Modify Profile

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - BC_cheque

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13
American Politics / Re: The Donald Trump Thread
« on: August 18, 2017, 11:05:22 pm »
I never argued they were equivalent, in fact I've specifically said the opposite & exactly what you're saying.  Again: KKK are WAAAAYYYYYY worse than ANTIFA radicals.  If I were forced to choose a violent KKK member or a violence ANTIFA, well duh yes I'd choose ANTIFA.  That's not the debate here.  The debate is whether initiating violence against white supremacists is a valid tactic we should support or condemn.  I'm saying I'm against any civilian initiating violence against another civilian unless their or another's life or physical safety is in immediate danger.  That's essentially how the law currently works. I'm for the rule of law, & nobody is above that no matter how righteous their cause, unless ie: there's a severe breakdown in rule of law/democracy.

I get what you're saying, it's not difficult to understand. 

American Politics / Re: The Donald Trump Thread
« on: August 18, 2017, 11:02:31 pm »
Antifa exists to fight white supremacist fascists. They're not instigators, they're a reaction to violence. You know, the groups chanting kill the Jews and Nazi slogans. Yet you call Antifa the instigators? You might want to reflect on that a little more.

I'm talking about throwing the first punch, not self-defense, when I say it's wrong. 

I don't think punching people for doing nazi salute is a measured response.

General Discussion / Re: Sex Culture
« on: August 18, 2017, 10:41:41 pm »
I suppose it's only as awful as saying you would prefer it if they didn't.

There are many advantages to heterosexual relationships, such as social acceptance, more romantic options and easier procreation so I don't think it's 'awful' if some parents would 'prefer' it.

What WOULD be awful is not accepting it or somewhere in the back of your mind hoping it's just a phase and wishing for the day they may end up changing their mind. 

If my daughters turns out straight I would never hope they'll change their minds or be unaccepting so I don't think having a preference in itself is a bad thing.

Just as there are advantages to to opposite sex relationships, there are advantages I think for same-sex ones.  There is a great level of understanding which I find lacking in many heterosexual relationships.     

By the time my kids are grown, I imagine most of advantages I said above for heterosexuals are less of a factor, so my personal preference for their own sake is to find a harmonious relationship and strictly speaking from a personal perspective, I think same-sex relationships make more sense than opposite.

General Discussion / Re: Sex Culture
« on: August 17, 2017, 11:31:44 pm »
This is going to sound awful and anti-man, but whatever...

I think I would actually prefer it if either of my daughters turned out gay.

American Politics / Re: The Donald Trump Thread
« on: August 17, 2017, 11:07:57 pm »
To be frank, I don't care much for what goes on the mind of white supremacists.  Their thought process is obviously corrupted - otherwise they couldn't hate other human beings for such superficial reasons.

Look, the reality is, there would have been no BLM protest if their hadn't been an armed white supremacist march.  One side started everything.  One side came heavily armed.  One side murdered.  That a few people on the other side may have thrown a few unprovoked punched bothers me less than not at all.

I do care how they present their argument because their movement is gaining traction to the point they have a representative in the White House along with a number of his staff.

Their minds may be corrupted, but we have good normal people who see their point (like the few of us on this thread) and that's unfortunate.  To this day the Black Panthers and Malcolm X are maligned where MLK isn't.  Think of the reason why.

When fighting an oppressor it's important to not resort to their tactics.  Think of the Palestine/Israel conflict for example, if the Palestinians would resist using a peaceful solution, they would get a lot further because almost everyone is against Israeli demolishing of Palestinian homes... but the minute they strap a bomb to themselves, no matter how justified their anger at being displaced, people don't want to side with them.

I don't think punching nazis and fighting them on their own level does anything but allow them to justify their distorted sense of reality.  I think real change comes when you're better than that which you claim to hate.

Think Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, MLK.

American Politics / Re: The Donald Trump Thread
« on: August 17, 2017, 10:32:04 pm »
He still didn't have a leg to stand on.  There is no equivalency when there's nazis involved.

I'm not talking ideology, of course there is no equivalency.

I'm talking in their deluded heads.  I don't know if you spend any time actually reading what the other side has to say, but in their minds, the nazis were reacting, not acting, when one of them murdered an innocent woman.

I'm not saying I agree with them or that they raise a good point, I just wish nobody on the side of sanity had given them that out and only fought back instead of instigating.

That's the part that bothers me in all this. 

American Politics / Re: The Donald Trump Thread
« on: August 17, 2017, 09:45:36 pm »
He does.

I think so too.  Even if the nazis are abhorrent, I don't think instigating violence was right.

Fighting back is one thing, but when I started seeing the unprovoked 'punch a nazi' memes I was floored.  Next thing you know the fights escalate and a inevitably someone got killed.

They counter-protesters did their cause a lot of disservice in my opinion and it pisses me off because it gives the nazis justification which they should not have. 

Just listening to Trump make the moral equivalence, for example, makes me sick.  He wouldn't have a leg to stand on otherwise. 

General Discussion / Re: Sex Culture
« on: August 17, 2017, 09:35:17 pm »
With the male on male sex scenes in "American Gods" and "Ozark" where even I (who was caught with smuggled Hustler magazines when I was 9 years old) can watch it is likely a sign that the times are a changing.

But yeah, I'd rather watch women getting it on, but "AG" and "Ozark" are much better stories with the gay sex in them than without.

ETA: for those wondering about this

I just wrote a response to you but deleted it by mistake, grrr, I'll try and rephrase it...

That was a very graphic sex scene, gay or straight.  I don't remember seeing anything equivalent on TV for a straight sex scene.  Good for them.

Also, I remember reading some criticism from gay men when Brokeback Mountain came out that the way the sex was always depicted from behind is actually the way straight people think gay men have sex when in fact, more often than not, they have missionary sex just like heterosexuals.

So in the beginning of the scene in your link when they started off from behind I groaned remembering that criticism, but they even changed it up to get the true, non-hetero depiction of gay sex.

Good job director!

General Discussion / Re: Sex Culture
« on: August 17, 2017, 09:13:59 pm »
My s.o. (maybe former s.o. now) lives in Vancouver most of the time, and she's pretty handsy in public, which I'm not completely comfortable with it. I was never big into public displays when I was with men either, so maybe it's just personality... but I think that maybe being in Vancouver gives her a feeling of comfort with it that I don't feel here.


So you're consistent.  I've never had issues holding the hand of the men I've dated, but with women I was more reserved.  Well, unless we were in a gay-friendly area/bar and it didn't seem out of place. 

But now I don't take it for granted in my current relationship.  For a lot of people it probably doesn't even cross their mind how such a simple little gesture is actually a privilege, but I'm often well aware of it when I hold my husband's in public.

General Discussion / Re: Sex Culture
« on: August 16, 2017, 02:06:12 pm »
I think the reason female same-sex relationships are more socially accepted is because men find the idea of two women together sexually arousing.  I know the word 'patriarchy' is frowned upon these days as non-existent, but the difference in accepting same-sex male relationships is a prime example of how we take a male view of acceptance.

Fortunately, I've noticed changing attitudes amongst the 20 year olds of today where a lot of bisexual men are able to be out compared to when I was 20.  I find it very encouraging.   

As for Kimmy's post, it's funny but recently I was fantasizing about what would happen if I took a same-sex partner to my client's annual Christmas party.  Everyone at that office is in a long-term, stable, heterosexual marriages (no divorces, no blended families). 

It pleased me when I realized nobody would care and how far we've come from 20 years ago where I don't think I would be comfortable in a professional environment if I were in a same-sex relationship. 

I forget though that I'm in a big city and it's still a little different in the smaller communities, so it's nice to hear that things are changing everywhere.  In 20 years from now I hope we're at a point where no matter the gender of the person and no matter the size of the community, these things don't matter.

General Discussion / Re: The Travel Thread
« on: August 06, 2017, 09:15:13 pm »
One day I got into a very extended conversation with a Microsoft call-centre technician stationed in India.  He said if I ever visit, he highly recommends this:

I checked it out while we were on the phone and he was so excited about it, I told him I definitely would check it out I ever make it to India (I would love the vegetarian foods, personally).   

So, msj, keep it in mind and if you end up on it, please come back and let me know so I can live vicariously through you.

American Politics / Re: Facebook Complicity and Harassment
« on: August 06, 2017, 09:00:12 pm »
Recently I read a news article on Facebook and in the comments section, a man had made a very derogatory statement about Muslims.  There was a slew of rebuttals to his comment and although I didn't personally comment, I did 'like' one of the rebuttals.  I wasn't the only person who liked the post, it was already at about 30 when I clicked.

My phone alerted me that someone I don't know has commented on one of my public posts.  Everything on my profile is set to private but that one post was public because I was sharing it and told friends to share it.

It was the man who had made the derogatory Muslim comment on the news article.  He called a Dirty Muslim Slut and 20 minutes later commented a bunch more ignorant things.  He'd also sent a half a dozen instant messages calling me many different things.

Keep in mind, I didn't even respond to him, I was only one of 30 people who liked a post which questioned his stupid comment.  If he's doing that to me, I wonder what he's doing to the people who really piss him off. 

I blocked him and end of story.  It's easy for me to do given my less than provocative existence on Facebook but I got a little taste of the level of crazy that's out there. 

Facebook users should not have to monitor their page 24/7 blocking abusers.  In my opinion, Facebook should've suspended the abusers and then she wouldn't have had to resort to taking screen shots.  Now they're blaming her for taking actions into her own hands when they failed to do their job (reminds me on another forum, ahem).

Asking people being bullied to just ignore things and block everyone and be vigilante 24/7 is not a feasible solution.  If they don't help, people have no choice but to leave Facebook and the bullies' tactics work.

Facebook should absolutely be helping in preventing online abuse.

General Discussion / Re: Kim City
« on: August 02, 2017, 06:53:05 pm »
I'm sitting here in the mountains and the skies are grey and the smell of smoke is very prominent.  :(

Provincial and Local Politics / Re: BC provincial election
« on: July 30, 2017, 10:12:45 pm »
I'm don't agree... I think it was the party as a whole that people got tired of, not Christie in particular. I think she won them an election they would have lost without her in 2013.


No doubt Liberal fatigue played a role, and I can't really agree or disagree with your hypothetical scenarios, but just going by my personal experiences, I found a lot of people who typically support the Liberal party didn't support her and would've preferred to see a new leader.  Our friend msj here is one example from what he said on this thread and Derek 2.0 voiced similar sentiments on MLW.  IRL, my husband was one, as were several friends and some business associates. 

She wasn't particularly amiable character to many. 

Provincial and Local Politics / Re: BC provincial election
« on: July 28, 2017, 10:23:59 pm »
Ha, that would be very fitting.  Initially I thought she wouldn't want to play for a losing team, but hey maybe that would be a good revival for the party.

Interesting theory! 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13