BlackDude

Is moving out an option? 

Just this past week thins Gypsy looking kid with blonde dreads comes up to me at the gas station and asks for $10. I give it to him and told him “the only reason I’m giving this to you is because you’re cute.” He responds “oh I’m straight.”

I come out of the gas station and he asks me if I have a couple more dollars. I say “gay guys get a full tank, straight guys get $10.” I get in my car and drive off. 
 

I don’t feel bad or like I was taking advantage of him. Putting aside the fact that I don’t believe a young Gypsy drifter kid with blonde hair has never naked with another guy, I felt I was generous enough giving him $10. Anything else was going to cost him. 

32 minutes ago, rawfuckr said:

I can speak for San Francisco Cumunion. Everything changed with the change from 442 natoma to the new 1060 Folsom location. 

The new location is just not great: too sparse, and toilets are never working properly: god save you if you need to pee/shit or else.. There's no ass cleaning stations so people are mostly left to clean out at home. I've been there a few times with people not cleaned out properly and causing messes that may or may not be dealt with. The whole scene is sad and tragic and pushes good valuable people from coming back. Folks populating this space are often fully dressed weirdos that walk back if you try to touch them.. and often people struggle to make a connection these days. Nothing like the good ol' 442 natoma days.  

I'm lucky enough to be able to go to parties like these in Europe and the difference is SO dramatic:  For starters there's no need for a specific event because men are going out weekly to fuck.  Most cruise places have proper cleaning toilets/stations. Like come on guys, people come here to fuck: it's just a hose and a stall. People will clean out at the venue with no hangups. A place like Barcelona has 5 ongoing parties thrus to sun, every day. This makes a whole crowd of people to come out and have fun all the time. Same with Paris, Berlin, GC, Torre...

San Francisco lost the intertia and the art of cruising long ago and it ain't coming back with crap places like 1060 Folsom. That said, there are glimmers or hope. the guys at Truck are really trying and some of their 'truck tuesdays' have really stuck the landing. They just need a lot more consistency in the schedule and place.

I remember those first parties that were on Folsom across from the Gultch Bookstore. Epic!

2 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

I would have assumed by your presence on this board that you are also a member of another group - presumably, bi or gay men - who also have faced rampant discrimination in the workplace.

Of course, you don't mention whether you're out or not, which can make a huge difference. If you're not out, and you're conventionally masculine enough to "pass" for straight, then it's possible your membership in this second group hasn't affected you, just like very light-skinned black people who could "pass" as Hispanic or otherwise didn't always directly experience racism against their race (except, of course, when divulging race was required for legal purposes, like registering to vote, etc.). But I don't think being able to "pass" ought to be a determinant of whether one cares about discrimination, particular discrimination that would be levied against oneself if it were publicly known.

And I'll note that while racial discrimination still occurs, it's very clearly NOT allowed, legally, in all sorts of situations. On the other hand, discrimination against gay people is still not barred, nationally; it's prohibited in employment, now, but the Supreme Court has been carving out "religious exemptions" on the basis of sexual orientation repeatedly in the last few years. It's quite possible that they'd do the same if a housing discrimination case reached them, for example.

By contrast, the Supreme Court has expressly held that there is no religious freedom exemption that allows for racial discrimination, period. 

I don’t believe giving equal remedy to everyone, regardless of how they have been harmed, create equality. After  the dust has all settled do you still have the same discriminatory system. And this is why I do not believe in DEI programs, because they are not transparent About who they are targeted to help specifically. I believe all people should be equal, but I am going to advocate for my group 1st.

as far as being black, and in an LGBT community, that is intersectionality , which I do not agree with. I have seen too many times were Black people who are also LGBT are left as mascots in the fight for gay equality. Meaning they get to be the spokesperson and then watch as their white counterpart get all the benefits. This is something I personally observed in the workplace. that’s why I believe in my advocate and support Black people, black LGBT people are also included in all the Black people. Again, this does not mean I don’t believe LGBT people should not be given equal because they should.

2 hours ago, topblkmale said:

 

👍👍

I caught on to the game.

@BlackDude Your DEI list excludes:

99. A black man

 

No, it’s usually a black woman (who’s married to or dating someone white) that has distain for black men and/or the black community. 

2 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

The sense I'm getting from your posts about this - and please, correct me if I'm wrong - is that the only people who should be helped by DEI programs are Black people.

Slavery was not holistic. The black codes were not holistic. Sundown towns were not holistic. Red lining was not holistic. Jim Crowe was not holistic. It was specific, and targeted.
 

That’s  why, As a black person, I’m going to look at any equity or reparative policy and see how it affects my group first.  Because the Harm was not equitable. And history has shown us (and the link to the UT DEI director’s page) that the premise of many of these DEI programs is that the issues of the most discriminated group in the country has needs that are no more pressing or important than anyone else’s. And I don’t agree with that premise. 

If women, Muslim, LGBT and other groups want to advocate for DEI groups that benefit them, that’s fine. They should! But I’m not going to advocate for any policy that tells me giving groups who are the majority additional resources and benefits is somehow equity. 

So I have had this idea for a while that I wanted to set up a bear group for play about once a month and a hotel. The problem is, I am afraid of it not being a success. I know there is no guarantees, but what do you guys suggest to make this venture successful and fun? 
 

thanks for any advice or tips!

1 hour ago, blackrobe said:

I was wanting to understand the specifics of this situation and the basis of your support for the DEI programs in Texas universities being banned.  

Your opposition to DEI programs seems general and not specific to the Texas case. That's all I needed to know.

 

I read about the program, specifically the DEI statements at UT-Austin. The initiatives are not specific, do not have tangible metrics to gauge success and are broad in definitions. 
 

[think before following links] https://community.utexas.edu/2023/12/14/all-campus-division-announcement-a-pledge-to-serve/

8 hours ago, blackrobe said:

To your point, was the Texas university DEI a "not specifically target(ed)" program? What are the indicators of this? How did this manifest in Texas? Specifically, what outcomes did it need to meet that it failed in and for what communities? 

It seems like you have a standard in mind for what makes a group qualify for targeted assistance. What is that standard? What groups do you think qualify for some assistance? I'm really struggling to nail down where you think Texas actually failed, and what you think needs to be different to make an effective intervention. 

The implication is that somehow people who needed help got shortchanged and it went to people who didn't need it.  I'd love to see that data that leads you there. 

Can you prove which people were helped by the program? were quantifiable metrics required? 

I explained to my previous answer how a policy can be written that can directly help that needs it the most

3 hours ago, blackrobe said:

To summarize what I think I heard from you:

"The DEI programs at Texas Universities did not effectively or authentically represent the concerns of black people and address their issues. That these programs were in fact a way of paying lip service to helping black people while instead providing a vehicle to help white people and those looking to pass as white.

Direct advocacy by communities and their organizations would be more effective at getting their issues addressed within the Texas university system."

As someone who's had to work inside a DEI structure to try and move forward a specific set of issues and concerns, I well aware of the way a DEI organization can structurally slow or prevent progress. 

Do you have specific data, citations, or evidence on how DEI in Texas universities failed and justified the creation of this ban? Based on the broad reporting it seems as though it supporters are more ideologically than specifically data driven. That is, I don't think the proponents of the ban are proposing a better, more effective solution for driving up under-represented minority enrollment and graduation, but instead simply wanted to remove the program and let the chips fall where they may.

The author of the bill that created the ban stated that his goal was in "promoting a merit-based approach where individuals are judged on their qualifications, skills, and contributions" which would seem to structurally disadvantage students across the black community and many others.

I'm trying to figure out if your support is based on specific knowledge of the situation in Texas, a general belief that DEI is always structured to fail or be unfair, or a simple idealogical agreement with those proposing and securing the ban.

I’m against any DEI program in general that does not specifically target and address the groups who were harmed. This includes tangible resources and punishments. 

Including words  like “minority,” “disproportionately” and “disadvantaged” are the same as doing nothing because it opens the door to diverting power and tangible resources, right back in hands of the majority. The only difference is that it gives the false appearance of equity.

On 1/3/2024 at 10:14 AM, blackrobe said:

@BlackDude and @topblkmale, I'm interested in the reasons and rationales for why you think banning diversity, equity, and inclusion programs is a good thing. Can you help me understand your thought process here?

Because many black people now have caught on to the “diversity” and “minority” game. Let’s look at this committee.

1. A white man

2. A white woman

3. A white LGBT person

4. A white disabled person

5. A Latino who identifies as white 

That’s often what we get from the DEI programs: the illusion of diversity. When in fact, it’s just like affirmative action. Alluding to racism as a reason for a policy, but written to ensure everyone else (especially white and white adjacent or aspiring) people get the benefits.

If people want to advocate for their groups, they should do so. But I'm also  for transparency. Many of these DEI programs were established with the intent providing the illusion of diversity 
 

4 hours ago, brnbk said:

I fear you are looking at the mote in thy brother's eye i.e. Ms. Nikki Hailey and fail to see the mote in thine own eye; your account of the formation of the United States  fails to even utter a word about the Native Americans. When the the British tribes landed up in North America, the Native Americans and their continent was far richer than Europe with a standard of living, science and industrialization that was the envy of Europe. No wonder u wanted to come to someone else's homeland and once u got there, the deliberate policy of disease and destruction, saw around 95 % of the Native American population die and their wealth, industries and farms seized by the Europeans on the claims that the white Christian god hates the heathens and has sanctions this villainous carnage. 

Neither the U.S. or any of the white governments in America have ever compensated the Native Americans in any meaningful way for the loss of  their person, property and wealth, and the Natives todays are one of the poorest people in America, in their own continent. 

Why the silence when it comes to the real and continuing victims of the formation of the United States??

Many of the native Americans have been compensated. Least we not forget,  Many of them have violated treaties that mandated they share resources with the Freedman, who were in their tribes, while openly sharing resources to people who are not even in Native American, but Jess appeared on the Dawes Rolls.

I, for one, think that’s a good thing

23 hours ago, lazr1023 said:

Gays have vastly more rights in Israel by far, BY FAR, than all other Arab countries combined.  If any of us came out in an Arab country, chances are in most of them you'd be shot, tortured, or tossed from a roof top.  Hamas runs Gaza and it's citizens, they are the oppressors.  We see Israel as an advanced economy, their inventions in areas like tech, medicine, solar and agriculture help people worldwide.  Imagine what Gaza could have been if they were friendly instead of being run by thugs.  It boggles my mind that gays don't "get it" when it comes to the difference between life in Israel, especially for gays, and life in any of its neighbors.

I think it’s unfair to point out the “strength” of Israel’s economy and innovations over its neighbors, while it takes money and aid from the United States.

On 12/28/2023 at 8:38 AM, hntnhole said:

... directly into a thick, rich, reeking, rotted, rancid cowpie of South Carolina's history; the state where the Civil War's first shots were fired.  While it's true that the institution of slavery wasn't the direct cause of the war, that institution was the glaring and principal flaw in the cause.  

Ever since the Industrial Revolution began to take shape in England, in the mid-1700's, the conflict between agrarian economies and industrialized ones gradually became more and more intense everywhere that clash occurred.  Given that even before the United States was formally declared, the British colonists on the East Coast had formed "colonies" (of said Empire) to engage in agrarian activities, made possible not by the labor of the colonists, but by the actions of the British Empire.  The colonists were supplied with slaves, stolen from Africa (sometimes even sold to the British by their own competing tribes in that continent), which made it possible for the pale British colonists to be easily discerned from the imported, bought and paid for, more richly-hued slaves abducted from their homeland.  

The fledgling United States Government was initially comprised mostly by the wealthy 'Plantocracy" in the southern colonies; a substantial number of our "Founding Fathers" owned slaves, thus profiting from this hideous institution.  Interestingly, many immigrants wound up in the Northern, freshly formed States, where the burgeoning industrialization offered more opportunities in  employment, rather than the more weather-friendly South, resulting in greater and greater industrialization, more and more men of voting age, thus more representation in Congress, and an increasingly more anti-slavery mindset in the North.  

Thus, while no one but the Plantocracy in the South actually thought highly of the Institution of slavery (non-slave owners who were mere small farmers) often resented their wealthy, pale cousins, and never supported that institution.  The Southern States began losing that original dominance in the Government, which set the table for the inevitable conflict.  One glance at a map of the infrastructure of the South vs. the North in 1860 demonstrates clearly which side would win if war broke out, yet the false pride of the of the Planter Class drove the nation into that civil war.  

Back to ms Haley:  When asked directly by a reporter what she thought about slavery, the suave politician was stunned into silence.  She had not one word to say, turned her back on the reporter, took a few steps, turned around and muttered "what do you want me to say?".  She utterly failed to even attempt a response to the reporter.  She was able previously to mutter into the microphone during a "debate" that MagaSmarmy was "scum", but unable to offer one word of regret about the institutionalized hellish racism we call "slavery". 

It is this same moral decay that divides us still, and we haven't properly dealt with it to this day.  Yes, some progress had been achieved, but there's still a substantial advancement of Justice to aspire to.  The concept of White Privilege is still tearing at the fabric of our Nation, and the "war" - while not being waged militarily yet, is a very real potential.  

Stand for Justice.  Stand for Equality.  Stand for the Greater Good.  Anything less, and we may well slip and fall into the aforementioned cowpie.  

 

 

 

While I agree with a lot of what you said, I have two dissenting points:

1. The north was not anti-slavery. Many were simply against the expansion of slavery. Many of the presidential candidates during this time ran on this ideology. They didn’t mind the status quo

2. The economics of slavery was the foundation of the South’s argument for succession, thus the reason for the war. And while many poorer farmers may have resented their wealthier slave holding neighbors, they nonetheless fought in the war because they liked the social and psychological benefits of oppressing the black slaves. 
 

In the long run, this is a moot point. She never had a chance to win, and only exposed how many “POC” desire to be the hand maidens of WS. Black voters are watching closely.

Are people still voting with Israel as one of their top concerns? Serious question 

11 minutes ago, NWUSHorny said:

I've hit the bathhouses on years when I didn't have something else to do on New Years Eve. I had a few really fun NYE's at the Denver bathhouses during the 9 years I lived there. I've also had one really fun NYE at a Vegas bathhouse. Here in Portland bathhouses, the blue balls drop at midnight, they hand out glasses of champagne or spakling cider, toast kiss and go home to consider resolutions to not fuck again in the next year. An invite only NYE party with like minded pigs sounds like a really great idea, I love fucking in the new year!

This years resolution will be to actually relocate, and hope I can actually find the time to make it happen.

I love how much you dislike Portland, but almost in a comical way. I feel the same about my city. 

58 minutes ago, NWUSHorny said:

Sounds like a Cumunion in the PNW. On the other hand the cuddle parties are supposed to be big here. 

I've often thought about setting up my own parties, but it will have to wait until I move, since I haven't been able to find kindred pig sex lovers here. They really don't even do group sex.

I like a good cuddle. But coming to Cumunion to cuddle in the main area to show everyone you’re not fucking?

I recently went to the worst Cumunion Party of all time. In 4 hours, only 2 guys who actually were having sex. The rest of the guys were more interested in talking. It got so bad, a guy who works at the venue came back to the main play area, and proceeded to cuddle with a guy. Then had the nerve to say “if guys want to see a show, they can get only fans.” After the cuddling, he proceeded to have a full conversation with six other men in the play area, all gaggling like a bunch of school girls. This lasted for like an hour. 
 

As I drove home angry and bewildered, I wondered why this was the third straight city where Cumunion was a bust. This is why I came up with:

1. C-19

2. Cumunion is now more of Brand than an actual party

3. With modern medicine, more guys are into BB so the novelty of Cumunion  has worn off

4. The exclusivity is gone, so now it attracts guys of all types in cities that don’t have a big “piggy” gay culture. 
 

I actually thought of setting up my own private parties, though not sure how that would work.

Thoughts? Is Cumunion over?

6 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

There's a big difference between sodomy laws and these others, because there the difference isn't "outweighing benefits to society"; it's that there is no benefit to society to police people's private sex lives.

And as a matter of fact, those laws against sodomy WERE enforced - at least, in some parts of the country. Not just by arresting people and convicting them of it, but by using those laws as tacit justification for denying gay people access to all sorts of things - security clearances in jobs, for instance. If being a criminal means you can't get a clearance, and you're admitting to being a criminal because you're openly gay, well, you can't have that job. That went on well into THIS century.

As for passing the IRS thing: If you had a single fucking clue you'd know that was part of a much, MUCH larger law - the Inflation Reduction Act. That law contained, in addition, billions to lower the costs of home energy and to help transition to renewables, billions for helping get American manufacturing back up to where it was before offshoring, billions for improving agricultural practices - and a hell of a lot more. 

But apparently because you (as best I can figure) only listen to right-wing news sources, all of that IN THE SAME FUCKING LAW is overlooked and all you seem to know about that law is that it has more money for the IRS. Money that, in fact, will be more than offset because the new agents auditing business and the rich will pull in far more in new revenue (that was previously going untaxed) than the cost of the agents.

1. I’m aware of the Inflation Reduction Act. They didn’t have to include increased IRS monitoring in the law. 
 

2. Corporations won’t be audited

3. Your assumption is incorrect. I don’t listen to right wing news sources. I don’t root for any political party. I don’t look at politics like a football game.

I vote for interests and an agenda. 

6 minutes ago, JimInWisc said:

We all know "Dems" have gotten lots of bills passed, well beyond IRS/Tax enforcement.  Which Dem is claiming this?  (and why are they not voted out?)

[think before following links] https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/congressional-democrats-deliver-promises-complicated/story?id=80691209
 

Here is one article. Bunch of excuses, which I covered in a previous comment. Of course, when I said “never get anything passed” i was generalizing. 

8 hours ago, topblkmale said:

Vote blue. 🤣

I’m not dedicated to either party. I vote on based on the agenda presented 

35 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

Here's the problem with blithely using pronouns like "them" without an antecedent.

There has ALWAYS been a requirement for businesses (small or large) to report ALL of their income (unless there is a specific exclusion, and those are few).

And there has long (I can't say "always", but it's many decades old) been a requirement for businesses who pay another business more than $600 in a year to report that payment to the IRS, on a 1099 form.

So if I'm Joe's Accounting and Nail Salon, and I pay Bob's Lawnmowing more than $600 in the year to do the landscaping at my office, I'm supposed to send the IRS and Bob's a 1099 showing that I paid that money to them. That, as I say, has LONG been the law - going back to the 1970's at least, and probably much earlier.

And if I were ever audited, and I showed $800 on my books in payments to Bob, the IRS would look to see that I actually sent the 1099 to them and to Bob. That's how they verify that the payment is legitimate, because I'm going to deduct that $800 from my income as an expense - they need to be able to find where someone ELSE picked up that $800 as an expense. That's how it works. Otherwise, I could just write checks to various people and places (and deduct them as expenses), then they cash the checks and return the cash to me. That's tax fraud.

The big problem for the IRS, for a long time, has been cash transactions - if people pay cash for a service, it's very tempting for the business owner to just pocket the cash and never report it. That's illegal, and it means other people whose businesses operate more by check, credit card, or electronic transfers end up paying full taxes while the guy who takes a lot of cash does not. That's a fundamental fairness question.

But fewer and fewer people are paying with actual cash these days - they're using paypal, venmo, zelle, whatever. The IRS is using that paradigm shift in payments to treat those formerly cash (and thus hideable) payments as something that can be tracked, to ensure compliance with the law.

And again, the new burden is on the big payment processors, NOT the small business. The small business just has to do what it should have been doing: report all its income.

Anyone who thinks they shouldn't is encouraging tax cheating. Which, again, is your right to do: just admit you want small businesses to commit tax fraud.

I don’t disagree with anything you said technically. However, laws are only as good as their enforcement and enforcement requires resources. We have many laws on the books that we don’t enforce because they are not practical, dated/harm people or the resources to enforce them outweighs the benefits to society. That’s like arresting people for sodomy and saying “well the law is the law.” We have a social understanding that those laws should be ignored, and we don’t dedicate resources to enforcing it. 

The fact that Dems claim they can never get anything passed, except when it come to focusing on IRS/tax enforcement for smaller businesses tells me where their priorities are. 
 

15 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

There's a term for looking at your own experience and extending it to cover the world: navel gazing.

There another term for ignoring your experiences refusing to acknowledge what you’ve seen in the world: delusion.

4 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

You mean "blocking immigrants seeking a better life instead of going after tax cheats," right?

All in the wording.

And yes, I assumed reporting of income. That said, there are thresholds for all sorts of reporting from all sorts of parties, and which one you meant wasn't clear - thanks for specifying.

That $600 threshold for reporting is perfectly sensible - it's not putting any onus on small businesses; it's requiring payment platforms (paypal, venmo, whatever) who SEND the businesses money to report it. All a small business has to do is what it's always been required to do: report its income completely and fully, and there's no issue.

And yes, big business and the super rich cheat more, but it's often hard to prove, because they've got armies of accountants and lawyers looking for loopholes to stretch to reduce their taxable income. Which is why most of the extra IRS funding is going to hire more auditors to look over those returns carefully and push back on what I would call "questionable" interpretations of the rules.

That doesn't mean the IRS should just ignore small businesses that routinely and deliberately underreport their income. The 3rd party processor thing is the same kind of reporting that businesses have always had to do when paying for services, by filing 1099 forms for any business to whom they paid $600.

What boggles my mind is people actually defending tax cheats.

How are these people “tax cheats” when their was no requirement for them to report? 

What boggles my mind is people think it’s okay for us to spend resources to suppress hard working citizens and businesses while at the same time use more resources uplift non-citizens. US Tax payers are not obligated to ensure the economic prosperity if unlawful migrants or foreign countries. 
 

And in 2024, I think Dems will find out most of us believe the same.