Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
whoever it was
fite da man!
from the thread hint it was something about a woman getting pepper sprayed and having a miscarriage.
I'm assuming CG was either being controversial or the thread went in that direction pretty quickly.
The problem was that he titled it something like "A horrendous moral quandry?"
Theo, ban him for as long as it takes to think up a new username.
and the reason I'm doing that is to see if you can justify it or not. Clearly you can't justify my giving you the benefit of the doubt.
The title *was* the prejudice/comment.
but then linked the article and are now starting to talk about someone else talking about it?
Lets just delete the whole of Tuesday on DiS.
that implied in some way that if the story was true then police brutality resulting a pregnant woman losing her baby could in any way have some sort of moral quandary associated with it.
Further, I considered starting a thread dedicated to discussing the subject itself but the article is pretty short on hard facts so there wasn't a clear way to go with a title that wasn't either too 'cold' or in danger of being libellous.
Frankly, he may be your boyfriend but 'step off' sister!
He's a knob and he knows I don't like some of the shit he posts on here.
I just don't get how you can not want people to see or talk about this story but then post a link to it yourself? I didn't see the thread that was deleted but still, its making people aware of it and potentially opening the forum up for people to talk about it.
is making this thread the first thread!
Delete tuesday, Theo. Delete it all.
There is a difference to reading a thread and understanding where the discussion stems from, to simply finding a thread that is there to inflame people first.
to make it clear he's talking bollocks when he says it was a 'neutral' headline. ;-)
If we could alter thread titles then I'd have done that and left it.
It's not that I don't think people should discuss it, I just don't think it helps a discussion if it's held under a banner stating a deliberately inflammatory position.
(That actually goes for many of his political threads anyway but I don't tend think they really matter too much as they're also generally about non-emotive issues.)
Essentially it's shit-stirring for the sake of it.
I just don't think the content should be open for discussion in here. Thats all.
and if it was posted by pretty much any other user then I think they'd have been given the benefit of the doubt.
I guess the problem with having a hilarious online troll persona is that sometimes people might think you're trolling.
implies that there are quite a plethora of scenarios when pepper spraying and physically assaulting women protesting peacefully can be justified.
or maybe that giving protestors miscarriages can be justified.
that sort of thing belongs on one of those forums for twitchy mentally ill people who fantasise about killing the human race in horrifically violent ways
it is not partizan, is measured, sensitive and often witty
but probably for the best that it was deleted.
I deleted it because I imagine even CG regretted that one and frankly I wasn't going to engage in such a pile of bullshit over what is a fucking horrendous story.
its not even trolling but just objectively being a dickhead
im surprised thatd be the only place it was mentioned
but all those articles basically repeat the words from the article TheoGB linked.