"Morality Police"

[Lttg]

Please explain what your understanding of "Rape Culture" is so that we can have a base of understanding.

My understanding is the normal understanding of it. A wikipedia article could explain it to you far more succinctly than I can.

 

[chicago]

Yeah poking a stranger is not the same as raping a stranger. Sorry. And I'm not sure what kind of response the mods should give to "How can I tickle a stranger" besides "That's a bad idea / You could get arrested / That is not healthy / Don't call people names in this thread" etc. Except maybe of course shutting down the entire thread which kind of ruins the whole idea of any kind of healthy debate on similar things.

Also, some people are into play-rape and consentual rape like scenarios. Should we not be allowed to discuss those aspects here? I think digging through the entire art forum and elsewhere for aspects of "rape" or nonconsentual tickling scenarios would be an extreme undertaking leaving only the fluffy sweet tickling content where no one is pushed to limits or tortured or punished. Where's the fun in that?

If those I played with always asked me if they could tickle me beforehand then that would take away a lot of the excitement for me.

 

[Soda Bobinski]

Not necessarily. All we do is just make them feel the same way they make others feel. There are times I AGREE with what they are saying in the sense that it is "wrong", but I have an issue on how they go about it. No need for them to be hostile towards people because their types of phrases "YOU'RE CREEPY!!!" makes them appear to be "better" than the other person.

It's like "grammar nazis". They feel this compulsion to point out the wrongs of writing to people. And how do people usually feel about "grammar nazis"?

I'm all for sticking up for people. I'm w/you on that.

And voicing your opinion on something you feel is unjust ... we agree on that , too.


But isn't that what those being labeled 'Morality Police' feel they were doing in the first place?


And I dunno ... I get not approving of certain tactics & whatnot ... but I guess it just seems a tad hypocritical to me for one to finger-wag people for finger-wagging & then not consider themselves to be finger-waggers , as well.

 

[Jagermeistered]

Morality: is about absolutism!

We are debating ethics, and not morality("moral police"). Ethics, represent our social-disease! Human action: is either absolute or relative. Relativity promotes digression and depression. If we want to progress(together), we should seek absolutes!

Conservatism(stagnation): is destroying our move forward, and we are talking, walking - in circles...

 

[C.A.B.]

My understanding is the normal understanding of it. A wikipedia article could explain it to you far more succinctly than I can.

There is no "normal." Therein lies the wiggle room for misunderstanding. To better see your point of view, you must explain it as you understand and are interpreting it. Not wikipedia, nor anyone else. But what I've seen on Wiki is labeled a 'Concept' under the category of 'Feminism'. So it is an opinionated theory, not a fact. Be that as it may, I think its a long stretch of the imagination that some sort of "Rape Culture," as you have implicated, exists on the TMF. There may be a few whackadoos, its true, and probably even more of them are Trolls just out to bait someone like you with outrageous pixel statements in the ether. But on the whole, I think perhaps a bit over-sensitive on your part. Maybe just skip the posts and discussions that get your proclivities wadded in a bunch, and leave the moderation to the moderators.

 

[C.A.B.]

Morality: is about absolutism!

We are debating ethics, and not morality("moral police"). Ethics, represent our social-disease! Human action: is either absolute or relative. Relativity promotes digression and depression. If we want to progress(together), we should seek absolutes!

Conservatism(stagnation): is destroying our move forward, and we are talking, walking - in circles...

Forward to where, exactly? Will there be Mojitos where we are going? Should I pack a sammich?

 

[Jagermeistered]

Forward to where, exactly? Will there be Mojitos where we are going? Should I pack a sammich?

I was promoting moral absolutism, and that is not a journey! Ethical balderdash will bring us posts upon even more posts. Pick up a book about ethics, like the Holy Babble(I meant Bible)... Then, argue with somebody else with the same book, but the interpretation(language) is different. If you do that, please pack a meal! That shit will just keep going with no conclusion in sight.

There is no suchthing as "Morality Police"... We are just posting ideological exposition that promotes stagnation. Intellectuality is still faraway, and I hope future generations will not be as dense as the current and past.

 

[primetime]

I'm all for sticking up for people. I'm w/you on that.

And voicing your opinion on something you feel is unjust ... we agree on that , too.


But isn't that what those being labeled 'Morality Police' feel they were doing in the first place?


And I dunno ... I get not approving of certain tactics & whatnot ... but I guess it just seems a tad hypocritical to me for one to finger-wag people for finger-wagging & then not consider themselves to be finger-waggers , as well.

But notice I am not calling them "creepy" and they should be pistol-whipped for expressing their opinions. You know why I call them the "moral police"? Simply to give them a label to see how it feels. That is not any finger-wagging... Besides, the "intent" of their responses is to disagree with the person who made the post. I actually agree with the "intent" as I do not agree with what the person who started this recent discussions was. But we have certain members of this great forum who have this tendency to publicly berate people. So, I want to give them a taste of their own medicine...

 

[Bohemianne]

Am I only one that doesn't bother to read desperate rants longer than a short paragraph? LOL!

Brevity is the soul of wit.

Hahaha... Buying this. I almost can't stand a post reaching its 3rd line. That's why I am already on red alert when my own post is reaching the 2nd/3rd line. Long opinionated English is pure torture.

 

[TJDoom]

I look at things as cause and effect.

Whatever type of person you happen to be (behavior), whatever things you're into, you make choices and then that rock causes ripples. If someone sees long established rules that aren't asking for a whole lot, doesn't care in the least and stomps merrily on the line, that person will get a lively jolt. "Wow, that was awesome. How could it possibly be wrong?" Those consequences still happen and you make the choice to keep going or, if it's 100% that you're not concerned with consequences, then you can't be mad when the world around you acts accordingly. If you don't like the ripples, make different choices.

 

[saratk]

I totally get that we don't want to give the tickling fetish a bad name by people doing really innapropriate things...but I also think this is a forum where we should feel free to talk about some of our deep secret thoughts outloud (as long as it doesn't break rules) where we aren't normally feeling comfortable enough to do that. If we talk about something tickle related here and are judged and criticized, where can we take those thoughts? I'm not saying the "morality police" should feel like they can't speak their minds as well...maybe it's just in the tone and try not to make someone feel like a terrible person for liking what they like. Basically people should feel free to speak their mind and disagree, but there are times people are huge jackoffs about it.

 

[c7_assassin]

The term is used by those who are trying to left-handedly imply that morality should really be thought of as "morality" and yet don't hesitate to condemn the practices which they themselves aren't itching in their pants to indulge in, like fucking kids. Not naming any names, of course.

And of course they contradict themselves, because while everyone on the other side of the argument can clearly and concisely explain what it is about the suggested behaviour that might make it immoral, all these martyrs can say is "That is your opinion!" Which is the same as saying "You can't tell me anything, I'm right because I say so! La la la!" Which is arbitrary, solipsistic, and absolutist. Like the imaginary stance of the people they think they're ridiculing.

I love non-judgmentality as a principle, but that stops the second you cross into another person's space. Being non-judgmental about some things is not just ill-advised (because someone could actually get their teeth knocked in), but it's immoral. That's not a dirty word.

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

So ... what are you guys saying? That your reasons for pointing out the wrongs of others are more justifiable than those of the users you're calling out?

Absolutely yes, and here's why.

The Multiple behaviors targeted by the Morality Police are all external to the TMF. They are trying to police what the rest of us can and can't do out in the world, whether it be tickling a stranger, noncon, tickling outside of the significant relationship, etc.

The SINGULAR behavior to which we object only happens here on the TMF. Namely, the morality policing. And all we do is object. Unlike the Morality Police, we don't assume authority we don't have. We simply raise objections, and shine a light on the injustice, and hope that the powers that be will see that there's a problem.

Does this mean you're the Morality Police Police?

Think of us more as a grass roots coalition for a peaceful coexistance. When a person or group introduces conflict, then yes, sometimes you have to confront that conflict with a counter conflict. If there is a gunman taking out innocent civilians at a shopping mall, is the legally armed citizen who puts six rounds into the perp a hypocrite for doing so?

Those of us who object to the Morality Police's tyranny aren't interested in squashing opinions, warnings, etc. If somebody asks if it's unethical to get a masseuse to tickle him, I wholeheartedly support sharing the opinion whether I agree with it or not. However, if he instead asks for advice on what's the best way to achieve this goal, then give him such advice if you have any.

But that's not what the Moral Police is doing. Allow me to present a sterling example of the pig-headed, self-righteous intolerance of the Morality Police at work:

there's a handful of individuals here who get butthurt every time someone reminds them that their opinions are firmly in the minority and that their actions are unwanted by the people they perpetrate them on.

Well hey, 'scuse the fuck out of me for having a "minority opinion!" If you don't want people getting "butthurt," then keep your moral nightstick in your pants and quit screwing us in the ass with it!

Can you believe the gall? How dare these free thinkers express opinions outside the majority? Minority opinions are expressly forbidden! He doesn't know how many people that we tickle in this way, who they are, or where they live, yet he somehow knows that none of them want it. My God, what pompous and presumptuous arrogance.

To answer your question, though, yes it makes them a hypocrite, but they don't care, because if they understood logic in the first place, half these arguments would never happen.

Translation: "Yes they are hypocrites, but don't ask me to explain how, I just like calling them names."

And yes, "You can't, so don't" is perfectly valid advice when being asked about something that you shouldn't do.

Really? 'Cause that doesn't sound like advice to me. It sounds more like self-appointed authority being passed off as "advice." And by the way, who died and made you Pope? We can decide for ourselves what we should or shouldn't do.

But again, the butthurt.

And again, zip it up.

They're control freaks, which is why they both feel the need to impose their fetish on other people with or without their consent, and why they get so pissy over people telling them "no" on a messageboard.

And there you have it. Anybody rejecting the Morality Police's self-imagined authority is just a "control freak" being "pissy." This the kind of drooling Neanderthalic bullheadedness which precludes any notion of Hey we're just giving our "opinions!"

 

[Bator]

What you do in the privacy of your home with other consenting adults is your business, but when you use the same behavior on the street, in bars, the subway etc. on unsuspecting strangers to get your jollies, it becomes everyone's, whether you agree or not. It's not all about you when others are involved. If you can't see or understand that, you have a problem.

 

[Fat Bastard]

What you do in the privacy of your home with other consenting adults is your business, but when you use the same behavior on the street, in bars, the subway etc. on unsuspecting strangers to get your jollies, it becomes everyone's, whether you agree or not. It's not all about you when others are involved. If you can't see or understand that, you have a problem.

I think part of the problem, and the reason why the Morality Police are able to flourish without contention, is a reluctance for the Mods to enforce the forum rules. And that reluctance stems from the fact that all Mods are regular users, many of whom have a repertoire of personal interactions with others on the forum; from on-line only, to RL meets, or possibly more intimate relations.

A more effective moderation scheme would be anonymous moderation; generic moderator user names that any designated Mod could use when necessary; names like TMF_Mod, TKDis_Mod, GenDis_Mod, etc. Generic moderation would be more effective in enforcing the rules even handedly, and without prejudice (particularly toward those of the female persuasion). They could even drop the “Moderator” designator title to regular users; there would be no reason for us to know, for example, that “Hari” is a moderator.

I suspect though this would never fly here. The forum owners are personally invested in the subject matter and there is a certain level of personal pride associated with the authority to moderate. So I believe the Morality Police are here to stay.

 

[Soda Bobinski]

Think of us more as a grass roots coalition for a peaceful coexistance.

I'm sorry. It's just ... it's kind of hard to take that seriously when you almost immediately follow it up with :

Allow me to present a sterling example of the pig-headed, self-righteous intolerance of the Morality Police at work:

Well hey, 'scuse the fuck out of me for having a "minority opinion!" If you don't want people getting "butthurt," then keep your moral nightstick in your pants and quit screwing us in the ass with it!

Can you believe the gall? How dare these free thinkers express opinions outside the majority? Minority opinions are expressly forbidden! He doesn't know how many people that we tickle in this way, who they are, or where they live, yet he somehow knows that none of them want it. My God, what pompous and presumptuous arrogance.

Translation: "Yes they are hypocrites, but don't ask me to explain how, I just like calling them names."

Really? 'Cause that doesn't sound like advice to me. It sounds more like self-appointed authority being passed off as "advice." And by the way, who died and made you Pope? We can decide for ourselves what we should or shouldn't do.

And again, zip it up.

And there you have it. Anybody rejecting the Morality Police's self-imagined authority is just a "control freak" being "pissy." This the kind of drooling Neanderthalic bullheadedness which precludes any notion of Hey we're just giving our "opinions!"

Not to mention the many responses you've posted in the other thread that are just as antagonistic.


I know , I know ... you're simply defending yourself from Solemates' response ( & others like it ) w/your strategy of 'fighting fire w/fire'.

But I must ask you to please not sit there & justify/explain your actions by telling us that they're all for the good & "peaceful coexistence" of the forum when it seems that much of the time while you're fighting these fires , you're actually adding fuel to them.

Those of us who object to the Morality Police's tyranny aren't interested in squashing opinions, warnings, etc.

And again , I'm sorry ; but ... "tyranny"? You don't think that's being a bit dramatic there? Just a skosh?

If there is a gunman taking out innocent civilians at a shopping mall, is the legally armed citizen who puts six rounds into the perp a hypocrite for doing so?

Perhaps the gunman was also legally armed.

Perhaps the "innocents" he was taking out were actually planning to blow up that shopping mall.

Then along comes your citizen to put six rounds into the guy.

The citizen felt he was saving the day by taking out the gunman.

The gunman felt he was doing right by taking out the "innocents" ... who turned out to be not so innocent.


It's all about perspective , I guess. The citizen employed the very same methods as the gunman. But were his actions more justified than those of the gunman? And what did the citizen accomplish exactly? Hm.

 

[Wolf]

I don't get it.

If people are willing to go against "the norm" (whatever the hell that means in this venue), if they truly don't care about other people's feelings in pursuit of their own gratification, to the point of scoffing at those who do...

...Why do they care what the Morality Police think? What power do they wield? What can they do, besides express disapproval? If putting their hands on a stranger is no big deal, what do they care what strangers (more accurately, the typed responses of anonymous strangers) care about it?

 

[Fat Bastard]

I don't get it.

If people are willing to go against "the norm" (whatever the hell that means in this venue), if they truly don't care about other people's feelings in pursuit of their own gratification, to the point of scoffing at those who do...

...Why do they care what the Morality Police think? What power do they wield? What can they do, besides express disapproval? If putting their hands on a stranger is no big deal, what do they care what strangers (more accurately, the typed responses of anonymous strangers) care about it?

Intimidation with the express goal of censorship of thought, plain and simple …

 

[Wolf]

Intimidation with the express goal of censorship of thought, plain and simple …

Yeah, I stand by that statement. Some people find "erotic" discussions in conjunction with the murder of a child to be distasteful, to say the least.

So, that little point of contention aside... again.... Why do you care what people here think of what you do?
Will they stop you from touching strangers, without their consent, for your own enjoyment?
Will they make you change your behavior, or your way of thinking about it?

 

[Fat Bastard]

Yeah, I stand by that statement. Some people find "erotic" discussions in conjunction with the murder of a child to be distasteful, to say the least.

So, that little point of contention aside... again.... Why do you care what people here think of what you do?
Will they stop you from touching strangers, without their consent, for your own enjoyment?
Will they make you change your behavior, or your way of thinking about it?

As I said, the Morality Police are here to stay …

 

[DontAskJusTckle]

I'm sorry. It's just ... it's kind of hard to take that seriously when you almost immediately follow it up with :




Not to mention the many responses you've posted in the other thread that are just as antagonistic.


I know , I know ... you're simply defending yourself from Solemates' response ( & others like it ) w/your strategy of 'fighting fire w/fire'.

But I must ask you to please not sit there & justify/explain your actions by telling us that they're all for the good & "peaceful coexistence" of the forum when it seems that much of the time while you're fighting these fires , you're actually adding fuel to them.

Just fyi, it wasn't my intention to justify anything. I was simply answering the questions you asked.

As for the current question...Look at the difference between the way I responded to you and the way I responded to him. Why do you suppose there's such a disparity? It's because you were a lot more tolerant and a lot less hostile. No offense, but to be honest, I didn't find your ideas any more reasonable than I found his. But your tone didn't carry the malice and vitriol that his posts are virtually swimming in, and so I responded to you civilly and with respect. This is the way I prefer speaking to everybody. But guys like him refuse the language of diplomacy, and so I'm compelled to speak to him on his own terms.

And again , I'm sorry ; but ... "tyranny"? You don't think that's being a bit dramatic there? Just a skosh?

*shrug* Maybe a little bit. But that's the direction I see we're heading and perhaps I see us closer to arrival than you do. I mean look at this quote...

there's a handful of individuals here who get butthurt every time someone reminds them that their opinions are firmly in the minority...

...And yes, "You can't, so don't" is perfectly valid advice when being asked about something that you shouldn't do...

He's suggesting that minority opinions aren't valid. He feels perfectly justified to give commands under authority he doesn't (and shouldn't) have. If referring to that as tyranny is an exaggeration at all, it's a small one.

Perhaps the gunman was also legally armed.

What difference would that make? He's illegally taking out civilians.

Perhaps the "innocents" he was taking out were actually planning to blow up that shopping mall.

They weren't. That was sort of precluded by the whole "innocent" thing, yeah.

Then along comes your citizen to put six rounds into the guy.

The citizen felt he was saving the day by taking out the gunman.

No need to feel otherwise.

The gunman felt he was doing right by taking out the "innocents" ... who turned out to be not so innocent.

No, the gunman was having a particularly bad day and finally said to himself, "I just need one more thing to go wrong." He arrived home only to find a bottle of Scope in his mailbox with a gift card signed "The Green Phantom."

You know, the fact that you danced around the question, and actually went as far as to try and change the details of the analogy demonstrates pretty clearly to me (and probably everybody else) how damning that question was to your notion of hypocrisy on the part of anybody objecting to the morality police.

You have a nice day.

 

[Soda Bobinski]

You know, the fact that you danced around the question, and actually went as far as to try and change the details of the analogy demonstrates pretty clearly to me (and probably everybody else) how damning that question was to your notion of hypocrisy on the part of anybody objecting to the morality police.

Mmmnot really.

I wasn't "dancing around" the question in your analogy. Merely suggesting it possible that your fictitious legally armed citizen arrived into the situation not fully understanding the motives of the fictitious gunman that he ultimately decided to do away with. And by using the 'fight fire w/fire' strategy , ended up making a mistake.

And just to be clear ... we're to understand that in the analogy you offered : the legally armed citizen represents yourself & the rest of the 'grassroots coalition' , the gunman symbolizes the so-called Morality Police , & the innocents are those on the forum you're protecting from the tyranny of the MP. Yes?

Therefore , I am suggesting that perhaps it's possible that yourself & others -- in your crusade against those you deem the Morality Police -- arrived into the situation , so to speak , not fully understanding their motives & began to metaphorically gun them down. By using terms such as 'Morality Police'.

In other words : in your eagerness to play heroes , you stooped to using the 'evil' you say you oppose.


And alright. So. Perhaps I did go as far as to change details in the analogy you provided. But let's be honest ; those 'details' were fairly loaded to begin with. Likening such a life & death situation w/that of a fetish forum squabble just seems a little overly dramatic to me. So in dialing things down quite a few notches here , it still seems to me that taking it upon yourself to policing those you're labeling self-appointed police AND questioning the morals of users who are questioning the morals of other users ... yeah , I think that notion of hypocrisy still stands.

It's one thing to object to something. It's another to use what you find so offensive in the first place against those you're claiming are at fault.

That is being a hypocrite.




We don't see eye to eye. That's clear. And that's fine.

You have a nice day.

Thank you. You , as well.

 

[Jagermeistered]

1.)I think part of the problem, and the reason why the Morality Police are able to flourish without contention, is a reluctance for the Mods to enforce the forum rules. And that reluctance stems from the fact that all Mods are regular users, many of whom have a repertoire of personal interactions with others on the forum; from on-line only, to RL meets, or possibly more intimate relations.

2.)A more effective moderation scheme would be anonymous moderation; generic moderator user names that any designated Mod could use when necessary; names like TMF_Mod, TKDis_Mod, GenDis_Mod, etc. Generic moderation would be more effective in enforcing the rules even handedly, and without prejudice (particularly toward those of the female persuasion). They could even drop the “Moderator” designator title to regular users; there would be no reason for us to know, for example, that “Hari” is a moderator.

3.)"I suspect though this would never fly here." The forum owners are personally invested in the subject matter and there is a certain level of personal pride associated with the authority to moderate. So I believe the Morality Police are here to stay.

1.) What the fuck are you talking about? I have not seen a moderator intervening in this conversation/thread or censoring a poster.

2.) "Anonymous moderation," what the fuck is that? Who will pay the bills to keep this website going?

3.) Who is the fucking "Morality Police"? This is not a sectarian messageboard... If it was, your virtual dick would have been cutoff like a baby who can not protect themself against circumcision.

 

[ElFewja]

I assume the ads pay for the website, not the mods.

While I like the idea of not knowing who is behind the mod accounts that might also create more of a problem. Assume, for example, there's a mod who does have a vendetta against someone. Sure, they can abuse their privileges while known and probably not suffer too greatly, maybe not even losing moderation abilities. However, if that same person could do so anonymously -- because the situation you've described seems to imply multiple people having access to accounts -- then whatever, it's a lot easier to 'get away with' so to speak.

Yes, there would be ways to track it but I think it would leave members more defenseless than they already are against the powers that be (this of course assumes they are which is not necessarily a point I support).

Of course, it could just be another account tied to an individual, so that they could act under a mod alias or their own alias independently of one another but I don't think that would help much if at all.

Either way, the moderators aren't the center of discussion here.

Uh... on topic statement so I'm not derailing too hard? Sure... if there are people who preach morality, who gives a shit? Listen to them, or don't. Use the ignore feature if they bother you. You might consider that they're wasting their time by posting non-information or derailing but you're also wasting your own time by not utilizing the tools available to you, you know?

 

[Phineas]

I'm gonna make a couple of observations, here. The usual suspects can save their rage, because I have most of you on Ignore.

Firstly, I think it's kinda funny that the whole "we call you names so that you know what it feels like" argument is even a thing. Why? Because look at the names themselves.

"Morality police" - a label applied to people who tell people they shouldn't act in ways that women find creepy or threatening.

"Creepy" - a label applied to people who act in ways that women find creepy or threatening.

Yeah, not even remotely the same fucking thing. I'd rather be called "Morality police" than "creepy".

Secondly, and I realize this is a pretty serious accusation, so the mods can feel free to censure me for it if they decide it's out of line, but at this point I think the whole "non-con/tickling strangers" thing is an elaborate troll by either sock puppets/alternate accounts or just bored long-timers.

Why do I feel this way? Because it plays out the exact same way every time. Observe;

Newly-registered member/member with few posts starts a thread with the theme of "How can I do this line-crossing thing and get away with it? Share your stories!". Alternately, "Hey, I did this line-crossing thing. Anyone else/aren't I wonderful?"

Folks pop in to say "hey, that's not kosher."

Like clockwork, the same two or three people pop in to argue for the "poor innocent noob who was just asking a question and has almost certainly been run off by the Morality Police now".

The argument begins. The same two or three analogies/questions are brought up by said posters.

Said arguments/analogies are rebutted. The same two or three follow-up questions are asked, and answered.

Derails occur, usually by said two or three posters making either an off-topic rant about censorship or calling the original responders names.

Responders respond to derails. Topic goes on until people get bored.

And then, after a period of time it happens again. Same topic. Same format. Same posters.

The reason why I think it's a troll, is because as has been pointed out previously, is because the topic is always brought up by a new user, it's always the same two or three people who derail it into an argument, and it's also always those same two or three people who make the same analogies, ask the exact same questions (that have been answered over and over again), and devolve the argument into personal attacks and inflammatory flaming. It's like they're typing from a script at this point, and it works every time.

At this point I believe that the people in question don't really care about the whys and wherefores; they know what buttons to push and enjoy pushing them periodically to get their fix from a fifteen-page flamewar.

As to the whole Rape Culture thing, while I personally don't like the term (precisely because it's loaded and people never understand what it means), allow me to go all Feminist 101 on you (...is it mansplaining if I'm talking to other men? anyway), and note that these topics run the risk of devolving into an echo chamber that contributes to an environment that not only actively drives women out of this community, but also does encourage anti-social and unhealthy treatment of women in Real Life. And that is ultimately what Rape Culture is; a culture in which rape is excused and/or encouraged by the people within that culture. Substitute "rape" for "all the stupid bullshit we justify here under the umbrella of 'I thought we were here to talk about tickling!'" and it's pretty much the same thing. I can't help but note with irony that we bemoan the fact that women don't like to post here, but when they try to tell us why, we call them names and try to make their experiences as unpleasant as possible. It's like we want to be a community of creepy (fuck you, Imma use that term whether you like it or not) fucktards masturbating into our keyboards and being laughed at by the rest of the Internet.

You may now call me all manner of horrible names. I'll get the ball rolling; "self-righteous", "smug", "holier-than-thou", "White-Knighting". Enjoy.