatomy are less common.

And whether or not juries have taken action isn't a very reliable measure, as juries often let overt insults stay while hiding other far less offensive posts.

[DonP]

18. Huh?

"The fact that I advocate using derision to help effect change does not mean I condone smearing other members"

So it's OK to deride other members, call them names and impugn their motivation as long as YOU don't think it's a smear and don't specifically use a direct penis reference?

Seems to me that this statement is both an oxymoron of the 1st degree and pretty typical example of the gun control ethos.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

[Scuba]

19. No, it's not OK to deride other member, nor did I say it was.

How we treat other members is a different issue than how we treat non-members.

[DonP]

26. Gee I guess all your gun control friends didn't get that memo

More than enough smears and derision here just in your thread to go around.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12625176

I'm sure you'll want to go back and correct their smears and insults to fellow DU members, right?

When in doubt, or just plain ignorant, threaten to ban people who don't agree with you. How proud you must be.

[Eleanors38]

23. Logic can be tendentious, like a sword fight with flu shot syringes...

My Dad related a prank his buddies pulled on the train from Connecticut to NYC during college days during the Depression. First, one of his "pals" ripped a loud one, then everyone but my Dad got up, fanning the Times at him, holding noses, and coughing histrionically as they fled up the ailse. All he could do was shake his head. Oh, no one directly accused HIM of a public pumble. There was no need to.

[Jenoch]

25. If you don't condone such posts, why did you write one?

[beevul]

29. Thats great.

"The fact that I advocate using derision to help effect change does not mean I condone smearing other members..."

That's great. Fabulous even.

Every single time we see a smear, we'll make sure to point them out to you, in a PM perhaps, knowing with certainty in our hearts, that you will rush as fast as you can to condemn them.

Thanks for being our knight in shining armor.

On Second edit:

Put your money where your mouth is:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12625176

[Scuba]

31. I reread every post in my thread but didn't find one example of smearing other members.

If you noted one, please point it out to me.

[beevul]

36. As they say, it ain't just a river in egypt. N/T

[Scuba]

37. I'll take that as a "no".

[beevul]

38. Next time, spit in the mask before you put it on.

That's one way of making sure it doesn't get fogged up, like it appears to be now.

"Your weak attempts to disrupt this Group with your Gungeoneer philosophy of "gunz for everyone" are evident, as is your contempt for the OP."

"Gungeoneer philosophy of "gunz for everyone".

Assigning to another DU member a position they have not expressed, in a clear attempt to smear.

Nobody who is a regular poster on DU has expressed that position.


How did you miss that, eh?


How many more examples do you need?


How many does it take before it becomes wrong, eh?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. appears you are correct ...

Current GD "big news" exceptions

Last edited Mon Nov 18, 2013, 10:34 AM - Edit history (3)
This discussion thread is pinned and locked. It is closed to new replies.
Statement of Purpose for the General Discussion forum:

Discuss politics, issues, and current events. No posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports unless there is really big news. No conspiracy theories. No whining about DU.


Status of "big news" exceptions:

There are currently no special exceptions.

link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022542300

[ileus]

4. Toter baser gunners....

[petronius]

8. In case anyone is feeling withdrawal from the GD gun-thread ban, I'll offer

the following Build-Your-Own-GD-Gunthread Template:

Include random variations of the following until desired thread length is reached:

• "If only the XYZ had had a gun",
  
• penis joke (include several),
  
• something about guns down pants at Chuck E Cheese,
  
• lengthy subthread about how guns are / are not like cars,
  
• "must be one of those well-regulated militias",
  
• "who's going to take them, you?",
  
• "law-abiding right up until s/he wasn't",
  
• "As if criminals will obey the law",
  
• inane comment passed off as 'what they're saying in the Gungeon',
  
• thoughtful comment from Spin to which no one actually replies (include only one of these).
  

Garnish as desired with your own favorite ingredients.

HTH!

[gejohnston]

28. I kind of miss

reading about camo clad toters prancing around Chuck E. Cheese with their guns hanging out of their pants.

[DonP]

9. I suspect we will see a renewed influx of gun control "fans" ...

... as the GD and LBN hosts begin to implement Skinners decree.

If they go to "another forum" nobody will see it for a week or so, or engage them in any conversation beyond the echo chamber, "That's right, it's all the damn NRA's fault".

BTW, has anyone ever actually seen the oft referenced NRA Talking Points?

I mean after all, they are referred to so regularly by the emotionally wracked control folks, that someone must actually have at least one example of a copy of them, right?

You don't think they just make that shit up as a result of intellectual sloth, do you? Hmmmm?

[Bazinga]

22. Nope, no NRA talking points.

But there is a thread over in the castle that touts some well worn anti-gun talking points.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12625176

Perhaps there is a bit of projection going on, or am I thinking of the wrong Freudian penis theory?

[DonP]

24. Always strikes me as odd that none of us get the "NRA talking points" but the gun control "fans" do?

Or at least they talk and post like they do.

I'd think, since the NRA is an open website, they could at least cite one or two examples of those talking points we're all supposed to get.

Maybe they're hidden between the lines in Wayne's speeches and you have to have a decoder ring to get them?

It's also funny how some of them obsessively collect pictures of fat guy's asses with guns on their hip too but we're the ones that are supposed to be obsessed?

I bet a decent shrink could have a field day with all that.

[NYC_SKP]

11. Like a breath of fresh air. I won't miss the childish auto-replies that had become so common.

Let's see:

Something something FUCK THE NRA.

Yada yada GUNDAMENTALISTS.

Blankity blank PENIS.

Moar Guns.

Muh Freedums.

I mean seriously, if they can't make a cogent statement who is going to take them seriously?

[rrneck]

14. Well, like the man said...

[Kurska]

15. Xmas in November

Thank you Skinner for finally putting an end to such topics in GD. I think this experiment proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that GD is sadly not capable of having civil discussions about firearms. Just like it isn't capable of having a civil discussion about Israel/Palestine.

[ileus]

27. Maybe it was because so many were pawned by that fake Texas pic last week.

[NYC_SKP]

30. What did I miss? The kid who was shot with a plastic gun?

Nope, that was Michigan: http://www.woodtv.com/news/local/kalamazoo-and-battle-creek/teen-shot-by-officer-in-serious-condition

What did I miss???

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. I *think* he's referring to the picture of the pro-2A supporters that

appears as if they're laying an armed siege to a restaurant wherein 4 women were meeting to discuss gun control. It looks menacing of the sort of soldiers arrayed to take some objective. This was the context given to the photo as if the 2A supporters were on the verge of armed insurrection and presumably SOMETHING! must be done about it IMMEDIATELY! else the Republic shall be lost for all time.

However, there is another contemporaneous photo of the exact same scene that shows the pro-2A group was actually posing for a photo where they are arrayed abreast of each other in 2 tiers, one kneeling before the other and everyone sporting a pleasant smile.

A Rorschach moment if ever there were one to be found.

[NYC_SKP]

33. Ah. The group on the way to Hooters...

If everyone would just ignore them they'd probably get tired and go away.

But no, that would be the mature way to handle it, and we can't have that.

Thanks for the details!

[MicaelS]

34. Supposedly that was a posed photograph..

Taken by one of the Gun Controllers. She asked to take their picture to supposedly show the "threat" they wear, and they knowingly posed for her.

[NYC_SKP]

35. Blue Mesa Grill. Now one of the publishers has pulled the posed picture.

With four updates in this story, it's a whole lot of dodging about what happened.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/11/11/texas-gun-bullies-use-semi-automatics-to-terrorize-mothers-against-guns-nra-remains-silent/2/

Not sure which pictures are which...

I think this one was "controversial":



And this one is clearly posed:



Then they made it over to Hooters!

[ileus]

39. Yeah the top photo that people were all up in arms about

the open carriers that were "stalking" the innocent moms...trying to intimidate them or some such BS.

[NYC_SKP]

40. I see now. The top two could have been taken seconds apart.

And the top one was clearly taken from some distance and without the group noticing, apparently.

Yet the Forbes article retracted it without explanation, or without an honest one.

Pretty pathetic.