Duggar, who thinks her rights to free speech are being infringed every time someone disagrees with her, characterized transgender women as “males with past child predator convictions that claim they are female to have a legal right to enter private areas that are reserved for women and girls.”
Seems like she was speaking freely right there.
And her fear mongering worked as Fayetteville voters overturned an ordinance meant to protect those dudes with past child predator convictions who, in fact, don’t have any convictions for being child predators.
Fuck you transgender people! Michelle Duggar is uncomfortable with the idea that one of you might be peeing in the stall next to her so she made up some shit about you being a pedophile.
And it worked.
Let’s be fair, though. She didn’t make that shit up. Someone else did. She just affixed her name to it because, apparently, she agreed.
Man, I hope one of her kids is gay or transgender. She needs to hate someone close to her so she can truly understand what kind of person she is.
In this case, the Duggars are getting a lot of flack for saying bigoted stuff because the bible says that kind of speech is OK. Problem is, some folks don’t agree and have started a petition to get their show taken off the air.
So what’s the big deal you ask? By petitioning TLC (that show is on The Learning Channel? Really?) to cancel the show, they are attacking the Duggar’s right to free speech!
I can’t believe we have to go over this again but NO WE ARE NOT! Having the right to free speech is not the same thing as consequence free speech. When you say thing that pisses people off, they get to say things back.
It amazes me that conservative Christians claim they are being “silenced” when all that is happening is people are calling them on their bullshit.
That’s right, they had shirts that read “we reserve the right to refuse services to homosexuals.”
I mean, good for them. They have completely ensured that everyone who sees them will know that they would happily torpedo their best interests as business owners because they are bigoted assholes.
Some the people are kids, of course, so they will only be able to refuse service to homosexuals at lemonade stands. Or when they are going around the neighborhood offering to mow lawns, they’ll just skip the houses with rainbow flags hanging in front.
Their attitude amazes me because I can’t understand why anyone would be proud to refuse services to homosexuals. I don’t have the bible memorized but I’d sure like someone to show me where Jesus told everyone that refusing to sell someone cupcakes makes you closer to god.
Stay classy, people who really fucking hate the fact that homosexuals aren’t going to stay in the closet. The more T-shirts you print, the more everyone else will see you for what you are and realize they can be better people than you.
This letter to Dear Prudence has to be a joke, right? I mean there probably are people who are this awful but most of them wouldn’t say it out loud, right?
Sadly, I expect this lady is real and she resents “poor” people coming to her house for the good candy. And by “poor,” I expect she means middle class suburban folks and not a bunch of unwashed inner city kids who aren’t worthy to sell her kids a hamburger at McDonald’s.
Her good candy is for the rich little boys and girls! Why is that so hard for the other 99% to understand? If they get full-sized Kit-Kat bars on Halloween instead of the fun size that they deserve, they will start expecting rich people to provide them everything! Isn’t it enough that they are job providers?
Holy shit, lady. If you have to hand out an extra hundred candy bars, are you suddenly going to miss a Porsche payment? Will your underprivileged children be unable to join you in Rome for Christmas? If you have such a problem giving to people who make less than you, just turn off your light so the kids from the rich families that aren’t as rich as yours don’t come to your house either.
I wish this lady had included her home address so everyone could go to her house this Halloween. We should all give her a fucking candy bar. Only the fun size though. We can’t afford the good stuff.
For those unfamiliar with the term, doxxing is when people take personal information (like home address and private e-mail accounts) and share them with everyone on the internet. The intent is to encourage others to harass the individual in question either online or in person.
Because people are assholes.
Chris Kluwe wrote a profanity ridden rant against GamerGaters earlier in the week. Was his contact information splashed all over the internet? Of course not.
What is interesting about the Gamergate phenomenon is that they claim this issue is not about women in gaming and yet when women speak up, they suffer harassment almost immediately. I’m not saying Kluwe didn’t get called names. He probably did.
The difference, though, is Kluwe (and Wil Wheton) were called names. Day had her personal information tweeted out within an hour.
Now I’m fairly certain a brief internet search could have yielded her home address. That information may be private but it is hard to protect. Her personal e-mail would take a little more digging but probably isn’t too hard to get. Privacy is an illusion the internet is rapidly dispelling.
None of that changes the fact doxxing is an asshole move. The only purpose is to harass the victim rather than engage in civil discourse.
GamerGate is not about ethics. It is about being pissy because female gamers (and their allies) would like a few games for themselves. It also has an unoriginal and stupid name.
An appeals court had to overturn this idiotic ruling so I guess sometimes the judicial system works. Eventually.
If we are to believe this “irrational” mother’s story, she chose to give her child her own last name after the father abused her during the pregnancy. The judge in the case felt that she just wasn’t in the right mind to make that sort of decision and, I guess, thought it would case harm to the child if the child didn’t have his father’s last name.
An appeals court saw it differently and apparently felt the judge in the case was far more irrational than the mother.
This last name thing is problematic to begin with. I like my last name so when I got married, I kept it. That’s totally fine because I’m a dude and nobody questions when a man wants to keep his name.
Nobody questions when parents given their child the father’s last name.
But if a woman wants to keep her last name or give her last name to a child, well then it is time to take the case to court, I guess.
It’s a double standard. And a stupid one.
Almost Everything About the Adrian Peterson Story
First, I’m upset that this entire story is turning into a question of what parents are “allowed” to do to discipline their child.
Look, it doesn’t matter. Peterson hit a four year old with a switch until the kid bled. That is beyond discipline.
Also, the kid is four. Cognitively he doesn’t have the ability to fully connect the beating with the behavior that caused it. He may understand that he is being punished for something but he doesn’t know what caused the punishment. So he wasn’t “disciplined,” he was just “punished.” And in his mind the punishment was basically for the simple act of existing.
Then you have people like this guy writing articles about how spanking their kid is A-OK and, in fact, common sense (it isn’t). This is not a case of simple spanking. I don’t agree with him in any case (and my friend Levi Weinhagen makes good arguments as to why) but it isn’t the same thing so why even write the article?
Peterson’s mom says that the discipline used on Peterson must have been OK because look how he turned out.
Yeah, he turned out to be a great running back. Who has fathered several children by several different mothers and allegedly beat the crap out of (at least) one of those kids. If you think your discipline choices didn’t have a negative impact on your son, lady, you might need a better idea of what “negative impact” means.
And of course you have the NFL and the Vikings, who only suspended Peterson when he became more of a PR liability than he had previously been a benefit.
They shouldn’t be waiting to see how the public will react. They should be anticipating that reaction. In the wake of the Ray Rice video, it shouldn’t have been too difficult to figure out what was going to happen.