Not a Tailor

It's a good thing that as he tried to give amnesty and stop undocumented migration, Reagan didn't fund wars that would encourage undocumented migration.

Oh. Wait.

Maybe just consider getting a different language pack for your censor. Basically, if the word is allowed on basic cable, it's completely ridiculous that it's not allowed on a site where the percentage of people under 18 is basically nil--I've seriously seen perhaps 5-10 16 year olds in my time here out of thousands of users. The ex-vice president's name, for example, is allowed on shows that are aimed at the teen crowd (Supernatural, among others). There are a ridiculous number of words that are banned on this forum that I literally have not seen banned even when I've moderated or worked on forums for teens. The closest thing I've seen to the ridiculous level of censorship on VJ is the strictest setting of the USER-SELECTED language filter on Gaiaonline, a forum for teens and youths. And when I say user-selected, I mean that the user can select from a set of 'strictnesses' on their profile settings.

There's a point at which you lose family friendliness by treating adults like children and, frankly, the VJ language filter crosses it.

Don't know about the celebs, but as soon as my wife's done her PhD, we'll be leaving the US. Her university has flat out said that they can't prepare her for a job market that isn't going to exist given what's being lined up to happen in the sciences. Yay. We're already applying abroad and we'll go live with my grandparents while she jobhunts if necessary.

Maybe just consider getting a different language pack for your censor. Basically, if the word is allowed on basic cable, it's completely ridiculous that it's not allowed on a site where the percentage of people under 18 is basically nil--I've seriously seen perhaps 5-10 16 year olds in my time here out of thousands of users. The ex-vice president's name, for example, is allowed on shows that are aimed at the teen crowd (Supernatural, among others). There are a ridiculous number of words that are banned on this forum that I literally have not seen banned even when I've moderated or worked on forums for teens. The closest thing I've seen to the ridiculous level of censorship on VJ is the strictest setting of the USER-SELECTED language filter on Gaiaonline, a forum for teens and youths. And when I say user-selected, I mean that the user can select from a set of 'strictnesses' on their profile settings.

There's a point at which you lose family friendliness by treating adults like children and, frankly, the VJ language filter crosses it.

Maybe just consider getting a different language pack for your censor. Basically, if the word is allowed on basic cable, it's completely ridiculous that it's not allowed on a site where the percentage of people under 18 is basically nil--I've seriously seen perhaps 5-10 16 year olds in my time here out of thousands of users. The ex-vice president's name, for example, is allowed on shows that are aimed at the teen crowd (Supernatural, among others). There are a ridiculous number of words that are banned on this forum that I literally have not seen banned even when I've moderated or worked on forums for teens. The closest thing I've seen to the ridiculous level of censorship on VJ is the strictest setting of the USER-SELECTED language filter on Gaiaonline, a forum for teens and youths. And when I say user-selected, I mean that the user can select from a set of 'strictnesses' on their profile settings.

There's a point at which you lose family friendliness by treating adults like children and, frankly, the VJ language filter crosses it.

Maybe just consider getting a different language pack for your censor. Basically, if the word is allowed on basic cable, it's completely ridiculous that it's not allowed on a site where the percentage of people under 18 is basically nil--I've seriously seen perhaps 5-10 16 year olds in my time here out of thousands of users. The ex-vice president's name, for example, is allowed on shows that are aimed at the teen crowd (Supernatural, among others). There are a ridiculous number of words that are banned on this forum that I literally have not seen banned even when I've moderated or worked on forums for teens. The closest thing I've seen to the ridiculous level of censorship on VJ is the strictest setting of the USER-SELECTED language filter on Gaiaonline, a forum for teens and youths. And when I say user-selected, I mean that the user can select from a set of 'strictnesses' on their profile settings.

There's a point at which you lose family friendliness by treating adults like children and, frankly, the VJ language filter crosses it.

Maybe just consider getting a different language pack for your censor. Basically, if the word is allowed on basic cable, it's completely ridiculous that it's not allowed on a site where the percentage of people under 18 is basically nil--I've seriously seen perhaps 5-10 16 year olds in my time here out of thousands of users. The ex-vice president's name, for example, is allowed on shows that are aimed at the teen crowd (Supernatural, among others). There are a ridiculous number of words that are banned on this forum that I literally have not seen banned even when I've moderated or worked on forums for teens. The closest thing I've seen to the ridiculous level of censorship on VJ is the strictest setting of the USER-SELECTED language filter on Gaiaonline, a forum for teens and youths. And when I say user-selected, I mean that the user can select from a set of 'strictnesses' on their profile settings.

There's a point at which you lose family friendliness by treating adults like children and, frankly, the VJ language filter crosses it.

Maybe just consider getting a different language pack for your censor. Basically, if the word is allowed on basic cable, it's completely ridiculous that it's not allowed on a site where the percentage of people under 18 is basically nil--I've seriously seen perhaps 5-10 16 year olds in my time here out of thousands of users. The ex-vice president's name, for example, is allowed on shows that are aimed at the teen crowd (Supernatural, among others). There are a ridiculous number of words that are banned on this forum that I literally have not seen banned even when I've moderated or worked on forums for teens. The closest thing I've seen to the ridiculous level of censorship on VJ is the strictest setting of the USER-SELECTED language filter on Gaiaonline, a forum for teens and youths. And when I say user-selected, I mean that the user can select from a set of 'strictnesses' on their profile settings.

There's a point at which you lose family friendliness by treating adults like children and, frankly, the VJ language filter crosses it.

I hope that fuzzy kittens sit on every desk I ever see and yawn at me adorably, asking for petting.
It looks like we're both going to be disappointed.

If she's able to form complete sentences, you're not doing it right.
If she doesn't black out for at least 5 minutes, you're not doing it right.
If she doesn't reach a higher level of enlightenment afterwards, you're not doing it right.
Just some standards to live by

Yep we were. And Tony Blair should be slopping out a cell in the Hague, opposite Radovan Karadzic, along with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Condi Rice.

It's not an isolated episode...
http://www.more.com/news/india-rape-capital-world
Americans are reading with horror as sexual assault after sexual assault unfolds in India. It’s easy to wonder, “What’s wrong with that country?” But we should be asking what’s wrong with the United States, too.
Rape and violence against women are a massive problem in India. According to the country's National Crime Record Bureau, crimes against women have increased by 7.1 percent since 2010. The number of rapes reported has also risen. Nearly one in three rape victims in India is under the age of 18. One in 10 are under 14. Every 20 minutes in India, a woman is raped.
And yet India only ranks third for the number of rapes reported each year. What country ranks first? The United States. In India, a country of over 1.2 billion people, 24,206 rapes were reported in 2011. The same year in the United States, a nation of 300 million, 83,425 rapes were reported. In the United States, every 6.2 minutes a woman is raped.
Even if sexual assault in India is dramatically underreported, which most likely it is, the statistical difference is still striking—as is our uniquely American inclination to dismiss such monstrous human rights violations as problems that other countries face. Not only is violence against women a global pandemic but the United States may be leading the pack.
Oh, but you think, women who've been sexually assaulted in America are better treated. Rape victims in India, especially in rural villages, are often subject to shaming and considered unfit for marriage. But meanwhile, in Steubenville, Ohio, two young men who were convicted of raping a 16-year-old girl too intoxicated to consent continue to be defended as upstanding football players while the reputation of the young woman is smeared. When the verdict was announced, a CNN reporter came close to portraying the rapists as passive victims: “These two young men that had such promising futures, star football players, very good students, literally watched as they believed their lives fell apart.” Other media coverage seemed equally sympathetic to the perpetrators.
Meanwhile, the victim was blamed. Early on, one of the 19 coaches of the Steubenville High football team said the victim was just making up the rape. The victim and her family had to get police protection due to the level of threats against them. Two weeks ago, a prominent local activitist in Steubenville spoke about the “alleged victim” (even though the allegations had turned into a conviction) and suggested, according to a reporter, that the victim “might have been a willing participant”. Meanwhile, the woman who broke the story of the rape—she is a local blogger—has been harassed and threatened.
Isolated incident of smearing and shaming the victim? Afraid not. Just weeks after the Steubenville story broke, two high school football players in Torrington, Connecticut were accused of raping a 13-year-old girl. The response? Dozens of people from the town took to social media to berate and blame the 13-year-old accuser.

Typical. Everyone else has to clean up the mess created by the USA.

My wife works at UT and I have to say, this was the result of overwhelming support from the students and staff to remove the statue. Very few wanted it to stay.

My wife works at UT and I have to say, this was the result of overwhelming support from the students and staff to remove the statue. Very few wanted it to stay.

My wife works at UT and I have to say, this was the result of overwhelming support from the students and staff to remove the statue. Very few wanted it to stay.

I find the shortsightedness and unawareness that come from the complete lack of empathy alarming and disturbing.

I am not saying anyone IS taking the flag away. I am telling people what they are campaigning for when they campaign, even jokingly, for things like taking away symbols of the GLBT community. Huge regions of the good ole USA are under religious extremist rule right now, so the comparisons to Russia and Saudi stand. It's not my fault you've had the wool pulled over your eyes and that you're not capable of actually looking objectively at facts. You tell people that the gays are oppressing them, they'll double down on oppressing gays. It's that simple, too bad you're simpler.

I would very much hope you're right, but I also thought that Donald Trump would be a novelty in the media and a failure in the polls and instead he could actually pull this one out. If he wins the presidency, we're moving to France.

Oh yes. I am aware. But I also want people to be aware what they are asking for when they a) equate those two flags and b) advocate banning the rainbow flag. They are asking for murders and suicides. Which of course they then try to cover up by implying I'm crazy and that GLBT people are all unbalanced.

So you DO realize that a flag is a symbol?
In the case of the rainbow flag, the symbol is community. Humans are social creatures who do not do well when isolated. Unfortunately, in many parts of the US, GLBT youth find themselves isolated from the main part of their community if they dare to come out of the closet and even straight youth accused of being gay find themselves isolated. That isolation has contributed to the elevated levels of suicide that the GLBT community experiences. Depression and self loathing over imposed isolation is actually a natural psychological response to isolation.
The flag, to many of these kids, can represent the promise of future community. Hope is something that sustains people through incredibly dark times. As long as one can hope that things will become better, one can endure a great deal more than they otherwise would.
Now ban the flag. Ban the banner that represents a unified community to GLBT people. In so doing, you have managed to put forth the message that the GLBT community is so dangerous that allowing them a symbol is wrong. In so doing, you have told all of these isolated kids in extremist right wing communities that there is no hope for the future. Ban the symbols that belong to a community, that people can look at and say 'this is a community' and you imply, nay, even say directly, that the community is a problem and should be broken up and should no longer be able to unite.
So you take away that hope. It's not that the GLBT community is 'mentally unbalanced.' It's that it's made up of human beings. Human beings are social. Isolated human beings can sustain on hope. Take away hope and the natural consequence is death.
And keep in mind, this is also just the death toll we'd be talking about before all the jerk off homophobes that would love to go out and beat them some gays looked at the banning of the rainbow flag and said 'oh look, they don't have a community anymore' or 'look, we've declared gays illegal' and went out and murdered gay people.
For a great example of all this, look at Russia. You cannot 'promote' homosexuality without going to jail. This means Russia already effectively banned the rainbow flag, along with other symbols, from public spaces. The suicide rates amongst GLBT people skyrocketed and the police began turning a blind eye as homosexuals and suspected homosexuals are now hunted in the streets like animals, kidnapped and held against their will and beaten and pissed on and burnt and if they dare to speak up about their treatment, dare to complain to the police, nothing being done is the best scenario. The worst is that they're imprisoned.
Do you want to live in Putin's Russia?

So since one gay person killed straight people (compared to the thousands of gay people who have been murdered by straight people), the flag that symbolizes our hope NOT TO BE MURDERED should be banned?

That's like saying that because one person out there has murdered an undocumented migrant in the name of America, we should ban the American flag.

There is an enormous departure between a flag that was used by a movement that wanted to maintain slavery of a race being taken down in response to a mass murder of people who were part of the enslaved race, and a flag that is used to symbolize the hope that homosexuals will one day not be murdered and harassed being taken down in response to one person who felt targeted by their oppressor. One makes sense, the other does not.

Indians had nothing to do with the word Denali referring to that mountain, nor have Indians, to my knowledge, ever gone to war against Americans.
If you're speaking of Native Americans/First Nations people, then that war hasn't yet ended. The genocide is ongoing.

I am not saying anyone IS taking the flag away. I am telling people what they are campaigning for when they campaign, even jokingly, for things like taking away symbols of the GLBT community. Huge regions of the good ole USA are under religious extremist rule right now, so the comparisons to Russia and Saudi stand. It's not my fault you've had the wool pulled over your eyes and that you're not capable of actually looking objectively at facts. You tell people that the gays are oppressing them, they'll double down on oppressing gays. It's that simple, too bad you're simpler.

I am not saying anyone IS taking the flag away. I am telling people what they are campaigning for when they campaign, even jokingly, for things like taking away symbols of the GLBT community. Huge regions of the good ole USA are under religious extremist rule right now, so the comparisons to Russia and Saudi stand. It's not my fault you've had the wool pulled over your eyes and that you're not capable of actually looking objectively at facts. You tell people that the gays are oppressing them, they'll double down on oppressing gays. It's that simple, too bad you're simpler.