PsychoTheFear said:
Fuck the porn ban, that silly pink toe cunt made a bold and very ignorant statment about African American families during slavery, one parent households were commonplace in slavery because one parent was either sold or lynched, so suck on that cunt.
PsychoTheFear said:
Fuck the porn ban, that silly pink toe cunt made a bold and very ignorant statment about African American families during slavery, one parent households were commonplace in slavery because one parent was either sold or lynched, so suck on that cunt.
PsychoTheFear said:
Fuck the porn ban, that silly pink toe cunt made a bold and very ignorant statment about African American families during slavery, one parent households were commonplace in slavery because one parent was either sold or lynched, so suck on that cunt.
silly pink toe cunt?
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS!!!!
i checked urbandictionary. apparently its a term for white girl.
PsychoTheFear said:
Fuck the porn ban, that silly pink toe cunt made a bold and very ignorant statment about African American families during slavery, one parent households were commonplace in slavery because one parent was either sold or lynched, so suck on that cunt.
silly pink toe cunt?
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS!!!!
i checked urbandictionary. apparently its a term for white girl.
PsychoTheFear said:
Fuck the porn ban, that silly pink toe cunt made a bold and very ignorant statment about African American families during slavery, one parent households were commonplace in slavery because one parent was either sold or lynched, so suck on that cunt.
silly pink toe cunt?
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS!!!!
i checked urbandictionary. apparently its a term for white girl.
Yes. Yes we were. I just cannot believe that "pink toed cunt" has an actual definition, nor that someone felt it was appropriate to post in a thread that has been over the "stop posting sexist bullshit" theme already.
darksphere said:
This is what happens when you stick a CE thread anywhere else.
That's my read as well. There is a crazy amount of misogynistic idiocy in this thread. What the fucking fuck.
It's the difference between posting an article through the SG Blog, and simply posting it on the Boards. A lot of members never find their way to the Boards, but items posted through the SG Blog are linked to on the main page, and in the more prominent 'News' link on the page header.
Most of the people posting these misogynistic comments aren't checking back to see our disgusted reaction. It's like comments on Yahoo or Youtube.
Well, despite the train wreck that this thread may have become, I really appreciated the initial piece on Bachmann and many of the comments, especially this one by Toku666:
To wit, the fact that the chattel slave trade in the US (in 1860, which was the magical year that she picked for whatever reason, because it doesn't make a lot of difference to her analysis) routinely separated family members, including parents and children. The marriage of a slave to another slave was routinely ignored if it was extant prior to capture or re-capture, and the idea of slaves marrying one another was up to the discretion of the "owner" and was often frowned upon. New children born after capture or re-capture would routinely be sold off, as infant slaves were highly prized in the market. It's not as if we don't have tons of historical documentation because, if they were nothing else, slave traders were good bean counters.
What is mind blowing to me is that there does seem to be a very large number of people in the US who believe that the problem is the "ethics of sexual liberation" (or whatever term they use), by which they mean pornography, sex outside of marriage, abortion, divorce, etc. For example, I recently got into an argument with someone I went to college with over this article:
Because, yes, that's it. That's the problem. Just crack down on all that stuff and everything will get better. And, notice, of course, that George doesn't even MENTION the FEMINIST movement and prominent figures from it, as if sexual liberation were all about "forms of sexual conduct that were traditionally regarded in the West and many other places as beneath the dignity of human beings as free and rational creatures". Whatever. Point is that I was wondering when I would run across an even more over-the-top article. Well, a few days later, here it is. Too funny.
Clidna said:
Wouldn't any kid be more likely to be part of a 2 parent family in 1860, regardless of colour? Divorce was pretty rare back then, and women less likely to have a child out of wedlock, what with them being property and all.
...just as President Barack Obama is not responsible for the views of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Rep. Bachmann must be judged on the basis of her own record.
Coyote_ said:
Good thing she's not a candidate anymore, eh?
I'm so happy she spoke her mind so openly, rather than letting her batshit insane theories fly under the radar until after she was elected to some really high-ranking position.
Tadzi
Greeley, CO
April 2003
JUL 12, 2011 12:05 PM