2 ms·

It's cause I said it with vitriol. I also included vulgar language like ass-fucking and dick-sucking. These phrases likely made more squeamish readers who wante

It's cause I said it with vitriol. I also included vulgar language like ass-fucking and dick-sucking. These phrases likely made more squeamish readers who wanted to continue talking about "the homosexuals" in abstract uncomfortable for a reason they didn't quite understand. But I couldn't keep my anger in my throat. Saying a woman's body would want the boy to be more effeminate and therefore gay, is an idea made of swiss cheese. It's constructed nonsensically. But folks eat it up, cause "sucking dick is feminine" Should I calmly let the emperor know that they are wearing no clothes? Be quiet, polite, deferential, and be sure to respect the politeness of this space? I'd rather scream he's been an idiot - you go out angry but at least you keep your pride.

wombatmobile 6y ago
I didn't hear "vitriol". Your language was more jocular and incredulous than vitriolic or offensive. Those vernacular terms for sexual behaviour are neither here nor there in a site frequented by linguistic, semantic, and ontological virtuosos. The comment you were replying to doesn't respect "the politeness of this place." It is base identity politics, or wantonly offensive ignorance, couched in some form of "acceptable" language which seeks to describe a logical chain of thought. But the logic is jello nailed to the wall. It's not even sham science. It's a red neck fairy story. That's why I considered it an abuse of moderator privileges to downvote your comment. Anybody concerned about the standard of discourse on HN should feel the same, or be able to defend the "logic" you were responding to cogently, which they can't because it is the rhetorical equivalent of a stream of shit from a horses asshole. If I am to "assume good faith", which is always an advisable thing to do, the bizarre fairy story stream springs from ignorance of "the homosexuals", not malice. The downvoting of your comment is a different matter.

wombatmobile 6y ago

I didn't hear "vitriol". Your language was more jocular and incredulous than vitriolic or offensive. Those vernacular terms for sexual behaviour are neither here nor there in a site frequented by linguistic, semantic, and ontological virtuosos. The comment you were replying to doesn't respect "the politeness of this place." It is base identity politics, or wantonly offensive ignorance, couched in some form of "acceptable" language which seeks to describe a logical chain of thought. But the logic is jello nailed to the wall. It's not even sham science. It's a red neck fairy story. That's why I considered it an abuse of moderator privileges to downvote your comment. Anybody concerned about the standard of discourse on HN should feel the same, or be able to defend the "logic" you were responding to cogently, which they can't because it is the rhetorical equivalent of a stream of shit from a horses asshole. If I am to "assume good faith", which is always an advisable thing to do, the bizarre fairy story stream springs from ignorance of "the homosexuals", not malice. The downvoting of your comment is a different matter.