That Gay Thread

[The Architect Of Fate]

I didn't come off the warcriminal floor with a functioning gaydar...but those high speed boys I mentioned earlier in thread seemed to think that at least some of the impetus for a few of our local collaborators didn't come down to any great love of america or hatred for their country - just that they knew we wouldn't kill them for accidentally catching a peak in the showers.  They were absolutely insistent that we had to come up with every excuse and pretense to keep those guys with us if we moved aos..because their lives were in danger before they became our partners and translators and crew foremen...basically forfeit if we left them behind.

Which we did.  Sad really, because the military intended to bring them with us, had a plan for citizenship..the whole bit, but culture warriors (like you) back home said Nein!  No more icky browns flying in, no more funding for the program, and no more protection for them.

Just to be clear is this a response to IA or Me?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Didn't say that at all. Strawman.

The fact what you wrote was barely comprehensible gibberish. That's on you.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, because acknowledging gay people in a tweet is exactly like dipping rounds in bacon grease.  

Didn't say that at all. Strawman. Just like I didn't say that slavery is the exact same thing as trans in sports, and OnlineBiker didn't say that it's ok for police to unjustly shoot someone because they have driven drunk before.

I'm glad to hear that neither of us believes that the two things are similar.  I guess you were just doing a little negative free association exercise, huh? 

[Angrboda]

Yes, because acknowledging gay people in a tweet is exactly like dipping rounds in bacon grease.  

Didn't say that at all. Strawman. Just like I didn't say that slavery is the exact same thing as trans in sports, and OnlineBiker didn't say that it's ok for police to unjustly shoot someone because they have driven drunk before.

Given how many straw men you populate your posts with, you've little right to complain. The day you post an argument that doesn't involve a straw man, I'll probably faint.

[Irreligious Atheist]

Didn't say that at all. Strawman. Just like I didn't say that slavery is the exact same thing as trans in sports, and OnlineBiker didn't say that it's ok for police to unjustly shoot someone because they have driven drunk before.

I'm glad to hear that neither of us believes that the two things are similar.  I guess you were just doing a little negative free association exercise, huh? 

It was a direct response to what you posted. You claimed you were ok with basically anything whatsoever on bullets, and I responded by making the point that some things are probably just going to make Muslims around the world dislike the West even more. You are the one who basically said try me, I'm ok with whatever.

I've not once claimed that I'm not ok with acknowledging gay people, which is your claim. Gay people should be acknowledged. You always have to take things to the extreme in bad faith. I'm not claiming your opinion is more or less correct because of your straightness, but still, it's funny to see a straight person pretending that a person like me with some same sex attractions is not ok with gay people being acknowledged. And like you already acknowledged, the overwhelming majority of gay people will not like the gay bullets tweet, so you're basically accusing the majority of gay people of being homophobic and not ok with gay people being acknowledged. I respect your intellect, but this is just comical, and I think you know very well what you're doing here.

[Irreligious Atheist]

Didn't say that at all. Strawman. Just like I didn't say that slavery is the exact same thing as trans in sports, and OnlineBiker didn't say that it's ok for police to unjustly shoot someone because they have driven drunk before.

Given how many straw men you populate your posts with, you've little right to complain.  The day you post an argument that doesn't involve a straw man, I'll probably faint.

If I make a mistake or get something wrong, and I acknowledge that I've done that plenty and will continue to make mistakes, it's an honest mistake. I always try to steelman the other side and really try to understand their argument correctly. I come at things in good faith though. Nudge does not always do the same. For instance, Nudge claimed that OnlineBiker was saying it was ok for police to murder someone because of past drunk driving, when OnlineBiker made it clear days before that that he didn't think the shooting was justified. OnlineBiker made his position perfectly clear, but Nudge, clearly in bad faith, still tried to make the claim that OnlineBiker was ok with the killing because of the drunk driving. There's just no way Nudge was coming at that in good faith and being honest with his argument.

[The Grand Nudger]

I said that I was okay with gay bullets, and blm bullets, Mr Dont Straw Man Me. I understand that this frustrated you, but you think you'd be used to it by now with how many times I've shit on your attempts. Just like I'm about to shit on this one.

You can stuff your gaycard back in your pants. When I was in the service, I couldn't bring every date to the px. I had to get dropped off at the end of the approach and walk the rest of the way in for fear that the gate cameras might catch me with the wrong kind of dancing partner. Even though it wasn't much of a secret in my unit that I wasn't straight. I still self policed out of habit and out of a real concern for my career (which I didn't end up getting to have anyway). It was only the fact that I was a terrifying cold blue motherfucker in a sea of fobbits that kept them from beating the shit out of me in the barracks like they did to so many others. I mean, sure, I guess a bunch of cooks and inventory counters and tech support specialists could have started shit...but I would have killed them. Just straight up killed them..and then walked. Infantry are untouchable.

So..yeah, I think you're a fucked up self loathing person on many levels, and the fact that you can't let a gay soldier be proud without blowing a bunch of warcimes shit out your ass is just one minor symptom of that. You can invite all.what.twelve (lol) randos on twitter that form some sort of gay consensus here and I'll tell them that they're assholes to their face too..if you like.

[Angrboda]

Given how many straw men you populate your posts with, you've little right to complain.  The day you post an argument that doesn't involve a straw man, I'll probably faint.

If I make a mistake or get something wrong, and I acknowledge that I've done that plenty and will continue to make mistakes, it's an honest mistake. I always try to steelman the other side and really try to understand their argument correctly. I come at things in good faith though. Nudge does not always do the same. For instance, Nudge claimed that OnlineBiker was saying it was ok for police to murder someone because of past drunk driving, when OnlineBiker made it clear days before that that he didn't think the shooting was justified. OnlineBiker made his position perfectly clear, but Nudge, clearly in bad faith, still tried to make the claim that OnlineBiker was ok with the killing because of the drunk driving. There's just no way Nudge was coming at that in good faith and being honest with his argument.

Nice whataboutism. I think you're simply unaware that you're doing it, so the idea that you acknowledge it is not particularly credible. You might acknowledge other mistakes, though I don't recall you ever acknowledging a mistake of any significance. Since you bring up Nudger by way of comparison, Nudger is frequently correct, but he's not rigorous (one might even call him sloppy). So he's given to an occasional real blooper, but I don't think it's intentional; that's just his thinking style.

[The Architect Of Fate]

It was a direct response to what you posted. You claimed you were ok with basically anything whatsoever on bullets, and I responded by making the point that some things are probably just going to make Muslims around the world dislike the West even more. You are the one who basically said try me, I'm ok with whatever.

It's a stupid comparison between freaking Bible passages and Bacon grease on bullets to a Pro Pride post containing a picture with military gear, And fucking Dick Cheney and Waterboarding, BLM Bullets, and all the stupid shit you keep trying to compare it too.

I've not once claimed that I'm not ok with acknowledging gay people, which is your claim. Gay people should be acknowledged. You always have to take things to the extreme in bad faith. I'm not claiming your opinion is more or less correct because of your straightness, but still, it's funny to see a straight person pretending that a person like me with some same sex attractions is not ok with gay people being acknowledged. And like you already acknowledged, the overwhelming majority of gay people will not like the gay bullets tweet, so you're basically accusing the majority of gay people of being homophobic and not ok with gay people being acknowledged. I respect your intellect, but this is just comical, and I think you know very well what you're doing here.

And a  massive case IDPOL here and saying that some members of the gay community are being irrational to the tweet is not the same as calling the LGBT community homophobic.

[The Grand Nudger]

Unfiltered, you know.  I make real bloopers when I think, and I communicate what I think.  It's bound to happen.

OFC, sometimes my "bloopers" are, more accurately..things that people just can't imagine I really think or believe. They're wrong, even if my thinking as much is wrong. Things like blm bullets. Not my fault he could only think of them being pulled out of black peoples chests..here I was smiling in glee at the thought of cops getting gunned down by blm bullets, or pulling their service weapon only to see that someone had engraved black lives matter on the grip. Bad take? Maybe, but it's mine..no mealy mouthed excuses or whataboutist bullshit required. I certainly don't have to refer to the imagined consensus of Teh Gays in order to state my own position.