Why Are We Fixated On Authenticity of Ticklishness?

[primetime]

Miss Serendipity and CapturedDoll, I disagree with your view of primetime as a victim here. You sound like you're only basing your opinions on the last page of posts or something. I don't see how someone could read this entire discussion and come to the conclusion that people ganged up on him.

There are two main problems with these discussions regarding people getting involved who probably shouldn't. And it's NOT because they have a different opinion that they shouldn't get involved.

ONE problem is that some people feel that when somebody disproves or doesn't credit their belief as valid that they're attacking them. That person then decides that the other deserves to be PERSONALLY attacked.

THE OTHER PROBLEM is that when violence breaks out, including social or emotional, people who are naturally predators show their true nature. Unfortunately, too many people seem to have that nature and prefer to either gang up or project more abuse and lies on somebody if an opportunity arises. Because to THEM, this is a viable solution as long as they BELIEVE that somebody can't defend themself. And they believe that they can get away with doing so in public as long as they make everybody else uncomfortable by introducing an uncivil nature in an otherwise kind atmosphere.

You're right, that's not right. It's disgusting. HOWEVER, it WAS in fact primetime who started throwing fuel on an already needless fire, which I noticed took flame by a crass comment by "wolf", who I believe now intended to be offensive, because both of whom later started projecting ideas onto BarbaricTickler88.

I don't know if this is appreciated or will be read by anybody, but having contributed to this discussion for a month now, here is where I noticed things started going very wrong.

It started on page 3, post #36, with BarbaricTickler88 making referencing one of primetime's initial examples of a woman he knew who had a tickle fetish but was incapable of showing reactions, only confirming it.

BarbaricTickler88 stated:

"It's pointless arguing with some of these people. Especially that one guy who clearly said that people can basically now "identify" as being ticklish, I guess.

So if someone's staring at the wall completely still and reaction-less while being tickled, if they're passing gas or reciting La Marseillaise, all that means they're ticklish IF they say so."

I admit that this comment was not very open minded and could be seen as rude and belittling since it related to an example of a real person. Regardless, people evidently have the right here to share less-than thoughtful opinions. And people have a right to discredit these opinions.

But rather than criticize BarbaricTickler88's argument as "weak" or inconsiderate and educate others reading, Wolf responded to his quote, saying:

"Or, it could just mean they don't like you, or don't feel comfortable with you. People respond differently to stimuli, depending on the circumstances."

That's when the wheels started falling off of this discussion.

BarbaricTickler88 responded with:

"Nope, that's a dumb take at best and you clearly don't know what you're talking about, but you think you're right for some reason which makes arguing futile at best.

It doesn't matter if someone likes you or not, except maybe for some EXTREMELY light tickling. If a person is ticklish, they'll react to tickling when you press on. Period.
They'll hate it more if they don't like you or hey'll react differently, but they'll REACT nonetheless. If a person doesn't react to tickling, especially hard tickling - they're NOT ticklish.

You can't identify as being ticklish. I don't know why's that so hard to fathom."

This continued with accusations that BarbaricTickler88 had little experience tickling women or understood people. Things that neither of them know, but were accusing him of. That wasn't cool. HE defended himself. Yes, he accused the people mocking him of being completely ignorant and not knowing what they were talking about. It wasn't a good argument, but they weren't letting up on making presumptions about his personal life. He may have been a little thoughtless, but he didn't say ANYTHING mean enough to warrant that.

And as BarbaricTickler88 started using stronger language to defend himself, RATHER THAN detract some of their statements and apologize for being grown men acting like teenage bullies, they SHOWED THEIR NATURE and returned his strong criticism of them with flat out mockery.

I'm not going to copy and paste his entire posts, but here's some quotes from just ONE post, post #53, from primetime showing how he was responding.

"Awww.....look who came crawling back out of his cave to respond. How cute."

"I know the English language and comprehension skills are lacking, but come on, I figured even someone like you could understand that. But I like how you tried to call me schizophrenic. Aww....little boy is trying to insult me. What ever should I do?"

"I know we have seen some really ignorant people before on this forum, but I think you may be the new king."

"You really have not had many play partners, or any at all except maybe your own self as you wack off watching videos from your cave."

".....why am I even trying to explain this to someone who probably eats glue for dinner? You seriously need to stop doing that."

"Ever give a massage to someone? Ever try really light tickling to someone? Where they are not laughing hysterically or even flinching? They tell you it tickles, but feels really good? Ever have at least that experience? Please tell me you have. Because if you haven't then exit stage left and go back to the cave from which you dwell in."

"Come on, please tell me you're not some basement dweller trying to make points when you never touched another person..."

Stuff like this wasn't necessary at all, and frankly, served no purpose. And several people weren't talking to primetime at the time, it was primetime and wolf making a vendetta against one person.

Eventually, brotherted got involved in the discussion in post #58 and arguably provided a more eloquent and educated argument with primetime's opinions than what BarbaricTickler88 had done. He focused on the problem of primetime's opinion being that it was a "Socratic paradox". Regarding primetime's behavior, brotherted stated:

"Have you felt these ad hominem-esque lines serve you well in persuading third parties that you're winning an argument? It seems a vestigial carryover from schoolyard days. You should drop this stuff in your conversations. They're not helping you, and you don't need them"

Now, instead of just mocking people, this was the point that primetime started defending all of his opinions by ignoring other people's arguments altogether taking a narcissistic stance on the concept of communication. If you look at how primetime started talking from then on, it can not only be determined that he thought he was right, but that he would neither accept nor acknowledge anything that contradicted his stiff opinion. His whole point was that "you can't know if somebody is ticklish or not". He became focused that people got HIS POINT and ONLY agreed with HIS POINT. So much so that you'd think that to him, the whole PURPOSE of this discussion in his mind was for people to agree with HIS POINT, and ONLY HIS POINT. And if people didn't agree with ONLY HIS POINT, THEY were not being open minded.

The truth is that not too many people disagreed with primetime on the legitimate aspect of agnosticism in his opinion. But hardly anybody will say that they go through life believing that they "can't" know something at all, especially with the senses and personal reactions that make up our perception of reality.

But, rather than accept that and just say "well, your viewpoint in how you approach life leans in a different direction than the one I'm comfortable with, that's cool.", primetime INSISTED on continuing the conversation with anyone that contradicted his logic.

He always had the right to do this, and the nature of the discussion was always free, but you can't make conversation with somebody with a totalitarian attitude. After a while, there was no logical discussion to be had with primetime, just literal reprimand for disagreeing with him, and refusing to acknowledge the flaws in his stiff stance.

Anyway, at one point, brotherted responded to something primetime said which was clearly rude. Primetime stated:

"Dude..... let's use common sense. I know that is difficult at times, but let me see if I can explain it is you were 5 years old."

Brotherted only responded to this ONE barely veiled insult with:

"Ad hominem, "if I insult you, it'll make me seem smarter" insults are not serving your life. You should stop using them."

And just for defending himself from that one statement, primetime somehow felt entitled to get nasty, like it was UNFORGIVEABLE for somebody to stand up to him. Saying in post #61:

"Just when I thought that maybe, just maybe you would understand what I am trying to tell you, you fail epically again. First, about your final comment. If there was no golden rule, I would make you cry. If I really wanted to insult you, and I could, believe me, you would know. Trust me on that...."

I made a post shortly after suggesting that other people take a step back and let cooler heads prevail so that we could get back to the discussion. But frankly, how dare him to take such an abusive stance that people who react to his insults deserve to be punished. I mean, you call that a nice guy? He wasn't even defending himself, he was attacking somebody for defending themself FROM HIM! If that isn't an abusive tendency, I don't know what is. It was probably the worst thing that he did during the whole discussion.

I noted that I didn't know if there was a conflict outside of the discussion between the two of them, but there was none here. Primetime never even explained. It just wasn't an appropriate thing to do.

Almost all discussion with primetime fell off of the rails after that. Other people added their opinions in the discussion, but primetime never contributed anything but mockery and deviation for the points of the contributors that either initially disagreed with him or defended themselves, who from reviewing this conversation, HE took the initiative to target and harass people. He's no victim. if anybody violated the Golden Rule several times here, primetime offered several examples.

In my opinion, primetime became quite content at being completely impossible with people, feeling that justifying nastiness as a weapon was something that could not be defeated. He was comfortable being a symbol of oppression to intelligent arguments that didn't justify his. And he was apparently so fragile that to HIM, not only did a conflicting argument automatically discredit HIM as a person (which it doesn't), but he had to try to hurt people in order to get his self respect back. All of this was very immature.

Anytime a person reveals a truly ugly nature to defend themself, it shows that they're not as strong or wise as they'd have someone think. I can only hope that a person who does this and it doesn't really help them reconsiders whether relying on this is acceptable. But giving them company and support like they were a victim when they were the initial aggressor will change nothing for the better.

While I want peace, I can't sanction falsely calling a person innocent to promote it. I hope that we can all move beyond this.

Again..... a long winded post that really makes no sense. Dude, give it up. If you actually go back and read your own argument, you will see how it all got started. How is it that two women read the entire thread and came to their conclusions, but you can't see it? That's fine. If you don't like my approach, that is your problem. Ever hear the saying, "Don't start none, won't be none"?

It really makes me laugh that you think you got me figured out. I literally, I mean LITERALLY gave my playbook in this thread. Did you read it? Nope. I even wrote a mock conversation TO YOU about what I am trying to convey, and all you write about is I am being mean. really? If you can't handle me, stop posting. You are contributing nothing to the actual topic. The two ladies and others have confirmed my point. There is no definitive way to tell if someone is faking. It can be your OPINION, but it doesn't make it fact. That is the entire point. Opinions are fine, but treating it as fact is where I have the problem. Your entire response is about my approach.

"Waaaaa!! Primetime is mean! I am not going to actually discuss the topic at hand, I am going to write some long winded post that has to do with personality rather than the topic at hand. Waaaaa!! Come on everyone, let's all try to hate on Primetime!"

Admit it, I am addicting. You just can't stop, can you? So I guess you will write another long winded post and keep this thread alive.

Now, read both MissSerendipity and Doll's posts AGAIN and comprehend what they are trying to tell you. It will help you in the long run. Ask yourself, "Is Primetime wrong in his point? That's not an opinion he is giving, it is a fact. He is telling us in very strong terms that we are only forming opinions on fake reactions, not actual facts. Now, how can I disprove that?"

[Wolf]

For the love of God, *SNIP*...

You're right, that's not right. It's disgusting. HOWEVER, it WAS in fact primetime who started throwing fuel on an already needless fire, which I noticed took flame by a crass comment by "wolf", who I believe now intended to be offensive, because both of whom later started projecting ideas onto BarbaricTickler88.

I don't know if this is appreciated or will be read by anybody, but having contributed to this discussion for a month now, here is where I noticed things started going very wrong.

It started on page 3, post #36, with BarbaricTickler88 making referencing one of primetime's initial examples of a woman he knew who had a tickle fetish but was incapable of showing reactions, only confirming it.

BarbaricTickler88 stated:

"It's pointless arguing with some of these people. Especially that one guy who clearly said that people can basically now "identify" as being ticklish, I guess.

So if someone's staring at the wall completely still and reaction-less while being tickled, if they're passing gas or reciting La Marseillaise, all that means they're ticklish IF they say so."

I admit that this comment was not very open minded and could be seen as rude and belittling since it related to an example of a real person. Regardless, people evidently have the right here to share less-than thoughtful opinions. And people have a right to discredit these opinions.

But rather than criticize BarbaricTickler88's argument as "weak" or inconsiderate and educate others reading, Wolf responded to his quote, saying:

"Or, it could just mean they don't like you, or don't feel comfortable with you. People respond differently to stimuli, depending on the circumstances."

That's when the wheels started falling off of this discussion.

BarbaricTickler88 responded with:

"Nope, that's a dumb take at best and you clearly don't know what you're talking about, but you think you're right for some reason which makes arguing futile at best.

It doesn't matter if someone likes you or not, except maybe for some EXTREMELY light tickling. If a person is ticklish, they'll react to tickling when you press on. Period.
They'll hate it more if they don't like you or hey'll react differently, but they'll REACT nonetheless. If a person doesn't react to tickling, especially hard tickling - they're NOT ticklish.

You can't identify as being ticklish. I don't know why's that so hard to fathom."

You're defending someone who thought it was cute to slip in two comments that said, "You can't identify as..." in a far-from-subtle attempt to throw out some bigotry and get away with it. Cool.

As I recall, I pointed out that 'lees are actual thinking, feeling human beings, and that can color their reactions, if they react at all.

At that time, my intent was not to offend you with that statement, but I have since re-evaulated my position, and my thoughts now occupy a space that is a complete reversal of my previously stated intent. And I am quite okay with that.

[CapturedDoll]

It can be your OPINION, but it doesn't make it fact. That is the entire point. Opinions are fine, but treating it as fact is where I have the problem.

They always say Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I see it for this too. I agree with you that opinions can ONLY BE THAT- OPINIONS. Unless someone comes out to say nope I wasn't acting. Prove it.

This makes me think back to when I was heavily into Horror Movies. Arguments constantly on did it look real enough? Or did it look TOO REAL?

There's a movie called from the Guinea Pig Series Part 2: Flower of Flesh & Blood. Here's a the wiki excerpt.

Guinea Pig 2: Flower of Flesh and Blood (Japanese: ギニーピッグ2 血肉の華, Hepburn: Ginī Piggu 2: Chiniku no Hana) is a 1985 Japanese horror film written and directed by Hideshi Hino. The second film in the Guinea Pig film series, it is based on a manga by Hino, and stars Hiroshi Tamura and Kirara Yūgao. The film's plot concerns a man dressed as a samurai who drugs and kidnaps a woman, and proceeds to take her to his home, where he dismembers her and adds her body parts to a collection.

Guinea Pig 2 garnered controversy both in Japan and in the United States. The film was reportedly withdrawn from the home video market, and was suspected to have been an influence on Tsutomu Miyazaki, a serial killer who abducted and murdered four young girls. Despite this, upon release, Guinea Pig 2 positioned itself on the list of top ten video releases in Japan for two months straight.[1] American actor Charlie Sheen is said to have watched the film and became convinced that it genuinely depicted the killing and dismemberment of an actual woman, prompting him to contact authorities. Investigations were dropped after the special effects used to simulate the violence depicted in the film were able to be demonstrated.

2 people I showed this 2: One thought it was real. The other didn't. Grossed out and horrified but knew it wasn't. He didn't know anything about the film before hand.

Even is someone is faking. Maybe they're good at it. See I love over the top ticklish reactions. Thats hard to find. But I'm realistic about it in that even if I'm dropping money on it- Idk what I'm gonna get. Idk what kind the acting or no acting Im getting. . Because ticklishness can vary depending on mood too. If I'm mad you can't tickle me. I stiffen up etc.

With EVERYONE is practically a gamble. Who likes wasting money but at the same time you have to give leeway to that. Life IS a gamble in everything we do.

[kingp]

If you are buying a product such as a video. One doesnt want to be lied to or disrespected by being given fake product. If you bought medicine you dont want snake oil

[Wolf]

If you are buying a product such as a video. One doesnt want to be lied to or disrespected by being given fake product. If you bought medicine you dont want snake oil

You're purchasing media; it's going to have varied levels of authenticity.
Unless you're talking about the old "Faces of Death" videos.

[Crefl1n]

Those four words, especially taken out of context of the entire full sentence, do not make that sentence bigoted.

First of all, I don't consider use of the term "you can't identify as" as anything but a phrase, that could be related to an unlimited amount of things. Political affiliation, religion, nationality, job title, diet, astrological sign, personality type, as well as of course ethnicity, race, gender, sexuality, etc.

That term does get used to hurt and discredit people. But some people use the term just to argue with people about their use of a label.

Did BarbaricTickler88 use that term to harass ANYONE? That's far-fetched, speculative at best.

I disagree with the illogical closemindedness of BarbaricTickler88's statements in relation to ticklishness, but they WERE related to the topic of the discussion, what we were all discussing here.

The topic of the discussion was not specifically about self-identification. But giving content creators and individuals an unchallenged right to dictate a truth TO US that defies our personal assessment of a certain LEVEL of ticklishness and what is "real" is a part of what we've been talking about this whole time.

In short, that subtopic isn't about self-identification, it's about being lied to deliberately as well as our own definitions of what being ticklish is.

Is saying that somebody cannot say they're ticklish even accurate? No. It's highly unrealistic that could even be the case.

Is having such a bullheaded opinion about what being ticklish is rooted in systemic hatred or oppression in any way? No.

Does questioning the legitimacy of someone's assessment of their level of physical sensitivity have the intention to harass them and ruin their efforts at living?
No.

Does it have the same implication in a person's life as a person crossing boundaries of accepted gender roles or cultures? No.

Can we compare this AT ALL to the discrimination and life threatening dangers most transgender and transexual people go through just because YOU don't like BarbaricTickler88's choice of words? Absolutely not.

Call him wrong or ignorant if you want to, but calling him a bigot is just contrived.

Real bigotry is a problem. But if you want to find reasons to call a person a bigot, you can nitpick a person all day just looking for reasons to despise them. You'll just be an unhappy person.

On the topic of bigotry, he never said anything disparaging about any group of people, at least not in this discussion. If you have proof that he's a bigot, that's different, but you just seem to want to project something onto him NOW to justify your poor treatment of him weeks ago.

And if you even remotely want to admit that YOUR personal offense by a phrase is why you targeted someone for harassment, that's still incredibly immature and abusive that you feel entitled to harass others because you have a personal problem with use of words.

You're not healing the world or helping anybody by using "defense" of other groups of people as an excuse to hide behind to just attack people. If anything, you're only making it more impossible for people to relax and live in peace. Most schools of thought would say that behavior like that has really no place in a peaceful world at all because it doesn't sustain it at all.

You want to falsely accuse me of defending something foul because I called you out for acting like a bully? Look in the mirror and see who is defending hating on someone and admitting wanting to offend people. You seem to need it to get by. That's all I have to say.

With toxic coping mechanisms like that, your parables are just virtue signaling.

[Wolf]

Etc...etc...etc... Ending with: With toxic coping mechanisms like that, your parables are just virtue signaling.

We're clearly on the wrong side of several issues, and have vastly different perspectives.
Whatever reasoning you choose for your positions is your own business.
I'm comfortable living with your disapproval.

[primetime]

They always say Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I see it for this too. I agree with you that opinions can ONLY BE THAT- OPINIONS. Unless someone comes out to say nope I wasn't acting. Prove it.

This makes me think back to when I was heavily into Horror Movies. Arguments constantly on did it look real enough? Or did it look TOO REAL?

There's a movie called from the Guinea Pig Series Part 2: Flower of Flesh & Blood. Here's a the wiki excerpt.

Guinea Pig 2: Flower of Flesh and Blood (Japanese: ギニーピッグ2 血肉の華, Hepburn: Ginī Piggu 2: Chiniku no Hana) is a 1985 Japanese horror film written and directed by Hideshi Hino. The second film in the Guinea Pig film series, it is based on a manga by Hino, and stars Hiroshi Tamura and Kirara Yūgao. The film's plot concerns a man dressed as a samurai who drugs and kidnaps a woman, and proceeds to take her to his home, where he dismembers her and adds her body parts to a collection.

Guinea Pig 2 garnered controversy both in Japan and in the United States. The film was reportedly withdrawn from the home video market, and was suspected to have been an influence on Tsutomu Miyazaki, a serial killer who abducted and murdered four young girls. Despite this, upon release, Guinea Pig 2 positioned itself on the list of top ten video releases in Japan for two months straight.[1] American actor Charlie Sheen is said to have watched the film and became convinced that it genuinely depicted the killing and dismemberment of an actual woman, prompting him to contact authorities. Investigations were dropped after the special effects used to simulate the violence depicted in the film were able to be demonstrated.

2 people I showed this 2: One thought it was real. The other didn't. Grossed out and horrified but knew it wasn't. He didn't know anything about the film before hand.

Even is someone is faking. Maybe they're good at it. See I love over the top ticklish reactions. Thats hard to find. But I'm realistic about it in that even if I'm dropping money on it- Idk what I'm gonna get. Idk what kind the acting or no acting Im getting. . Because ticklishness can vary depending on mood too. If I'm mad you can't tickle me. I stiffen up etc.

With EVERYONE is practically a gamble. Who likes wasting money but at the same time you have to give leeway to that. Life IS a gamble in everything we do.

Exactly. I understand people would be hot and bothered if they think someone is faking, but it is just their viewpoint. I guess they forgot tickling videos are for entertainment. They are not a news item. Maybe they shouldn't take them so seriously. I do wonder how many videos they think are fake, the model is actually ticklish. Oh, the hilarity behind that happening...

I like your examples. On point.

[Crefl1n]

I don't know if I'm saying this mostly for myself or because I feel somebody here truly may feel marginalized by a posted reaction to a problem they face. But often, my reason for speaking is to address problems not talked about or people being marginalized. So I want to say this now.

A month ago, I stepped away from this conversation when it came to the point that people were just defending others and themselves again.

But after some thinking, I feel that in trying to stop some ugly behavior that was toxic and stigmatized MANY undeserving and good people, that I MYSELF may have failed to not address some other real stigmas that showed up in this discussion.

I'm not saying what I'm about to say to anybody except the LGBTQ community and everyone affected by the hatred targeted towards them. Anybody outside of that affected group, I could care less what you think.

Suggesting doubt in a person's chosen identification or name IS an attack on respect and equality and shouldn't be allowed.

Being pro trans is being accepting of people however they present themselves, as well as being accommodating in how you address them. But for the most part, all it calls for is to show people the same respect you show anybody else.

The controversy of BarbaricTickler88's comment is that he used the word "identify" in parenthesis, one time. This is something that someone involved with the LGBTQ community could more immediately recognize as an attack on them. Somebody on social media once belittled Ellen Degeneres' marriage with Portia De Rossi that way by referring to them as "married", as if it wasn't a real marriage. She addressed this on her show.

After a month without the vitriol and aggression being spewed in this discussion by certain people, I'm now willing to recognize with a clear head that there was a strong possibility that BarbaricTickler88 showed some intolerance. It goes to show what kind of understanding can be accomplished when people aren't polluting the social environment with poisonous words.

BarbaricTickler88 only placed the word identify in parenthesis once, but I can absolutely see how that could be seen as having the intention to be offensive. If he's not a bigot, he should post an apology to the trans and non binary people here that could have interpreted his words as intolerant.

If he did mean to offend or spread stigma, I don't speak for the TMF, but he should know that he and his comments are not welcome here if he is going to be sharing that sentiment here.

However, I don't believe that the people throwing around low insults can fight shame and harassment with more shame and harassment. It's the most pointless solution to a problem to essentially direct the same thing to somebody else. Fighting one form of hate mongering with another doesn't fix the world. Seriously.

This may seem like a backhanded compromise, but I want to make a point that this could have been avoided if there had been some civility in the first place.

In my opinion, Wolf really should have just said what he thought was going on if there was a legitimate concern of bigotry, instead of unapologetically harassing someone with indecent talk and NOT explaining his reasoning. Not even clarifying the reason for his suspicion of bigotry, just immediately accusing people and whoever defends them of being bigots. Not even remotely helpful in shedding light on the issue. And just look at what ended up happening with several people thinking they could take liberties saying ignorant things.

The lesson to take away here is that if you're going to stand for civil rights, try to do so in a civil manner. If you don't, everything that you stand for ends up looking like a symbol of division and an excuse for violence instead of a problem deserving of attention.

People who choose to defend these things by getting ugly make people not want to acknowledge it at all. ESPECIALLY when they accuse people defending those being attacked in the name of "justice" as ALSO being oppressors.

But I apologize to anybody here, either members or guests in the forum in the LGBTQ community who may have read my words and felt belittled by my response.* Like everything else in life, dealing with somebody who is blatantly being vindictive and nasty will NOT encourage you to either acknowledge, let alone agree with a valid point.* That's why we should be kind to one another, because we could get a lot more done.

Silence doesn't necessarily equal guilt, and he might not even see this post. But to BarbaricTickler88, your choice of words have represented your character poorly, whether you meant to or not. If you made a mistake, OR, if you WERE intentionally showing intolerance and wish to apologize or clear the air about your feelings on this matter, then for NOBODY but the LGBTQ viewers of this forum you may have offended, I think that you should take an opportunity to do that. And ultimately, only you know whether or not you're being honest, so it's also an opportunity to look at yourself as a person with some morality.

[Wolf]

In my opinion, Wolf really should have just said what he thought was going on if there was a legitimate concern of bigotry, instead of unapologetically harassing someone with indecent talk and NOT explaining his reasoning. Not even clarifying the reason for his suspicion of bigotry, just immediately accusing people and whoever defends them of being bigots. Not even remotely helpful in shedding light on the issue. And just look at what ended up happening with several people thinking they could take liberties saying ignorant things.

Again, we're not on the same side of the issue. Your attempt to "Both Sides" this is pretty close to disingenuousness.

The lesson to take away here is that if you're going to stand for civil rights, try to do so in a civil manner.

Since you brought it up, I'll be clear:

No.

Does "No" work for you? 'Cause that's all I've got for that lesson.

Attacking someone else's civil rights is the very definition of incivility.

Again, we are clearly not on the same side.

[Sensualswitch10]

This thread is so TMF. LOL