Well, a base question then, both to 93 and lad: why the absolute overrriding urgency to make *any* comment about how supposedly 'progressive' or 'unprogressive' something is/was, especially something 70 or so years ago?

Why the absolute urge (at least by the part of the lad) to be the apparent expert on 'that point in time' on the issue (my guess is that perhaps the lad's parents werent even born at that time).

93, even in the midst of this you continually take on a lecturing tone. With me above, with OO previously, and to be blunt, ostensibly about Trump (supporters, base, followers).

Perhaps an astute fella like you might note that pattern.

Perhaps even tie it back to the assertion of of being smug, condescending, etc.

Maybe there is a pattern to that as well.

So why the overriding urge to make *any* comment about *any* supposed 'progressivism' or lack thereof?

But seriously, it comes across to some as 'well good for *you* for acting so civilized, even at young age'. And when noted, you all dig the trenches about it.

But the singular fact is that there is some apparent, very deep ingrained part that requires you to make asides of that sort. Why exactly do you do that?

You bullshitted your way around that type of flippant aside remark with the Trump supporters, and here are another couple.

(07-21-2019 09:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Well, a base question then, both to 93 and lad: why the absolute overrriding urgency to make *any* comment about how supposedly 'progressive' or 'unprogressive' something is?

Why the absolute urge (at least by the part of the lad) to be the apparent expert on 'that point in time' on the issue (my guess is that perhaps the lad's parents werent even born at that time).

93, even in the midst of this you continually take on a lecturing tone. With me above, with OO previously, and to be blunt, ostensibly about Trump (supporters, base, followers).

Perhaps an astute fella like you might note that pattern.

Perhaps even tie it back to the assertion of of being smug, condescending, etc.

Maybe there is a pattern to that as well.

So why the overriding urge to make *any* comment about *any* supposed 'progressivism' or lack thereof?

But seriously, it comes across to some as 'well good for *you* for acting so civilized, even at young age'. And when noted, you all dig the trenches about it.

But the singular fact is that there is some apparent, very deep ingrained part that requires you to make asides of that sort. Why exactly do you do that?

You bullshitted your way around that type of flippant aside remark with the Trump supporters, and here are another couple.

Why do you comment that the rural Southwest seems to take a “libertarian” approach to the issue? What part of you creates the need to make that sort of comment? Please explain this “overriding urge” that seems to overtake you.

To be clear, I am not really interested in asking you to dissect this out for us. It just seems to be a silly question in light of the fact that we were just having a reasonable discussion before you and OO went berserk.

*edit* Massive LOLZ to Tanq having a problem with the “tone” of my posts. How do you think your “tone” comes across in general, Tanq?

(07-21-2019 07:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 09:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 09:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 09:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 05:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It isn’t a pat on the head, it’s a honest assessment of your community

Smug, arrogant, condescension. And the left has no idea how badly that comes across.

Give me a break. You’re telling me that we should have expected every community in the country in 1963 to embrace an openly gay man?
If so, why did we even have the gay rights movement?
There is zero arrogance or condescension in me saying that OO came from a good community, one that far exceeded and outpaced others in the early 60s, based on historical fact. Tell me, how that is arrogant or condescending? I’m fricking complimenting where he grew up - they had a better attitude towards gay men than mine did in the early 2000s. Jesus.

No, I'm telling you that you come across like telling your dog, "Good boy, Fido." That was actually the image that jumped immediately to mind when I read that.

I grew up in a small town in Alabama in the 1960s. Our church youth group had an openly gay boy as vice president, and our statewide youth group organization had a black vice-president, in 1963. The stereotypes are stereotypes, and patting someone on the back for not conforming does come across as smug, arrogant, condescension.

I'm quite certain that OO is extremely gratified to know that you approve of his high school in 1963.

I just don't think the left understands how their smug, arrogant, condescension comes across.

Well ****, I guess I should just go back to assuming OO is some ignorant, racist, deplorable, huh? Seems like that would at least be less arrogant than, heaven forbid, commenting that his community provided a more positive environment for an out gay man in high school than the majority of the country in the 2000s, let alone the 1960s.

Fricken thought police over here, acting as if the entire country in the 1960s was a haven for gay individuals.

The fact that you think it's arrogant or smug, is just mind boggling, because I explicitly shared how I did not come from a community like OO's. I would have much rather not dealt with the blatant homophobic issues I did growing up in high school.

“Go back”? So that is what you thought of me before?





Relax. I am taking that as a misspeak rather than a statement of fact. But let me know if it really was a statement of fact.

(07-21-2019 09:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Well, a base question then, both to 93 and lad: why the absolute overrriding urgency to make *any* comment about how supposedly 'progressive' or 'unprogressive' something is/was, especially something 70 or so years ago?

Why the absolute urge (at least by the part of the lad) to be the apparent expert on 'that point in time' on the issue (my guess is that perhaps the lad's parents werent even born at that time).

93, even in the midst of this you continually take on a lecturing tone. With me above, with OO previously, and to be blunt, ostensibly about Trump (supporters, base, followers).

Perhaps an astute fella like you might note that pattern.

Perhaps even tie it back to the assertion of of being smug, condescending, etc.

Maybe there is a pattern to that as well.

So why the overriding urge to make *any* comment about *any* supposed 'progressivism' or lack thereof?

But seriously, it comes across to some as 'well good for *you* for acting so civilized, even at young age'. And when noted, you all dig the trenches about it.

But the singular fact is that there is some apparent, very deep ingrained part that requires you to make asides of that sort. Why exactly do you do that?

You bullshitted your way around that type of flippant aside remark with the Trump supporters, and here are another couple.

1) I made the comment because it was counter to my experience in high school where there was open homophobia that I experienced first hand. Given that the treatment of gay people has generally improved over the years, it was contrary to my preconceived notions for the time, regardless of the place. Sorry for talking on a message board.

2) I never claimed to be an expert in the history of gay rights in the country, but I do know a decent amount about the topic. Why the need to say that I said I was an expert? Why is it surprising that I know the history of a topic and have used that to make a comment? You act as if, just because one was not alive during a period of time, that they can’t use the information they’ve learned over the years to form an opinion. Noticed how I didn’t refute anything OO said, and commented on how it went against my preconceived notion of the treatment of gay people during the early 60s?

3) My parents were both born in the 1950s. Not sure why that is relevant. Do you care to know where they grew up, too?

4) If you want to take the comments the way you are, that’s your prerogative. I was using my own personal experience and commenting on how OO’s was much more positive, yet somehow I’m the *******? It seems like y’all have a real hard time talking about any topic without turning it into some sort of us vs them. A positive comment was turned around into an attack. And liberals are supposed to be the snowflakes...

(07-21-2019 09:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 09:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Well, a base question then, both to 93 and lad: why the absolute overrriding urgency to make *any* comment about how supposedly 'progressive' or 'unprogressive' something is?

Why the absolute urge (at least by the part of the lad) to be the apparent expert on 'that point in time' on the issue (my guess is that perhaps the lad's parents werent even born at that time).

93, even in the midst of this you continually take on a lecturing tone. With me above, with OO previously, and to be blunt, ostensibly about Trump (supporters, base, followers).

Perhaps an astute fella like you might note that pattern.

Perhaps even tie it back to the assertion of of being smug, condescending, etc.

Maybe there is a pattern to that as well.

So why the overriding urge to make *any* comment about *any* supposed 'progressivism' or lack thereof?

But seriously, it comes across to some as 'well good for *you* for acting so civilized, even at young age'. And when noted, you all dig the trenches about it.

But the singular fact is that there is some apparent, very deep ingrained part that requires you to make asides of that sort. Why exactly do you do that?

You bullshitted your way around that type of flippant aside remark with the Trump supporters, and here are another couple.

Why do you comment that the rural Southwest seems to take a “libertarian” approach to the issue? What part of you creates the need to make that sort of comment? Please explain this “overriding urge” that seems to overtake you.

To be clear, I am not really interested in asking you to dissect this out for us.

No sweat 93, I'll answer, Its only fair becuase I asked a question, although I note you didnt bother to answer. Perhaps because Im sick and fing tired of the ostensible lecturing, explicit and implied?

Quote:It just seems to be a silly question in light of the fact that we were just having a reasonable discussion before you and OO went berserk.

You also mean, his retort to your 'atta boy, heres a pat on the head' that OOs comment was directed at? Or did you not catch that message from him? When you decide to determine the 'thingies' that went wrong, it really doesnt help you to (edit, alter, delete) anything that you might have done to engender that response, at least in my opinion.

I mean this is at least the third time that you have been 'notified' of how that sounds, and yet you continue on like it is blipped out. Very good.

Now that I answered your question, perhaps you might bother to answer mine. Or go back to the honored 93 style of just simply asking another question and hope that passes as a response.

(07-21-2019 09:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 09:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Well, a base question then, both to 93 and lad: why the absolute overrriding urgency to make *any* comment about how supposedly 'progressive' or 'unprogressive' something is/was, especially something 70 or so years ago?

Why the absolute urge (at least by the part of the lad) to be the apparent expert on 'that point in time' on the issue (my guess is that perhaps the lad's parents werent even born at that time).

93, even in the midst of this you continually take on a lecturing tone. With me above, with OO previously, and to be blunt, ostensibly about Trump (supporters, base, followers).

Perhaps an astute fella like you might note that pattern.

Perhaps even tie it back to the assertion of of being smug, condescending, etc.

Maybe there is a pattern to that as well.

So why the overriding urge to make *any* comment about *any* supposed 'progressivism' or lack thereof?

But seriously, it comes across to some as 'well good for *you* for acting so civilized, even at young age'. And when noted, you all dig the trenches about it.

But the singular fact is that there is some apparent, very deep ingrained part that requires you to make asides of that sort. Why exactly do you do that?

You bullshitted your way around that type of flippant aside remark with the Trump supporters, and here are another couple.

1) I made the comment because it was counter to my experience in high school where there was open homophobia that I experienced first hand. Given that the treatment of gay people has generally improved over the years, it was contrary to my preconceived notions for the time, regardless of the place. Sorry for talking on a message board.

2) I never claimed to be an expert in the history of gay rights in the country, but I do know a decent amount about the topic. Why the need to say that I said I was an expert? Why is it surprising that I know the history of a topic and have used that to make a comment? You act as if, just because one was not alive during a period of time, that they can’t use the information they’ve learned over the years to form an opinion. Noticed how I didn’t refute anything OO said, and commented on how it went against my preconceived notion of the treatment of gay people during the early 60s?

3) My parents were both born in the 1950s. Not sure why that is relevant. Do you care to know where they grew up, too?

4) If you want to take the comments the way you are, that’s your prerogative. I was using my own personal experience and commenting on how OO’s was much more positive, yet somehow I’m the *******? It seems like y’all have a real hard time talking about any topic without turning it into some sort of us vs them. A positive comment was turned around into an attack. And liberals are supposed to be the snowflakes...

I seem to remember you presented your now 'preconceived notion' as a fact of history at some point. Im too lazy to look that up right now, and a tad to tired to get into 'nuances' currently -- there are far more pleasant things to do (cleaning gutters somes to mind).

Your comments didnt come across, to me at least, as 'using my own personal experience and commenting on how OO’s was much more positive', just saying.

But wtf do I know. Ah cahnt reed.

Edited to ad 'to me at least'. Even though ah kahnt reed, ah kahn sermize thet pursepshun iz a subjektuv won.

(07-21-2019 10:05 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 09:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 09:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Well, a base question then, both to 93 and lad: why the absolute overrriding urgency to make *any* comment about how supposedly 'progressive' or 'unprogressive' something is/was, especially something 70 or so years ago?

Why the absolute urge (at least by the part of the lad) to be the apparent expert on 'that point in time' on the issue (my guess is that perhaps the lad's parents werent even born at that time).

93, even in the midst of this you continually take on a lecturing tone. With me above, with OO previously, and to be blunt, ostensibly about Trump (supporters, base, followers).

Perhaps an astute fella like you might note that pattern.

Perhaps even tie it back to the assertion of of being smug, condescending, etc.

Maybe there is a pattern to that as well.

So why the overriding urge to make *any* comment about *any* supposed 'progressivism' or lack thereof?

But seriously, it comes across to some as 'well good for *you* for acting so civilized, even at young age'. And when noted, you all dig the trenches about it.

But the singular fact is that there is some apparent, very deep ingrained part that requires you to make asides of that sort. Why exactly do you do that?

You bullshitted your way around that type of flippant aside remark with the Trump supporters, and here are another couple.

1) I made the comment because it was counter to my experience in high school where there was open homophobia that I experienced first hand. Given that the treatment of gay people has generally improved over the years, it was contrary to my preconceived notions for the time, regardless of the place. Sorry for talking on a message board.

2) I never claimed to be an expert in the history of gay rights in the country, but I do know a decent amount about the topic. Why the need to say that I said I was an expert? Why is it surprising that I know the history of a topic and have used that to make a comment? You act as if, just because one was not alive during a period of time, that they can’t use the information they’ve learned over the years to form an opinion. Noticed how I didn’t refute anything OO said, and commented on how it went against my preconceived notion of the treatment of gay people during the early 60s?

3) My parents were both born in the 1950s. Not sure why that is relevant. Do you care to know where they grew up, too?

4) If you want to take the comments the way you are, that’s your prerogative. I was using my own personal experience and commenting on how OO’s was much more positive, yet somehow I’m the *******? It seems like y’all have a real hard time talking about any topic without turning it into some sort of us vs them. A positive comment was turned around into an attack. And liberals are supposed to be the snowflakes...

I seem to remember you presented your now 'preconceived notion' as a fact of history at some point. Im too lazy to look that up right now, and a tad to tired to get into 'nuances' currently -- there are far more pleasant things to do (cleaning gutters somes to mind).

Your comments didnt come across as 'using my own personal experience and commenting on how OO’s was much more positive', just saying.

But wtf do I know. Ah cahnt reed.

Seriously? My very first comment on the matter included my personal experiences in high school. How in the **** does that not come across as “using my own personal experiences????”

And I used historical events - I even listed them - to explain why I was saying that OO’s community was ahead of its time in terms of the treatment of an openly gay man in high school.

I never suggested you can’t read and understand individual words, but maybe you should go back and read my first post and see if you think it was still head patting.

(07-21-2019 09:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 09:35 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 09:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Well, a base question then, both to 93 and lad: why the absolute overrriding urgency to make *any* comment about how supposedly 'progressive' or 'unprogressive' something is?

Why the absolute urge (at least by the part of the lad) to be the apparent expert on 'that point in time' on the issue (my guess is that perhaps the lad's parents werent even born at that time).

93, even in the midst of this you continually take on a lecturing tone. With me above, with OO previously, and to be blunt, ostensibly about Trump (supporters, base, followers).

Perhaps an astute fella like you might note that pattern.

Perhaps even tie it back to the assertion of of being smug, condescending, etc.

Maybe there is a pattern to that as well.

So why the overriding urge to make *any* comment about *any* supposed 'progressivism' or lack thereof?

But seriously, it comes across to some as 'well good for *you* for acting so civilized, even at young age'. And when noted, you all dig the trenches about it.

But the singular fact is that there is some apparent, very deep ingrained part that requires you to make asides of that sort. Why exactly do you do that?

You bullshitted your way around that type of flippant aside remark with the Trump supporters, and here are another couple.

Why do you comment that the rural Southwest seems to take a “libertarian” approach to the issue? What part of you creates the need to make that sort of comment? Please explain this “overriding urge” that seems to overtake you.

To be clear, I am not really interested in asking you to dissect this out for us.

No sweat 93, I'll answer, Its only fair becuase I asked a question, although I note you didnt bother to answer. Perhaps because Im sick and fing tired of the ostensible lecturing, explicit and implied?

Like a said, I wasn't really looking for an answer. It's a silly question that I wasn't really hoping to make you justify with a response. I wasn't planning on responding to your question either.

Quote:

Quote:It just seems to be a silly question in light of the fact that we were just having a reasonable discussion before you and OO went berserk.

You also mean, his retort to your 'atta boy, heres a pat on the head' that OOs comment was directed at? Or did you not catch that message from him? When you decide to determine the 'thingies' that went wrong, it really doesnt help you to (edit, alter, delete) anything that you might have done to engender that response, at least in my opinion.

I mean this is at least the third time that you have been 'notified' of how that sounds, and yet you continue on like it is blipped out. Very good.

Feel free to keep notifying me. I still don't understand the response. My interpretation looks something like this:

OO: In my high school in the rural Southwest of the 1960's I was friends with an openly gay student and nobody in my school seemed to give him a hard time.

Lad: Wow... that's surprising that openly gay students received that sort of treatment back then. When I was in high school in the 2000's I had a difficult time of it due to homophobic comments that were directed at my brother. I wish my school was more like your school was back then. Kudos to your school for being what I imagine was an outlier for that time period.

OO: You are giving me a pat on the head? How smug and condesceding! You think you know more about early the rural Southwest in the 1960's than me?

I am sure that you guys see it differently but that is how the exchange played out to me.

Quote:Now that I answered your question, perhaps you might bother to answer mine. Or go back to the honored 93 style of just simply asking another question and hope that passes as a response.

Ummm... you didn't answer my question? And as I said earlier please don't.

(07-21-2019 07:40 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 07:16 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Maybe we have hit on a 'progressive'/'non-progressive' dynamic.

I noted:

Quote:Caring and fostering? Nope.
More laissez fair? My guess would be that.

and you responded:

Quote:I think "laissez fair" makes it sound more positive for gay high schoolers than it probably was. According to my parents, suspected gay people were treated as if they were radioactive.

Does this mean to to you that anything less than 'caring and fostering' is 'unprogressive'? If so, you probably need to backtrack your head pat of OO

I dont deny that the gay guy in Ruidoso didnt probably have a lot more 'guy pals' than most. But he certainly wasnt regarded with hate, nor actively shunned. Seems to be a pretty fluid definition of 'progressive' we have going now.

I guess your head pat wasnt meant to go far as it was taken.

My post pointed out that our anecdotal stories of the treatment of gay students in the rural Southwest in the 1960's doesn't sound that much different from that of other eras/regions. Not sure how you are making the leap you did but go for it I guess?

By "unprogressive" do you mean that my parent's description of their classmates' treatment of suspected gay people in their midst wasn't especially ahead of its time? Then yes.

*edit* Any by the "pat on his head" that OO is actively recoiling from... I was simply surprised/impressed that OO had a friend that was out of the closet in 1963. To me... that took some cojones and self-confidence to be friends with a gay student back then. Even more so to be out of the closet in high school in 1963. I had neither of those attributes in 1989 (I would have been way too worried about what other guys thought if I spent time with the guy in our class). I'm not actually sure if OO was actually friends with him or simply was pleasant to him when passing by in the hall (which would be more akin to my and my parents' experience and less of an outlier).

Truth is somewhere in between. Very perceptive of you. (Head pat)

Jim was not “out”. In the modern sense. He did not go down the the hall with a sign around his neck saying “I am gay”. But it was clear to everybody. He was very effeminate, in manner and voice. He was openly gay only in the sense he could not hide it.

I went to his house once, to hang out. He asked if he could measure my ***** for a project he was doing. No thank you. I didn’t run screaming, but I never went back. Which one of you would? If the list of other boys whose penises he had supposedly measured was real, he had outed himself.

Jim and I were in several clubs together at school, and at least one youth group outside of it. We were often on group trips together and shared a room at least once. When we were on trips, sometimes we would go down to eat as a group and he was always included.

We didn’t walk down the halls holding hands.

I was not one of the popular kids in school, but I bet Jim’s existence was even lonelier. I would not have traded places with him. I felt sorry for him, and I am not a person who is mean to those less fortunate than me.

(07-21-2019 10:13 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  My interpretation looks something like this:

OO: In my high school in the rural Southwest of the 1960's I was friends with an openly gay student and nobody in my school seemed to give him a hard time.

Lad: Wow... that's surprising that openly gay students received that sort of treatment back then. When I was in high school in the 2000's I had a difficult time of it due to homophobic comments that were directed at my brother. I wish my school was more like your school was back then. Kudos to your school for being what I imagine was an outlier for that time period.

Edited to add *your* comment aside here, which was conveniently 'forgotten':
93: "Clearly your school was more progressive without any coercion."

OO: You are giving me a pat on the head? How smug and condesceding! You think you know more about early the rural Southwest in the 1960's than me?

I am sure that you guys see it differently but that is how the exchange played out to me.

And you ostensibly dont see that 'how civilized of you' aside (which is utterly immaterial to the subject) as a smug and condescending. Got it. Hate to tell you some do. It can come across as virtue-signalling preachy. Which progressives (the political type) seem to have a very strong ability to do.

Almost as well as the religious right that they hate and rail about that exact same trait.

Snowflake? I dont know. But the funny thing is that seemingly you dont see any sort of preachy **** to it.

Bless your little hearts.... (see, like that aside there.... not adding anything of substance to a comment, just a tack on preach.)

To be blunt, one can interpret *your* exact quote (above) as: Good for you that you knuckledraggers in the 60s, and a bunch of clodbusters on top of it, accepted this without it being forced on you. I guess the fact that a school in the 60's, a rural school, should have to be 'coerced' is a tad preachy. Well, scratch the word 'tad'.

You have this odd habit of dropping 'asides' (with no other connection to the main subject) that are amazingly cute in their preaching quality. Hey, how about a comment on Trump voters and their supposed ignorance. Or another one on a school that should be so ignorant that you are surprised that it didnt take coercion to be laissez fair abut gays. Neat commonality your 'random' asides all have, isnt it?

(07-21-2019 07:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The fact that you think it's arrogant or smug, is just mind boggling, because I explicitly shared how I did not come from a community like OO's. I would have much rather not dealt with the blatant homophobic issues I did growing up in high school.

WTF does your experience in HS have to do with the smug, arrogant, condescending tone of your, "Good boy, Fido," comments now? I'm trying very hard to establish whatever connection you are trying to make and the penny isn't dropping.

Are you saying that it's OK for you to be smug, arrogant, and condescending now because your life sucked back then?

Since as I indicated, I belonged to a church youth group with an out gay VP, and part of a statewide youth council with a black VP, do I get a pat on the head and a, "Good boy, Fido," too?

I think I have an idea of what you may be trying to say. But the words and expressions you are using don't get you there, so I'm not sure.

(07-21-2019 09:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 09:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Well, a base question then, both to 93 and lad: why the absolute overrriding urgency to make *any* comment about how supposedly 'progressive' or 'unprogressive' something is/was, especially something 70 or so years ago?

Why the absolute urge (at least by the part of the lad) to be the apparent expert on 'that point in time' on the issue (my guess is that perhaps the lad's parents werent even born at that time).

93, even in the midst of this you continually take on a lecturing tone. With me above, with OO previously, and to be blunt, ostensibly about Trump (supporters, base, followers).

Perhaps an astute fella like you might note that pattern.

Perhaps even tie it back to the assertion of of being smug, condescending, etc.

Maybe there is a pattern to that as well.

So why the overriding urge to make *any* comment about *any* supposed 'progressivism' or lack thereof?

But seriously, it comes across to some as 'well good for *you* for acting so civilized, even at young age'. And when noted, you all dig the trenches about it.

But the singular fact is that there is some apparent, very deep ingrained part that requires you to make asides of that sort. Why exactly do you do that?

You bullshitted your way around that type of flippant aside remark with the Trump supporters, and here are another couple.

1) I made the comment because it was counter to my experience in high school where there was open homophobia that I experienced first hand. Given that the treatment of gay people has generally improved over the years, it was contrary to my preconceived notions for the time, regardless of the place. Sorry for talking on a message board.

2) I never claimed to be an expert in the history of gay rights in the country, but I do know a decent amount about the topic. Why the need to say that I said I was an expert? Why is it surprising that I know the history of a topic and have used that to make a comment? You act as if, just because one was not alive during a period of time, that they can’t use the information they’ve learned over the years to form an opinion. Noticed how I didn’t refute anything OO said, and commented on how it went against my preconceived notion of the treatment of gay people during the early 60s?

3) My parents were both born in the 1950s. Not sure why that is relevant. Do you care to know where they grew up, too?

4) If you want to take the comments the way you are, that’s your prerogative. I was using my own personal experience and commenting on how OO’s was much more positive, yet somehow I’m the *******? It seems like y’all have a real hard time talking about any topic without turning it into some sort of us vs them. A positive comment was turned around into an attack. And liberals are supposed to be the snowflakes...

Re number 4: Sounds like a standard conservative experience. Welcome to the club.

Have we wrung this topic dry yet? I thought my life back in the 50s and 60s and 70s was unremarkable. At this point, I don’t want to remark on it any more.

(07-21-2019 10:34 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 10:13 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  My interpretation looks something like this:

OO: In my high school in the rural Southwest of the 1960's I was friends with an openly gay student and nobody in my school seemed to give him a hard time.

Lad: Wow... that's surprising that openly gay students received that sort of treatment back then. When I was in high school in the 2000's I had a difficult time of it due to homophobic comments that were directed at my brother. I wish my school was more like your school was back then. Kudos to your school for being what I imagine was an outlier for that time period.

Edited to add *your* comment aside here, which was conveniently 'forgotten':
93: "Clearly your school was more progressive without any coercion."

OO: You are giving me a pat on the head? How smug and condesceding! You think you know more about early the rural Southwest in the 1960's than me?

I am sure that you guys see it differently but that is how the exchange played out to me.

And you ostensibly dont see that 'how civilized of you' aside (which is utterly immaterial to the subject) as a smug and condescending. Got it. Hate to tell you some do. It can come across as virtue-signalling preachy. Which progressives (the political type) seem to have a very strong ability to do.

Almost as well as the religious right that they hate and rail about that exact same trait.

Snowflake? I dont know. But the funny thing is that seemingly you dont see any sort of preachy **** to it.

Bless your little hearts.... (see, like that aside there.... not adding anything of substance to a comment, just a tack on preach.)

To be blunt, one can interpret *your* exact quote (above) as: Good for you that you knuckledraggers in the 60s, and a bunch of clodbusters on top of it, accepted this without it being forced on you. I guess the fact that a school in the 60's, a rural school, should have to be 'coerced' is a tad preachy. Well, scratch the word 'tad'.

You have this odd habit of dropping 'asides' (with no other connection to the main subject) that are amazingly cute in their preaching quality. Hey, how about a comment on Trump voters and their supposed ignorance. Or another one on a school that should be so ignorant that you are surprised that it didnt take coercion to be laissez fair abut gays. Neat commonality your 'random' asides all have, isnt it?

Allow me to be blunt as well. You are a big fan of accusing others of editing/snipping/deleting posts to serve their own purposes but you are completely guilty of this (and not for the first time).

Here is the exchange to which you refer:

OO: His "friend" Harlan was one of the more popular guys in school. I guess my country school in 1962-63 was more progressive than your school. And we did it without being coerced.

Me: Clearly your school was more progressive without any coercion. It would be interesting to me to hear from homosexuals in your area from that era to see if they felt the same way about the experience that you do.

I was simply responding to OO's own words in that post. To not include the entire exchange is quite disingenuous.

*edit* I assume you are pissed at OO for using the term "progressive" in that context?

(07-21-2019 10:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 07:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The fact that you think it's arrogant or smug, is just mind boggling, because I explicitly shared how I did not come from a community like OO's. I would have much rather not dealt with the blatant homophobic issues I did growing up in high school.

WTF does your experience in HS have to do with the smug, arrogant, condescending tone of your, "Good boy, Fido," comments now? I'm trying very hard to establish whatever connection you are trying to make and the penny isn't dropping.

Are you saying that it's OK for you to be smug, arrogant, and condescending now because your life sucked back then?

Since as I indicated, I belonged to a church youth group with an out gay VP, and part of a statewide youth council with a black VP, do I get a pat on the head and a, "Good boy, Fido," too?

I think I have an idea of what you may be trying to say. But the words and expressions you are using don't get you there, so I'm not sure.

Just like OO doesn’t get a pat on the back, you don’t either. But given the year, it was quite progressive (in a non political sense) that a church group, no less, had an openly gay man in a position of leadership. Even the *** **** Boy Scouts didn’t allow that into the 2010s.

Why do you get so worked up over commenting that a community or group treated a group that wasn’t treated well, well?

I brought up my personal experience to explain why I felt it OO’s experience was noteworthy - because it stood in contrast to mine, 40 years later. And the fact that I had the experience I did makes it a bit hard to be smug - I’m not sure how you get that I’m being smug when I didn’t come from a high school that was holier than though and could look down on anyone. I would have had to go to a really open, and tolerant school to have been in a position to be smug.

And my life didn’t suck, I just saw and dealt with blatant homophobia and thought it was the norm. Maybe that helps to explain why I gave OO’s school some props.

Anyways, this thread is beyond tedious - have fun trying to belittle others for trying to say something kind.

(07-21-2019 11:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 10:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 07:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The fact that you think it's arrogant or smug, is just mind boggling, because I explicitly shared how I did not come from a community like OO's. I would have much rather not dealt with the blatant homophobic issues I did growing up in high school.

WTF does your experience in HS have to do with the smug, arrogant, condescending tone of your, "Good boy, Fido," comments now? I'm trying very hard to establish whatever connection you are trying to make and the penny isn't dropping.

Are you saying that it's OK for you to be smug, arrogant, and condescending now because your life sucked back then?

Since as I indicated, I belonged to a church youth group with an out gay VP, and part of a statewide youth council with a black VP, do I get a pat on the head and a, "Good boy, Fido," too?

I think I have an idea of what you may be trying to say. But the words and expressions you are using don't get you there, so I'm not sure.

Just like OO doesn’t get a pat on the back, you don’t either. But given the year, it was quite progressive (in a non political sense) that a church group, no less, had an openly gay man in a position of leadership. Even the *** **** Boy Scouts didn’t allow that into the 2010s.

Why do you get so worked up over commenting that a community or group treated a group that wasn’t treated well, well?

I brought up my personal experience to explain why I felt it OO’s experience was noteworthy - because it stood in contrast to mine, 40 years later. And the fact that I had the experience I did makes it a bit hard to be smug - I’m not sure how you get that I’m being smug when I didn’t come from a high school that was holier than though and could look down on anyone. I would have had to go to a really open, and tolerant school to have been in a position to be smug.

And my life didn’t suck, I just saw and dealt with blatant homophobia and thought it was the norm. Maybe that helps to explain why I gave OO’s school some props.

Anyways, this thread is beyond tedious - have fun trying to belittle others for trying to say something kind.

I didn’t say church group, and I didn’t say he was in a leadership position.

He was a member.

It was not a church group.

Lots of assumptions being made. Not just Lad.

(07-21-2019 11:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 11:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 10:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 07:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The fact that you think it's arrogant or smug, is just mind boggling, because I explicitly shared how I did not come from a community like OO's. I would have much rather not dealt with the blatant homophobic issues I did growing up in high school.

WTF does your experience in HS have to do with the smug, arrogant, condescending tone of your, "Good boy, Fido," comments now? I'm trying very hard to establish whatever connection you are trying to make and the penny isn't dropping.

Are you saying that it's OK for you to be smug, arrogant, and condescending now because your life sucked back then?

Since as I indicated, I belonged to a church youth group with an out gay VP, and part of a statewide youth council with a black VP, do I get a pat on the head and a, "Good boy, Fido," too?

I think I have an idea of what you may be trying to say. But the words and expressions you are using don't get you there, so I'm not sure.

Just like OO doesn’t get a pat on the back, you don’t either. But given the year, it was quite progressive (in a non political sense) that a church group, no less, had an openly gay man in a position of leadership. Even the *** **** Boy Scouts didn’t allow that into the 2010s.

Why do you get so worked up over commenting that a community or group treated a group that wasn’t treated well, well?

I brought up my personal experience to explain why I felt it OO’s experience was noteworthy - because it stood in contrast to mine, 40 years later. And the fact that I had the experience I did makes it a bit hard to be smug - I’m not sure how you get that I’m being smug when I didn’t come from a high school that was holier than though and could look down on anyone. I would have had to go to a really open, and tolerant school to have been in a position to be smug.

And my life didn’t suck, I just saw and dealt with blatant homophobia and thought it was the norm. Maybe that helps to explain why I gave OO’s school some props.

Anyways, this thread is beyond tedious - have fun trying to belittle others for trying to say something kind.

I didn’t say church group, and I didn’t say he was in a leadership position.

He was a member.

It was not a church group.

That was in reference to Owl#’s comment. See the text I responded to.

(07-21-2019 11:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 11:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 11:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 10:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 07:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The fact that you think it's arrogant or smug, is just mind boggling, because I explicitly shared how I did not come from a community like OO's. I would have much rather not dealt with the blatant homophobic issues I did growing up in high school.

WTF does your experience in HS have to do with the smug, arrogant, condescending tone of your, "Good boy, Fido," comments now? I'm trying very hard to establish whatever connection you are trying to make and the penny isn't dropping.

Are you saying that it's OK for you to be smug, arrogant, and condescending now because your life sucked back then?

Since as I indicated, I belonged to a church youth group with an out gay VP, and part of a statewide youth council with a black VP, do I get a pat on the head and a, "Good boy, Fido," too?

I think I have an idea of what you may be trying to say. But the words and expressions you are using don't get you there, so I'm not sure.

Just like OO doesn’t get a pat on the back, you don’t either. But given the year, it was quite progressive (in a non political sense) that a church group, no less, had an openly gay man in a position of leadership. Even the *** **** Boy Scouts didn’t allow that into the 2010s.

Why do you get so worked up over commenting that a community or group treated a group that wasn’t treated well, well?

I brought up my personal experience to explain why I felt it OO’s experience was noteworthy - because it stood in contrast to mine, 40 years later. And the fact that I had the experience I did makes it a bit hard to be smug - I’m not sure how you get that I’m being smug when I didn’t come from a high school that was holier than though and could look down on anyone. I would have had to go to a really open, and tolerant school to have been in a position to be smug.

And my life didn’t suck, I just saw and dealt with blatant homophobia and thought it was the norm. Maybe that helps to explain why I gave OO’s school some props.

Anyways, this thread is beyond tedious - have fun trying to belittle others for trying to say something kind.

I didn’t say church group, and I didn’t say he was in a leadership position.

He was a member.

It was not a church group.

That was in reference to Owl#’s comment. See the text I responded to.

Sorry.

(07-21-2019 11:58 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 11:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 11:23 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 11:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 10:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  WTF does your experience in HS have to do with the smug, arrogant, condescending tone of your, "Good boy, Fido," comments now? I'm trying very hard to establish whatever connection you are trying to make and the penny isn't dropping.

Are you saying that it's OK for you to be smug, arrogant, and condescending now because your life sucked back then?

Since as I indicated, I belonged to a church youth group with an out gay VP, and part of a statewide youth council with a black VP, do I get a pat on the head and a, "Good boy, Fido," too?

I think I have an idea of what you may be trying to say. But the words and expressions you are using don't get you there, so I'm not sure.

Just like OO doesn’t get a pat on the back, you don’t either. But given the year, it was quite progressive (in a non political sense) that a church group, no less, had an openly gay man in a position of leadership. Even the *** **** Boy Scouts didn’t allow that into the 2010s.

Why do you get so worked up over commenting that a community or group treated a group that wasn’t treated well, well?

I brought up my personal experience to explain why I felt it OO’s experience was noteworthy - because it stood in contrast to mine, 40 years later. And the fact that I had the experience I did makes it a bit hard to be smug - I’m not sure how you get that I’m being smug when I didn’t come from a high school that was holier than though and could look down on anyone. I would have had to go to a really open, and tolerant school to have been in a position to be smug.

And my life didn’t suck, I just saw and dealt with blatant homophobia and thought it was the norm. Maybe that helps to explain why I gave OO’s school some props.

Anyways, this thread is beyond tedious - have fun trying to belittle others for trying to say something kind.

I didn’t say church group, and I didn’t say he was in a leadership position.

He was a member.

It was not a church group.

That was in reference to Owl#’s comment. See the text I responded to.

Sorry.

No harm, no foul.

(07-21-2019 11:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 10:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 07:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The fact that you think it's arrogant or smug, is just mind boggling, because I explicitly shared how I did not come from a community like OO's. I would have much rather not dealt with the blatant homophobic issues I did growing up in high school.

WTF does your experience in HS have to do with the smug, arrogant, condescending tone of your, "Good boy, Fido," comments now? I'm trying very hard to establish whatever connection you are trying to make and the penny isn't dropping.
Are you saying that it's OK for you to be smug, arrogant, and condescending now because your life sucked back then?
Since as I indicated, I belonged to a church youth group with an out gay VP, and part of a statewide youth council with a black VP, do I get a pat on the head and a, "Good boy, Fido," too?
I think I have an idea of what you may be trying to say. But the words and expressions you are using don't get you there, so I'm not sure.

Just like OO doesn’t get a pat on the back, you don’t either. But given the year, it was quite progressive (in a non political sense) that a church group, no less, had an openly gay man in a position of leadership. Even the *** **** Boy Scouts didn’t allow that into the 2010s.
Why do you get so worked up over commenting that a community or group treated a group that wasn’t treated well, well?
I brought up my personal experience to explain why I felt it OO’s experience was noteworthy - because it stood in contrast to mine, 40 years later. And the fact that I had the experience I did makes it a bit hard to be smug - I’m not sure how you get that I’m being smug when I didn’t come from a high school that was holier than though and could look down on anyone. I would have had to go to a really open, and tolerant school to have been in a position to be smug.
And my life didn’t suck, I just saw and dealt with blatant homophobia and thought it was the norm. Maybe that helps to explain why I gave OO’s school some props.
Anyways, this thread is beyond tedious - have fun trying to belittle others for trying to say something kind.

I'm not worked up. I'm trying to explain your tone deafness to you.

OMG, in a world where we have to live with so much political correctness all the time, I though you might appreciate a look at how your comments are taken by someone with a different point of view.

I guess you just don't understand and don't want to understand. I'm sure those comments don't provoke anything but agreement in the chardonnay-and-cheese social gatherings of your similarly progressive fellow travelers, but they don't play worth a damn with a big hunk of the population. Just like Hillary's "deplorable" comment.

Oh, well, at least I tried. I guess it's another iteration of, "No good deed goes unpunished."

Go back where ya been

Oldie but goodie. Lyrics apropos to more than one of today's issues.