Video TSA: Unregistered Sex Offenders (and Ben Affleck's Approval)

I'm not going anywhere, unless it would be helpful to TUG if I left. If LeeAnne is angry with me as well as RB, then there may not be a whole lot anyone can do about it. It's by no means clear what demands we must meet in order to mollify her.

1. I support Mike. He's doing an excellent job of moderating.

2. I support RB. It seems to me he got blindsided in this discussion.

3. I sincerely pray LeeAnne chooses a new way of dealing with differences of opinion.

If there is anything else I should clarify, let me know. Otherwise I'm staying away from this thread.

 

I wouldn't say I got blindsided. I think I got between two other discussions somehow. I haven't mentioned any particular person or such in this whole discussion. I would like to think that our first priority is trying to deal with TSA.

 

Wow. This is one of the rudest things I've ever read. I was not even remotely angry before - but I'm pretty pissed off now, and I feel, rightly so. Here's why:

1. Demands? Excuse me? What (expletive deleted) demands did I make? Did I ask anyone to "mollify" me? NO! I asked only that I NOT be told that I MUST continue a political discussion. I asked to NOT have to continue an uncomfortable political discussion! I never meant to start one to begin with! I have certainly made no secret of the fact that I lean left - but in this thread my ONLY political comment was how ironic it was that I found myself agreeing with someone on the other side! I was then subjected to derision, and told that I should "watch more Ann Coulter". I then said I don't WANT to watch more of her, considering I've made it clear I find her to be vile. And then I am ridiculed for it. So WHEN did I ask to be mollified? Can you point that part out to me?

2. I wasn't arguing with RB about politics. I thought we were having a civil and interesting discussion about where celebrities can fit in, in the overall landscape of how we form our political opinions. WHERE did I blindside him? RB, I have no idea why you suddenly turned that discussion into where our government has gone wrong...I never mentioned that. I thought we were having a polite, NON-ideological discussion. Apparently EVERYTHING in here is about politics - and if I'm not on the right side, I don't belong.

3. WHAT other way should I deal with differences of opinion? How about the part in this thread where I specifically asked NOT to be dragged into a political argument, so we could focus on what we AGREE on? If there's something wrong with doing that, then I guess I must be all (expletive deleted).

Elizabeth, I'm stunned at your attack on me. Where the (expletive deleted) did that come from? You and I have never even had sharp words! Honestly, I had no clue WHAT your political leanings were! And yet, you attack ME? For not wanting to get into a political argument? Just because apparently our political views are different? Wow. Just...wow.

By, y'all. It's clear I am not welcome here AT ALL. And it's clear why.

 

I just went back and re-read this whole thread - and I'm even more pissed. I was nothing but civil, polite, and respectful in every one of my posts. I never showed the slightest bit of "anger", in fact I made it clear I did not want to engage at all. And then I got attacked. By Elizabeth, someone I've had almost no contact with, other than agreeing with her in threads about the TSA.

Please, go back and read what I posted. Can any of you actually see a single thing I said that was worthy of this nastiness? I bet you can't.

Which leaves me with the clear, unavoidable impression that the ONLY reason I've been attacked here is because I happen to lean left. So much for reaching across the aisle, folks.

 

I honestly thought I was being polite. Didn't mean to raise your hackles.

 

It wasn't you, RB. I think I made it pretty clear (just by virtue of which post I quoted) that I am upset by Elizabeth's post. I also made it pretty clear that I too thought you and I were having a civil and interesting non-political discussion. Although I'm still baffled why you suddenly turned our discussion into what's wrong with this country. That seemed to come out of left field. (Or maybe I should say right field?) I wasn't trying to engage you in a political discussion at all. (expletive deleted), I wasn't trying to engage ANYONE in a political discussion! Haven't I said that quite a few times now?

Where did I say that you raised my hackles? I'm beginning to wonder if I'm typing in sanskrit or something, because people seem to be reading some pretty bizarre stuff into my words...stuff that I am not saying.

 

It appears that I can't say the right things in this case so I am going to quit trying. Your tone as I read it is one of anger. If I contributed to that I again apologize.

 

Yes, I'm angry...but as I said, it's not at you. Not at all. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. It's obvious I'm not making ANYTHING clear. So I guess the problem is me -- which means that the right person is leaving.

 

I understand what you were saying regarding Ann Coulter. I do not care for her either but do agree on her opinion about the TSA as you do. I did not see any anger in your original post, We have members here from all political view points and on some topics I think we just have to agree to disagree. We need to keep focus on the TSA regardless of our political views because that is what all of us here do agree on.

 

Crazy celebrities.
I will make no Kat comments.

Everyone belongs here and everyone should stay. My advise to my friend, LeAnne, who does not suffer right-wing fools, is to (yes) expect the slam, but also recognize that it's basically friendly, so try to respond with humor (even if it feels personal--I know, I've been there).
.........I'm reminded of the South Park episode: "C'mon, can't we all get along?"

 

Quite true. There are some (nachtnebel is a good example) who've dressed me down several times & they're still around.

We've had one person here that had to be "contained"; if we'd had an ignore option at that point in time I wouldn't have done anything.

 

KrazyKat, thanks for your kind words. It WAS friendly - at least *I* thought it was, and I was certainly being friendly. Up until Mike told me that I HAD to continue a political discussion I neither started nor wanted, and Elizabeth came in here and said some weird (expletive deleted) about my wanting to be "mollified" (WTF?) and that she prays I develop a "new way of dealing with differences of opinion"...because apparently not wanting to get into a political debate is, somehow, bad or something.

I have no problem with people who have different political viewpoints than I do. I expect that, and I do not attack them for it. I do NOT expect people to make (expletive deleted) up about me, or put words in my mouth that I did not say.

This place no longer feels safe to me, so I will no longer participate in threads. I will still come here to read things to keep up with what's going on in the fight against TSA abuse. And if someone wants to PM me, I'll still have my account so feel free.

 

Having read over this again, I feel compelled to say that I think LeeAnne was treated unfairly, and also that this was probably a simple misunderstanding or miscommunication that spiralled out of control.

I'm going to try really hard not to step on toes here, and if I do I am genuinely sorry, but here it is from my perspective:

-First and foremost, it goes without saying that we all have a right to our own political alignments.

-On average, statistically, the anti-TSA cause tends to be populated by more right-leaning people than left-leaning people. Partially because we currently have a (D) POTUS to whom TSA answers, partially due to a desire to cut government spending, and a number of other reasons as well - the "why" isn't that important. Of course that doesn't mean that Republicans/Libertarians/Constitutional purists/etc. have a monopoly on the movement - quite the contrary, as we here at TUG have seen. It does unite people across partisan boundaries.

-I read Mike's comment "Watch more Ann Coulter" as meaning "If you watch more of her, you might find that there's more to what she says than what is commonly talked about and what immediately comes to mind." Sorry if I'm misinterpreting that, but at the same time the comment as it stood was a little ambiguous.

-It seems to me that Liz is as passionately right-leaning as LeeAnne is left-leaning. There's nothing wrong with that, but I do have to say I think the term "Leftist" might be best eschewed, or at least used sparingly, as I've usually heard it used as a pejorative or dismissive term. Liz, I'm not trying to pick on you - tag-teaming with you to shut down Joseph Drinkhouse's BS is one of my fondest memories of late in the Travel Freedom fight, and I have the utmost respect for you as someone on our side. I feel the same way about Mike's use of the term "Leftie." Same goes for "Rightard" and other disparaging terms for conservative people. Of course I don't think it's right to ban the use of any words, but I also don't think it's unreasonable to suggest we consider the ramifications of such politically-loaded words with regard to making members feel welcome. A sense of openness and invitation is what fosters free discussion and while I agree that it's damaging to forbid free expression of political leanings, it's also damaging to have people driven away due to feeling unwelcome because of their own political alignment. I'm not saying we need nicey-nicey all the time, as a certain chew toy we all know and loathe would suggest, but I also think that making "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen" the default go-to mentality may well be to our detriment. Patient explanation, and the lasting patience to repeat it as many times for as many members as is necessary, seems the best policy.

-I think LeeAnne and Mike were coming from two different places with regard to "starting political discussions." Again, probably a matter of misinterpretation. I understand Mike's perspective on letting conversations evolve naturally and not forbidding topics. A lot of us got an up-close-and-personal taste of heavy-handed moderation at another travel site and don't want to see it repeated. On the flipside, it seems to me that LeeAnne didn't intend her condemnation of Ann Coulter as an invitation to political dialogue, but it was interpreted as such anyway and she was trying to withdraw gracefully. I'm not entirely sure what I think should be done about this. I understand there's sense in not letting any and all political statements go unchallenged, but I also feel there is merit in allowing people who didn't intend, and weren't prepared to, start political debates say "Sorry, I only meant to say (uncharged, neutral on-topic comment), I'm not up for this right now" and let the rest of the comment be "stricken from the record," so to speak.

-With a lot of this attributable to honest misunderstandings, I hope that in the future these misunderstandings can be sorted out without so much upset. I can't help but see the responses LeeAnne got as being disproportionate to any misstep on her part - maybe she's more sensitive to these things than we realized, but sensitivity is why we're all here. If we didn't have it, we wouldn't be so affected by what TSA is doing to care enough to have this community.

I hate ruffling feathers and have always tried to be a peacemaker - I've found something to agree upon, some common ground on which to stand, with each and every member of this site save for three (who need no introduction and were not honestly trying to contribute to discussions here anyway). Even Rugape, which is saying a LOT. Most of all, I don't want to see anyone driven away from TUG over side issues when we all agree on the matter that is the central focus of the site.

Well, I've spoken my piece. I hope no-one thinks less of me for it.

 

Celtic, as usual, you are the voice of reason in here. And I it makes me feel a WHOLE lot better that you were seeing the same things I was seeing in this thread. I was beginning to wonder if I was going insane, and maybe typing things I couldn't remember typing, and couldn't see when I went back to look for them! Like this whole concept that I was making demands to be mollified - I am still utterly and completely baffled by that, even after multiple readings of this thread.

There are numerous statements in your comment I would like to highlight, because they encapsulate such truth:

The way *I* took it is "you should watch Ann Coulter because she's right and you're wrong so maybe if you watch more of her, you'll come to your senses and change your political views to be more like my correct ones." But as you say, maybe I was being oversensitive. At the time all I did was say that I don't want to watch more of her because I disagree with her. I still don't see why I couldn't just leave it at that...which is what I specifically asked to do.

Yes. Exactly. Note that I DIDN'T sink to the level of calling anyone a "rightard". But nobody seemed to have a problem with me being called a "Leftist". That word is well known to be pejorative and dismissive. That is one of the reasons it became clear to me that reason I was being treated this way was because of my politics. This is why it no longer feels like a safe place.

YES! This is the crux of it. I never meant to start a political debate. I never wanted to continue a political debate. But th enI was told "that's not how we discuss things in here" and I "must be prepared to continue it". Why must I continue something I never wanted to do in the first place? And what was so wrong about my pointing out the irony of my agreeing with someone whom I usually disagree with? Has anyone bothered to notice that, even up to this moment, in this thread I have YET to actually mention a single one of my political views? Have *I* talked about who I'm voting for? What I think is wrong with America? What I think should be done about the economy, the poor, gays, abortion, the military? NO! Not one word. Go back and read my posts, folks. So I continue to be dumbfounded that I'm the one accused of starting a political debate. I wanted to focus on what we agree on, not what we disagree on.

Yeah, I'll say! I still cannot for the life of me figure out why Elizabeth jumped in and said that I was angry with her or RB - HUH? How could I be angry with her? She hadn't even participated in the thread up to that point! What in (expletive deleted) could I have been angry about? (Although I will fully acknowledge I'm angry now! ) And RB - HUH? He and I were having a benign, friendly discussion about whether or not we should listen to celebrity's opinions! That was all. We weren't talking about politics...period. Again, not one word from me in that entire discussion about MY actual political views. So I think it's worthy to listen to some celebs - so what? And then I got accused of "blindsiding" him...again, WTF? Where did I blindside him?

The only person who's been blindsided here is me.

Anyway, THANKS Celtic. If after reading this any of the participants concur that I've been treated rather shabbily here, apologies would most certainly be welcomed, and accepted.