Department of Homeland Security? Or Department of Orthodoxy Enforcement?

[Jack]

 

[Mr. Wednesday]

It's interesting how the article you linked to says literally nothing about the actual details of her posts

It's even more interesting that it actually does, and you failed to read attentively enough to know that.

Describing the content as “inappropriate for young children,” Reading argued that elementary school wasn’t the place for discussions about sexuality. Her post, written as a private citizen, quickly gained traction. And like clockwork, the backlash began.

As always, I encourage you -- if you're going to be too lazy to read the article -- stick with it, and be too lazy to reply to the topic, too.

 

[Admin.]

If they didn't want to be accosted, they should have been aborted!

It's even more interesting that it actually does, and you failed to read attentively enough to know that.



As always, I encourage you -- if you're going to be too lazy to read the article -- stick with it, and be too lazy to reply to the topic, too.

So one loudmouth busy body jumping onboard the divisive culture war bandwagon got some people pissed off at her?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

 

[Mr. Wednesday]

So one loudmouth busy body got some people pissed off at her?

You're glossing over the part where General Nuisance decided to self-demote to Major Asshole, and tried to use the weight of government to squash somebody's free speech.

But, I get it: It was speech you personally disagree with, so you've exposed the fact that you don't really have any problem with government overreach.

 

[Lily]

You're glossing over the part where General Nuisance decided to self-demote to Major Asshole, and tried to use the weight of government to squash somebody's free speech.

But, I get it: It was speech you personally disagree with, so you've exposed the fact that you don't really have any problem with government overreach.

You need a new hobby. Therapy would help you figure out what you're actually bitter about though.

 

[Admin.]

You're glossing over the part where General Nuisance decided to self-demote to Major Asshole, and tried to use the weight of government to squash somebody's free speech.

But, I get it: It was speech you personally disagree with, so you've exposed the fact that you don't really have any problem with government overreach.

Why, did they not give you a reach around?

 

[LotusBud]

It's even more interesting that it actually does, and you failed to read attentively enough to know that.



As always, I encourage you -- if you're going to be too lazy to read the article -- stick with it, and be too lazy to reply to the topic, too.

I read the fucking article. It does a good job of avoiding offering details. But they knew people like you, with your challenged logical abilities, would jump right on it.

 

[LotusBud]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This is the kind of behavior which ought to be stopped, forthwith and with maximum effect. The Separation Clause is there to stop religious indoctrination in public education, among other things; there's no justifiable reason that same principle ought not apply to indoctrination of every kind.

From the article, you esteemed obfuscator:

Reading’s Facebook musings were flagged to Homeland Security, state counter-terrorism units, and local law enforcement. The message was clear: a suburban mom raising concerns about her kid’s school project had somehow morphed into a national security threat.


Nice. Where, exactly, ARE the musings? I don't see a single extensive quote in there. We do not know, in any way, what she actually posted that caused her to be flagged, do we?

 

[Admin.]

From the article, you esteemed obfuscator:

Reading’s Facebook musings were flagged to Homeland Security, state counter-terrorism units, and local law enforcement. The message was clear: a suburban mom raising concerns about her kid’s school project had somehow morphed into a national security threat.


Nice. Where, exactly, ARE the musings? I don't see a single extensive quote in there. We do not know, in any way, what she actually posted that caused her to be flagged, do we?

And the "Censorship" took place in a Facebook post.

The complaint says Reading was the victim of a "conspiracy to punish a mother who did not welcome a public school’s attempt to force a woke ideology upon her own, and other, young children – and to have the audacity to exercise her right of free speech to do so in a peaceful manner in an appropriate forum."

Muh woke ideologies!

Read More:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

|

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[LotusBud]

And the "Censorship" took place in a Facebook post.

The complaint says Reading was the victim of a "conspiracy to punish a mother who did not welcome a public school’s attempt to force a woke ideology upon her own, and other, young children – and to have the audacity to exercise her right of free speech to do so in a peaceful manner in an appropriate forum."

Muh woke ideologies!

Read More:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

|

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I wonder when Courier will be here to admit he was wrong.

 

[Admin.]

Poor abused Angela was doxxing people involved in this episode and pointed the violent loons in private citizens direction.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Lily]

I wonder when Courier will be here to admit he was wrong.

Pull up a chair.

 

[Mr. Wednesday]

I wonder when Courier will be here to admit he was wrong.

What, exactly, was I wrong about?

 

[LotusBud]

What, exactly, was I wrong about?

Yeah, okay.

 

[Jack]

What, exactly, was I wrong about?

Dude, that's your goto line. "Do not make me say what you want me to say"...remember?

 

[Mr. Wednesday]

Yeah, okay.

I'm going to take that as, "Nothing, actually, I just don't like what you said because you're the one who said it."

 

[Mr. Wednesday]

Dude, that's your goto line. "Do not make me say what you want me to say"...remember?

Exactly on brand, then, because in this instance, somebody tried to use the weight of government to retaliate against a citizen for what she said.

Also on brand: Either that's wrong, or it isn't.

 

[LotusBud]

Exactly on brand, then, because in this instance, somebody tried to use the weight of government to retaliate against a citizen for what she said.

Also on brand: Either that's wrong, or it isn't.

What, exactly, in total, did she say, Courier?

 

[LotusBud]

What, exactly, in total, did she say, Courier?

As I suspected. Crickets from Courier Knows It All.

 

[Mr. Wednesday]

As I suspected. Crickets from Courier Knows It All.

Questions asked in bad faith will not receive answers.

 

[Admin.]

Questions asked in bad faith will not receive answers.

Weak sauce!

 

[Jack]

Questions asked in bad faith will not receive answers.

You know I respect you, but jeez. Got to stop judging. Give them rope and then teach them explicitly. I know of your brilliance and expertise and I'm not blowing smoke up your ass.

We'll all be better for it.

 

[Mr. Wednesday]

You know I respect you, but jeez. Got to stop judging. Give them rope and then teach them explicitly. I know of your brilliance and expertise and I'm not blowing smoke up your ass.

We'll all be better for it.

There are some posters here who will acknowledge a point. @Joe is one example. @LotusBud is not.

 

[LotusBud]

Questions asked in bad faith will not receive answers.

Just get out your crucifix and your smelling salts whenever someone asks you for the facts. They'll protect you from your extreme fear of reality.

 

[LotusBud]

You know I respect you, but jeez. Got to stop judging. Give them rope and then teach them explicitly. I know of your brilliance and expertise and I'm not blowing smoke up your ass.

We'll all be better for it.

His brilliance? Are you joking, jack? He blows more smoke than almost anyone I've ever seen, then claims brilliance. It's a miracle he can function day to day.

 

[LotusBud]

There are some posters here who will acknowledge a point. @Joe is one example. @LotusBud is not.

@Edgar Friendly is clearly not.

 

[Mr. Wednesday]

His brilliance? Are you joking, jack? He blows more smoke than almost anyone I've ever seen, then claims brilliance. It's a miracle he can function day to day.

I don't 'claim' anything. On the other hand, I won't hesitate to point out when you're arguing based on partisanship rather than based on principle, which is basically all I've ever seen you do.

Government suppression of dissent is wrong. Doesn't matter who in government is doing it, doesn't matter why. It's always wrong and should never be tolerated.

 

[LotusBud]

I don't 'claim' anything. On the other hand, I won't hesitate to point out when you're arguing based on partisanship rather than based on principle, which is basically all I've ever seen you do.

Government suppression of dissent is wrong. Doesn't matter who in government is doing it, doesn't matter why. It's always wrong and should never be tolerated.

You claim shit all the time. In this very thread, you make claims about the bs in the op, repeatedly, and have yet to answer the question. WTF did this woman post? I'm not going to admit to being wrong about anything until I know exactly, in its entirely, what she posted. I haven't said whether I agree with what happened or I don't. My only claim is that you aren't supporting YOUR claim. Maybe they were wrong to go after her, maybe they weren't.

 

[Mr. Wednesday]

WTF did this woman post?

Describing the content as “inappropriate for young children,” Reading argued that elementary school wasn’t the place for discussions about sexuality.

Since the article doesn't reproduce the post verbatim, I can only assume that either:

A. You didn't read the article, or
B. Your demand for a verbatim reproduction which you know isn't there is a demand in bad faith.

 

[LotusBud]

Since the article doesn't reproduce the post verbatim, I can only assume that either:

A. You didn't read the article, or
B. Your demand for a verbatim reproduction which you know isn't there is a demand in bad faith.

I read the article. It's sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing. Much like most of your posts.