Should Op-Ed Threads Be Held To A Standard of Being Rubber Room or Flame Zone Material?

[Carla_Danger]

You've done nothing but contradict yourself since you got here.

No... You are twisting around my comments to make them into contradictions because you're stupid but like to troll. My understanding of the OP is whether Zone 4 rules should automatically be applied to OP-EDs or the new OP-ED forum... (that's not clarified.)

And yes, whenever you state that ALL OP-EDs should be considered FZ material, that is restricting ALL OP-EDs on the basis of them simply being an OP-ED. I don't agree with that. I've expressed why I don't agree. Nothing more.

Troll, no one has stated that all OP-ED's should be considered FZ material. No one!

You're arguing with yourself. It's pretty easy to win an argument when you make one up. lol

Should Op-Ed Threads Be Held To A Standard of Being Rubber Room or Flame Zone Material?

And where does it say "ALL OP-EDs should be considered FZ material?"

It simply doesn't say that. No one has said that but you.

 

[Boss]

And where does it say "ALL OP-EDs should be considered FZ material?"

It simply doesn't say that. No one has said that but you.

Just how fucking stupid are you, Carla? Have you ever been tested?

It poses the question! Questions don't "say" things, those are called "statements."

We're debating the question of whether OP-EDs should be considered (i.e; held to same standards of) Flame Zone material. I mean, there is not another way that I see how anyone can interpret the question posed. Perhaps you have some distorted weird way... you've certainly not explained it... I wouldn't be surprised because you seem to be quite stupid and aloof.

Is he asking us for good brownie recipes or something?

Looks like he is asking us whether we think OP-EDs need to be held to the same standard as Flame Zone material, and that's what I commented on. If I am mistaken, please tell us what YOU think the question is asking and we can go from there.

 

[saveliberty]

Very poorly worded OP.

 

[saveliberty]

Perhaps a better question would be, should the OP ed section have clearly defined rules so as to not become a flame zone style thread. For example the piece itself must not be written as a flame. Any flame post made in the thread is subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be banned for a predetermined length of time.

 

[Boss]

Perhaps a better question would be, should the OP ed section have clearly defined rules so as to not become a flame zone style thread. For example the piece itself must not be written as a flame. Any flame post made in the thread is subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be banned for a predetermined length of time.

I do think it needs some clarification as to whether it's a Zone 2 or Zone 3 forum. My understanding of general board rules is, if the OP is flaming or insulting, designed to entice flaming and insulting, etc., then it will get moved to the FZ. I don't have any problem with that, I totally understand. I don't think it should be a Zone 4 forum and I don't think any thread should be moved based on the actions of posters to the thread. I think that opens the door to massive abuse and exploitation. Trolls simply win! They can come in and troll a thread to get it booted into the FZ and that's just not right. THEY are who needs to get booted.

 

[saveliberty]

I do not think message boards should be taken too seriously. They are entertainment. No one accused of being a brain surgeon or rocket scientist here, ever was proven to be one.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Should Op-Ed Threads Be Held To A Standard of Being Rubber Room or Flame Zone Material?

Absolutely, especially when the subject matter, and more importantly, the method of delivery, is meant to cause great anger, which is of course the definition of flame-baiting. I bet it if were a Lefty writing those OP-EDs and the positions were reversed, Righties all over USMB would be going bezerk.

Oh, wait, they go berzerk anyway.

Oh well, the point stands.

You might as well call the OP-ED page CK's RWNJ circle-jerk forum, because that it all it is. Honest people know this is true.

 

[Grandma]

I'm reading all this with interest. I'm pretty new to USMB and it's my first/only social media experience. So when I'm voicing my opinion on Affirmative Action and get invited to go suck a big black dick, is that appropriate or no?

Welcome.

Apparently you've met our closeted redneck Warbler.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I'm reading all this with interest. I'm pretty new to USMB and it's my first/only social media experience. So when I'm voicing my opinion on Affirmative Action and get invited to go suck a big black dick, is that appropriate or no?

Welcome.

Apparently you've met our closeted redneck Warbler.

OMG.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Should Op-Ed Threads Be Held To A Standard of Being Rubber Room or Flame Zone Material?

...

Censor, ban, restrict? Why are right wingers always so alarmist and Flame Zoney, Rubber Roomy in their responses? The Collapse of Iraq and the Rise of ISIS: Made in America?

Why are right wingers always proposing we censor, ban or restrict free speech? I can remember back when I was young, and I met my first stupid adult... before I realized that stupid right winger and conservative were two totally different beings. ... but back then, conservatives fought back against stupid right wingers who called for censorship of books, lyrics, speech, protests. Strongly against it in no uncertain terms. Even if it offended people, right wingers believed only they had the free right to speech and it shouldn't be abridged for any reason other than .....well you get it.

I know of NO conservative today who is calling for bans on anything involving books, lyrics, protests, speech or anything else. Conservatives are mostly against this stupid PC bullshit that seems to be permeating society these days... where everyone is offended by the least little thing and believe they have some kind of goddamn constitutional right to NOT be offended.

Nonsense.

There are many conservatives calling for bans on abortion, same-sex couples marrying, and immigration – just to name a few.

Private citizens in the context of private society are at liberty to express their disapproval of whatever they so desire, where such disapproval does not manifest as 'censorship,' a 'violation' of free speech, or 'political correctness.'

Moreover, no one believes he has a Constitutional 'right' to not be offended, that's another ridiculous lie contrived by conservatives.

 

[Boss]

Should Op-Ed Threads Be Held To A Standard of Being Rubber Room or Flame Zone Material?

...

Censor, ban, restrict? Why are right wingers always so alarmist and Flame Zoney, Rubber Roomy in their responses? The Collapse of Iraq and the Rise of ISIS: Made in America?

Why are right wingers always proposing we censor, ban or restrict free speech? I can remember back when I was young, and I met my first stupid adult... before I realized that stupid right winger and conservative were two totally different beings. ... but back then, conservatives fought back against stupid right wingers who called for censorship of books, lyrics, speech, protests. Strongly against it in no uncertain terms. Even if it offended people, right wingers believed only they had the free right to speech and it shouldn't be abridged for any reason other than .....well you get it.

I know of NO conservative today who is calling for bans on anything involving books, lyrics, protests, speech or anything else. Conservatives are mostly against this stupid PC bullshit that seems to be permeating society these days... where everyone is offended by the least little thing and believe they have some kind of goddamn constitutional right to NOT be offended.

Nonsense.

There are many conservatives calling for bans on abortion, same-sex couples marrying, and immigration – just to name a few.

Private citizens in the context of private society are at liberty to express their disapproval of whatever they so desire, where such disapproval does not manifest as 'censorship,' a 'violation' of free speech, or 'political correctness.'

Moreover, no one believes he has a Constitutional 'right' to not be offended, that's another ridiculous lie contrived by conservatives.

You're giving me tortured examples of "censorship" when you bring up abortion and gay marriage. These are cultural social issues and not bans. Conservatives who are socially conservative support the sanctity of life and marriage. It's not that they want to "ban" abortions, it's that they don't believe it should be a woman's right to deny constitutional right to life for their unborn child. It's not that they want to "ban" gay marriage, it's that they believe it's an oxymoron and marriage is the union of a man and woman.

As for immigration, you're just completely full of shit. No one wants to ban immigration... we're a nation of immigrants. Conservatives want to stop illegal immigration. And yes, there ARE liberals PC nuts who seem to think there is a constitutional right to not be offended... be it the confederate battle flag or religious expression in the public square.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The following is nothing but a convoluted lie: "It's not that they want to "ban" abortions, it's that they don't believe it should be a woman's right to deny constitutional right to life for their unborn child. It's not that they want to "ban" gay marriage, it's that they believe it's an oxymoron and marriage is the union of a man and woman."

If you wish to deny a woman's reproductive right or LGBT marriage by law, then you are a Big Government far right reactionary.

 

[Boss]

The following is nothing but a convoluted lie: "It's not that they want to "ban" abortions, it's that they don't believe it should be a woman's right to deny constitutional right to life for their unborn child. It's not that they want to "ban" gay marriage, it's that they believe it's an oxymoron and marriage is the union of a man and woman."

If you wish to deny a woman's reproductive right or LGBT marriage by law, then you are a Big Government far right reactionary.

Has not a goddamn thing to do with Big Government. No one said anything about denying a woman's reproductive rights... they have every right to reproduce or not reproduce... they should NOT have the right to take innocent life in the process. Changing the societal structure of marriage is also not a RIGHT that anyone should have. There is nothing "reactionary" about that. You've forced this on America through judicial activism and against the will of the people and a free society cannot let that stand. We're not ruled by 9 people on a court. Just like we're not ruled by a president and his pen.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, you are a Big Government fascist who wants to impose his beliefs on a woman and on LGBT.

Fuck what, son. You lose. LGBT marriage is here, reproductive rights are here, and your "feelings" mean shit.

 

[Boss]

Yup, you are a Big Government fascist who wants to impose his beliefs on a woman and on LGBT.

Fuck what, son. You lose. LGBT marriage is here, reproductive rights are here, and your "feelings" mean shit.

Oh yeah, I know... you cram your liberalism down our throats like the little goddamn FASCIST you are then start in to belittling anyone who resists, trying to take their right to speak away.

Shit's about to be changing soon in this country and you're not going to like it.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Yup, you are a Big Government fascist who wants to impose his beliefs on a woman and on LGBT.

Fuck what, son. You lose. LGBT marriage is here, reproductive rights are here, and your "feelings" mean shit.

Oh yeah, I know... you cram your liberalism down our throats like the little goddamn FASCIST you are then start in to belittling anyone who resists, trying to take their right to speak away.

Shit's about to be changing soon in this country and you're not going to like it.

You seem angry. Flailing wildly and making thinly-veiled threats. Get help.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, you are a Big Government fascist who wants to impose his beliefs on a woman and on LGBT.

Fuck what, son. You lose. LGBT marriage is here, reproductive rights are here, and your "feelings" mean shit.

Oh yeah, I know... you cram your liberalism down our throats like the little goddamn FASCIST you are then start in to belittling anyone who resists, trying to take their right to speak away.

Shit's about to be changing soon in this country and you're not going to like it.

Nothing of the sort is going to happen, and not only you won't be happy, there is nothing you will be able to do about it.

 

[emilynghiem]

Should Op-Ed Threads Be Held To A Standard of Being Rubber Room or Flame Zone Material?

...

Censor, ban, restrict? Why are right wingers always so alarmist and Flame Zoney, Rubber Roomy in their responses? The Collapse of Iraq and the Rise of ISIS: Made in America?

Why are right wingers always proposing we censor, ban or restrict free speech? I can remember back when I was young, and I met my first stupid adult... before I realized that stupid right winger and conservative were two totally different beings. ... but back then, conservatives fought back against stupid right wingers who called for censorship of books, lyrics, speech, protests. Strongly against it in no uncertain terms. Even if it offended people, right wingers believed only they had the free right to speech and it shouldn't be abridged for any reason other than .....well you get it.

I know of NO conservative today who is calling for bans on anything involving books, lyrics, protests, speech or anything else. Conservatives are mostly against this stupid PC bullshit that seems to be permeating society these days... where everyone is offended by the least little thing and believe they have some kind of goddamn constitutional right to NOT be offended.

Dear Boss
RE: bans on anything else

1. One recent example are conservative candidates in Tennessee calling for BANS on Mosques.
Bans on Shariah Law fall apart legally, because Shariah refers to ALL areas of Islam practice: the prayers, the charity, etc.
So banning "Shariah" means banning Islamic practice all together, clearly against the Constitution.

Now Boss can you guess the political affiliation of people pushing to ban this?

We won't get into BANNING Muslims from immigration, if you think that's a outlier fluke and not within the mainstream rightwing.


2. How about BANS on gay marriage, where laws and amendments were written and passed on that.

And guess which group still boasts support for enforcing state legislated BANS?


3. Do you want more? like BANS on stem cell research?

Does that count under BANS on information?

 

[emilynghiem]

Oh yeah, I know... you cram your liberalism down our throats like the little goddamn FASCIST you are then start in to belittling anyone who resists, trying to take their right to speak away.

Shit's about to be changing soon in this country and you're not going to like it.

Nothing of the sort is going to happen, and not only you won't be happy, there is nothing you will be able to do about it.

Hi JakeStarkey and Happy New Year to you and Boss
I will totally back up Boss on this one, Jake.

You and others like C_Clayton_Jones
already keep dismissing the ACA mandates as "not infringing on any choices"
and trying to dismiss and discredit any beliefs by which the mandates are unconstitutional.

This is like arguing during the days of slavery or of segregation,
that until laws change, then anyone who challenges the law is delusional and their objections don't count.
The majority and the govt have already endorsed slavery and segregation, written into laws,
so anyone who wants to practice otherwise has to change the laws first.

Until then, any arguments about changing it don't matter!
Only after the law is changed, then it proves that standard is the right one.

So JakeStarkey this is already happening.

You C_Clayton_Jones and others like you who say once a law is passed or ruled through Court, then everyone has to comply,
AND ANY OPPOSITION IS TO BE SHUT DOWN, NOT RESPECTED OR INCLUDED, BUT TREATED AS INVALID,
YOU are already proof that is this going on.

You prove your own point, again and again.
Already happening.
Are you sure you cannot tell, when you are actively participating in the very
instituted biases going on? Where the opposition is demonized in the media and political arena?

And you cannot understand this is how segregation and slavery went on,
and were once endorsed by govt, where failure to comply with laws meant going to jail?

You can say, hey, the rightwing did this also, with the Iraq War propaganda, etc.
But don't dare deny that the leftwing doesn't do the same when pushing biased agenda, and trying to "silence the opposition"

 

[CremeBrulee]

I thought the Op-Eds were going to be of more substance than the typical conspiracy theory, politics, or current event threads. Why else would you need approval or extra privileges to post there? At this point I'm convinced the only standard is a minimum word count.