Topic: Sexual orienation doesn't exist.
Anonymous A started this discussion 3 years ago #104,191
The only reason why we refer to ourselves as gay, straight, or whatever is because we just have preferences in who were date and who we fuck. The fact that there are numerous labels out there to describe someone's preferences, which really gets into personality types anyway, is because people try to rationalize themselves as normal instead of just being themselves. Nobody really gives a fuck if you fuck men or women or trans men or trans women. Nobody really gives a fuck if you're trans or cis. Most of the time transphobia is routing in regular old sexism and the people who tend to care about what a person identifies as or what their dating/sexual preferences are tend to be pieces of shit in society. It's bad that there is a term for this (Abrasexual) when this could be consider the default for all of the people on the planet.
Want to have a happy life?
Don't associate yourself with fucking assholes.
Get used to blocking them from your life.
And don't vote Republican, this would only be an act of self-harm.
Just worry about yourself and those who are close to you. If you they don't want to be close to you then they can go fuck right off.
Want to have a happy life?
Don't associate yourself with fucking assholes.
Get used to blocking them from your life.
And don't vote Republican, this would only be an act of self-harm.
Just worry about yourself and those who are close to you. If you they don't want to be close to you then they can go fuck right off.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 12 minutes later[^] [v] #1,173,153
What is the point of this diatribe?
boof joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,158
can we tlak about turltes
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 21 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,163
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 10 minutes later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,165
Literally what does this even mean?
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,166
@1,173,153 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/amy-coney-barrett-apologizes-use-phrase-sexual-preference-n1243285
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/15/amy-coney-barrett-merriam-webster-tweaks-sexual-preference-entry/3662507001/
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/amy-coney-barrett-apologizes-use-phrase-sexual-preference-n1243285
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/15/amy-coney-barrett-merriam-webster-tweaks-sexual-preference-entry/3662507001/
Anonymous E double-posted this 3 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,167
@1,173,165 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Liberals change the definitions of words so they can make things offensive.
Orientation > Preference is one of the recent changes to liberal Newspeak.
If you say preference, now you are a hateful bigot that is implying gay people can chose to be gay. Do you support conversion therapy, homophobe? Do you think you can just beat queers straight!? Fucking makes me sick.
Forget all the progressives using this language before, they can apologize too.
The goal is to get people banned from social media, or made "houseless" if you can get their employer's info. Then once everyone catches on you move in to the next euphemism, and shame people again.
Liberals change the definitions of words so they can make things offensive.
Orientation > Preference is one of the recent changes to liberal Newspeak.
If you say preference, now you are a hateful bigot that is implying gay people can chose to be gay. Do you support conversion therapy, homophobe? Do you think you can just beat queers straight!? Fucking makes me sick.
Forget all the progressives using this language before, they can apologize too.
The goal is to get people banned from social media, or made "houseless" if you can get their employer's info. Then once everyone catches on you move in to the next euphemism, and shame people again.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,168
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,169
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 3 years ago, 35 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,170
Op have you ever had sex?
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 35 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,171
Anonymous F double-posted this 3 years ago, 25 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,172
Anonymous F triple-posted this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,173
Anonymous F quadruple-posted this 3 years ago, 51 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,174
Anonymous F quintuple-posted this 3 years ago, 53 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,175
Anonymous F sextuple-posted this 3 years ago, 22 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,176
Anonymous F septuple-posted this 3 years ago, 41 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,177
Anonymous F octuple-posted this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,178
Anonymous F nonuple-posted this 3 years ago, 22 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,179
Anonymous F decuple-posted this 3 years ago, 28 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,180
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 24 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,184
I demand you have sex this weekend!
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,189
Here's a question for you. A woman is only attracted to women. Totally and only attracted to women. Not attracted to men at all. She gets invited to a threesome with a man-woman couple. She has sex with the woman, but when she gets turned on she wants to have sex with the man as well. But only when the other other woman is having sex with him. If the other woman stops having sex with him, she stops as well. When the other woman goes out of the room, she stops having sex with him.
What is her sexual preference?
What is her sexual preference?
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 57 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,193
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 59 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,199
@OP
Less posting more fucking. You'll thank me later.
Less posting more fucking. You'll thank me later.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 23 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,202
@OP
> Nobody really gives a fuck if you fuck men or women or trans men or trans women. Nobody really gives a fuck if you're trans or cis.
OP has never heard of the US Republican Party. OP has never lived in a heavily Christian or Islamic community.
> Nobody really gives a fuck if you fuck men or women or trans men or trans women. Nobody really gives a fuck if you're trans or cis.
OP has never heard of the US Republican Party. OP has never lived in a heavily Christian or Islamic community.
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,225
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 9 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,229
Anonymous I replied with this 3 years ago, 7 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,233
@previous (J)
I know a lot of atheists and socialists and they don't give a fuck about the state's right to go snooping into people's bedrooms. It's called personal freedoms.
I know a lot of atheists and socialists and they don't give a fuck about the state's right to go snooping into people's bedrooms. It's called personal freedoms.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,234
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,235
@1,173,233 (I)
I know a lot of religious capitalists that don't give a fuck about what other people do in their own bedrooms. I also know that the largest country on earth, incidentally, also an atheistic and socialist country, did care and has had one of the worst track records on civil liberties (sexual and otherwise) in modern history.
I know a lot of religious capitalists that don't give a fuck about what other people do in their own bedrooms. I also know that the largest country on earth, incidentally, also an atheistic and socialist country, did care and has had one of the worst track records on civil liberties (sexual and otherwise) in modern history.
Anonymous F replied with this 3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,236
Anonymous I replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,237
@1,173,235 (J)
> I know a lot of religious capitalists that don't give a fuck about what other people do in their own bedrooms. I also know that the largest country on earth, incidentally, also an atheistic and socialist country, did care and has had one of the worst track records on civil liberties (sexual and otherwise) in modern history.
So... what? Do you think that means the opposite might be true? How do you think countries guided by strict religious doctrines might treat those who think sexual orientation doesn't exist? Maybe we could look to countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia as shining examples of humans rights? Let's look at gay deconversion therapy and the Catholic Church while we're at it. I'm sure you'll find so many tolerant examples that religion provides.
> I know a lot of religious capitalists that don't give a fuck about what other people do in their own bedrooms. I also know that the largest country on earth, incidentally, also an atheistic and socialist country, did care and has had one of the worst track records on civil liberties (sexual and otherwise) in modern history.
So... what? Do you think that means the opposite might be true? How do you think countries guided by strict religious doctrines might treat those who think sexual orientation doesn't exist? Maybe we could look to countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia as shining examples of humans rights? Let's look at gay deconversion therapy and the Catholic Church while we're at it. I'm sure you'll find so many tolerant examples that religion provides.
boof replied with this 3 years ago, 12 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,239
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,241
@1,173,237 (I)
Instead of reaching the obvious generalisation of your hypothesis when faced with conflicting information, you instead double-down on it. π€
Instead of reaching the obvious generalisation of your hypothesis when faced with conflicting information, you instead double-down on it. π€
Anonymous I replied with this 3 years ago, 12 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,242
@previous (J)
When answering the question of whether countries care about people being gay or trans you point to certain countries and their religious and political leanings. I'm merely pointing out that countries of all religious and political leanings have made LGBTQ+ lives difficult. Some countries are more friendly than others, and it's usually the less religious and more socialist countries that are more friendly. (see: Scandinavian countries) Compare, for example, Norway and Iran. :/
When answering the question of whether countries care about people being gay or trans you point to certain countries and their religious and political leanings. I'm merely pointing out that countries of all religious and political leanings have made LGBTQ+ lives difficult. Some countries are more friendly than others, and it's usually the less religious and more socialist countries that are more friendly. (see: Scandinavian countries) Compare, for example, Norway and Iran. :/
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 31 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,246
@previous (I)
> I'm merely pointing out that countries of all religious and political leanings have made LGBTQ+ lives difficult.
Now you're generalising πππ
I would say all religious and all non-religious countries. But how can I nitpick when you're clearly moving in the right (left?) direction?
> and it's usually the less religious and more socialist countries that are more friendly.
With a big fat triple asterisks going to the little, or should I say big(?), example I've given above!
We're almost there. You can do it!
> I'm merely pointing out that countries of all religious and political leanings have made LGBTQ+ lives difficult.
Now you're generalising πππ
I would say all religious and all non-religious countries. But how can I nitpick when you're clearly moving in the right (left?) direction?
> and it's usually the less religious and more socialist countries that are more friendly.
With a big fat triple asterisks going to the little, or should I say big(?), example I've given above!
We're almost there. You can do it!
Anonymous I replied with this 3 years ago, 33 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,247
@1,173,235 (J)
> I know a lot of religious capitalists that don't give a fuck about what other people do in their own bedrooms. I also know that the largest country on earth, incidentally, also an atheistic and socialist country, did care and has had one of the worst track records on civil liberties (sexual and otherwise) in modern history.
@previous (J)
> Now you're generalising πππ
Oh, now I'm generalizing?? Well I guess I'm in good company given your earlier comments.
What do think you're trying to prove exactly by naming religious and political ideologies? People of all stripes can be intolerant. If you survey the world it's usually the more crazy religious who are the most intolerant. Authoritarian dictatorships, whether they identify as left or right wing (there's no fucking difference in autocracy), tend to be pretty shit as well.
> I know a lot of religious capitalists that don't give a fuck about what other people do in their own bedrooms. I also know that the largest country on earth, incidentally, also an atheistic and socialist country, did care and has had one of the worst track records on civil liberties (sexual and otherwise) in modern history.
@previous (J)
> Now you're generalising πππ
Oh, now I'm generalizing?? Well I guess I'm in good company given your earlier comments.
What do think you're trying to prove exactly by naming religious and political ideologies? People of all stripes can be intolerant. If you survey the world it's usually the more crazy religious who are the most intolerant. Authoritarian dictatorships, whether they identify as left or right wing (there's no fucking difference in autocracy), tend to be pretty shit as well.
πΉππ π joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,248
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 20 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,251
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 5 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,269
Op, identify yourself!
Dead !Pool..v42s joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 2 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,290
Listen, "sexual preference" implies a choice, and you don't choose who you're attracted to. That's the only reason to use orientation over preference.
Dead !Pool..v42s double-posted this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,291
But really, who's even upset enough for you to care?
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 33 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,297
@1,173,167 (E)
> Liberals change the definitions of words so they can make things offensive.
>
> Orientation > Preference is one of the recent changes to liberal Newspeak.
>
> If you say preference, now you are a hateful bigot that is implying gay people can chose to be gay. Do you support conversion therapy, homophobe? Do you think you can just beat queers straight!? Fucking makes me sick.
>
> Forget all the progressives using this language before, they can apologize too.
>
> The goal is to get people banned from social media, or made "houseless" if you can get their employer's info. Then once everyone catches on you move in to the next euphemism, and shame people again.
@1,173,290 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> Listen, "sexual preference" implies a choice, and you don't choose who you're attracted to. That's the only reason to use orientation over preference.
Preference doesn't mean you chose what you like, it just means you like one thing more than another.
Just because you didn't decide who you like doesn't mean it's not a preference.
When someone says "I prefer one food over another" we all understand they didn't consciously chose that, they just innately want one over the other.
It's only when we talk about sexuality that suddenly liberals decide preference means you made a choice which to like, and none of them can say why the word suddenly changes in this one context.
Why? Because the whole point is to redefine words arbitrarily to get offended.
> Liberals change the definitions of words so they can make things offensive.
>
> Orientation > Preference is one of the recent changes to liberal Newspeak.
>
> If you say preference, now you are a hateful bigot that is implying gay people can chose to be gay. Do you support conversion therapy, homophobe? Do you think you can just beat queers straight!? Fucking makes me sick.
>
> Forget all the progressives using this language before, they can apologize too.
>
> The goal is to get people banned from social media, or made "houseless" if you can get their employer's info. Then once everyone catches on you move in to the next euphemism, and shame people again.
@1,173,290 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> Listen, "sexual preference" implies a choice, and you don't choose who you're attracted to. That's the only reason to use orientation over preference.
Preference doesn't mean you chose what you like, it just means you like one thing more than another.
Just because you didn't decide who you like doesn't mean it's not a preference.
When someone says "I prefer one food over another" we all understand they didn't consciously chose that, they just innately want one over the other.
It's only when we talk about sexuality that suddenly liberals decide preference means you made a choice which to like, and none of them can say why the word suddenly changes in this one context.
Why? Because the whole point is to redefine words arbitrarily to get offended.
(Edited 9 minutes later.)
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 3 years ago, 10 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,299
@previous (M)
Well check it out, it's not sudden, people have used preference and orientation interchangeably, and sure it's recent, but you realize language evolves right?
It's not even that big of an issue. Oh no, did you get called a homophobe by someone you used 'prefrence' around?
If you understand sexuality isn't a choice, you shouldn't be upset that the wording about it is changed, if it's literally not changing the definition of the concept it's defining
Well check it out, it's not sudden, people have used preference and orientation interchangeably, and sure it's recent, but you realize language evolves right?
It's not even that big of an issue. Oh no, did you get called a homophobe by someone you used 'prefrence' around?
If you understand sexuality isn't a choice, you shouldn't be upset that the wording about it is changed, if it's literally not changing the definition of the concept it's defining
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 13 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,303
@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
"Language evolves" here means you took a non-offensive statement and redefined it so it would be offensive.
Even the people pushing this language change never use preference to mean you made a choice which to like, if it's literally any other topic.
If I say "he'd prefer beef over pork" no one thinks I'm saying he chose to like beef over pork, we all understand that's innate. Regardless of whether I'm talking to a conservative or a liberal.
But when we talk about gender, the people who have been eager for someone to oppress them so they can play victim add in this implication on their own. Not in any other context, not with any explanation for why they'd make the inference, just immediately taking offense.
99% of the time liberals understand there is no implications preference implies choice, it's only gender that they suddenly redefine the word because that's the issue they are looking for a fight on.
There's no escaping this. Start saying orientation, to appease the leftists that put words in your mouth, and they will move on to the next word to redefine so they can trip you up and make you out to be a bigot no matter how progressive you are.
"Language evolves" here means you took a non-offensive statement and redefined it so it would be offensive.
Even the people pushing this language change never use preference to mean you made a choice which to like, if it's literally any other topic.
If I say "he'd prefer beef over pork" no one thinks I'm saying he chose to like beef over pork, we all understand that's innate. Regardless of whether I'm talking to a conservative or a liberal.
But when we talk about gender, the people who have been eager for someone to oppress them so they can play victim add in this implication on their own. Not in any other context, not with any explanation for why they'd make the inference, just immediately taking offense.
99% of the time liberals understand there is no implications preference implies choice, it's only gender that they suddenly redefine the word because that's the issue they are looking for a fight on.
There's no escaping this. Start saying orientation, to appease the leftists that put words in your mouth, and they will move on to the next word to redefine so they can trip you up and make you out to be a bigot no matter how progressive you are.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,304
@previous (M)
If you say you prefer beef over pork, it sounds like you're fine with pork but enjoy beef better
If you say you prefer beef over pork, it sounds like you're fine with pork but enjoy beef better
(Edited 41 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,305
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,306
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 3 years ago, 1 second later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,307
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 49 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,308
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,310
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 3 years ago, 12 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,313
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Have you? That's a very personal question to ask an anonymous internet user.
Have you? That's a very personal question to ask an anonymous internet user.
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,315
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 0 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,316
@1,173,307 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
I didn't describe a slippery slope.
One day preference didnt imply choice, and people generally took it to mean you innately liked one thing over another.
Saying this will happen again isn't describing a descent into a worse scenario, just a continuation of what liberals have always done.
Being a victim is part of being liberal. If you're the underdog you deserve assistance to make up for that situation, and you are entitled to "fight back" against those who oppress you.
Problem is liberals and conservatives self-segregate for the most part, and when they do exist in the same communities even those who veer far to the right don't spend their days chasing gays and lynching blacks.
Which is why progressives constantly change the rules so they can manipulate the guilt-ridden progressives they live around.
Someone who has been an ally for years doesn't want to face the social stigma of succumbing to evil fascist ideology, but they might find themselves accused of such if they didn't get the memo about a change in the lingo.
It's the psychology of teenage girls, changing what's hip and taboo on a regular basis so they can shame those who didn't keep up.
It's a good way to harass a senior who doesn't get social media, and fuck around with teachers who are desperate for the acceptance of their pupils.
Now this game has SCOTUS nominees apologizing for something they never implied, because their critics can infer anything they want regardless of the statement.
I didn't describe a slippery slope.
One day preference didnt imply choice, and people generally took it to mean you innately liked one thing over another.
Saying this will happen again isn't describing a descent into a worse scenario, just a continuation of what liberals have always done.
Being a victim is part of being liberal. If you're the underdog you deserve assistance to make up for that situation, and you are entitled to "fight back" against those who oppress you.
Problem is liberals and conservatives self-segregate for the most part, and when they do exist in the same communities even those who veer far to the right don't spend their days chasing gays and lynching blacks.
Which is why progressives constantly change the rules so they can manipulate the guilt-ridden progressives they live around.
Someone who has been an ally for years doesn't want to face the social stigma of succumbing to evil fascist ideology, but they might find themselves accused of such if they didn't get the memo about a change in the lingo.
It's the psychology of teenage girls, changing what's hip and taboo on a regular basis so they can shame those who didn't keep up.
It's a good way to harass a senior who doesn't get social media, and fuck around with teachers who are desperate for the acceptance of their pupils.
Now this game has SCOTUS nominees apologizing for something they never implied, because their critics can infer anything they want regardless of the statement.
Anonymous M double-posted this 3 years ago, 7 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,317
@1,173,308 (A)
If you can make a progressive look like a fascist, get them banned or fired from their job for something then you are a selfless advocate of the underclass.
It doesn't matter what they meant, or what the dictionary used to say- ultimately anyone can feel offended, and deserve to have those feelings validated. The literal meanings of what was said to them it irrelevant, they need to be punished if someone interprets it aggressively. Feel uncomfortable? Remember: WORDS ARE VIOLENCE! If you've been subjected to violence (words) you are allowed to respond with violence (violence). This is the ideological foundation of gangs like antifa.
If you push back against that you are a bully. Best to let them decide what you meant, and grovel for forgiveness.
If you can make a progressive look like a fascist, get them banned or fired from their job for something then you are a selfless advocate of the underclass.
It doesn't matter what they meant, or what the dictionary used to say- ultimately anyone can feel offended, and deserve to have those feelings validated. The literal meanings of what was said to them it irrelevant, they need to be punished if someone interprets it aggressively. Feel uncomfortable? Remember: WORDS ARE VIOLENCE! If you've been subjected to violence (words) you are allowed to respond with violence (violence). This is the ideological foundation of gangs like antifa.
If you push back against that you are a bully. Best to let them decide what you meant, and grovel for forgiveness.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,319
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,320
@1,173,317 (M)
Warning: Googlr's SafetyChek has detected violent language in your post. Your Gscore has been lowered by 39 points. Click here to learn to avoid this behavior in the future
Warning: Googlr's SafetyChek has detected violent language in your post. Your Gscore has been lowered by 39 points. Click here to learn to avoid this behavior in the future
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,321
@1,173,319 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
"Wedding" is a dog whistle, suggesting long term partnerships must be cis gendered and heterosexual.
Please use "civil union" instead as this term is associated with LGBTQ acceptance the egalitarian values of feminism.
As a nonconforming polygamist, I would appreciate an applogy.
"Wedding" is a dog whistle, suggesting long term partnerships must be cis gendered and heterosexual.
Please use "civil union" instead as this term is associated with LGBTQ acceptance the egalitarian values of feminism.
As a nonconforming polygamist, I would appreciate an applogy.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,322
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 3 years ago, 43 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,323
@1,173,315 (N)
I can confirm that I landed on the moon. I need to hear it from the source itself, thanks.
@1,173,319 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Post-marital sex is offensive to me tbh. You have a stain that can never wash away.
I can confirm that I landed on the moon. I need to hear it from the source itself, thanks.
@1,173,319 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Post-marital sex is offensive to me tbh. You have a stain that can never wash away.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 34 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,324
@1,173,321 (M)
One time a resident had a visit from her bearded hipster,grandson and she called me into the room and asked me if I had heard of polyamory. I was very afraid
One time a resident had a visit from her bearded hipster,grandson and she called me into the room and asked me if I had heard of polyamory. I was very afraid
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,325
@1,173,322 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Wrong, you're forcing your patriarchal ideals on me, wedding has connotations to traditional social arrangements in which men dominated women.
it's not my job to explain this to you, you should be able to have a conversation without resorting to hate speech.
Wrong, you're forcing your patriarchal ideals on me, wedding has connotations to traditional social arrangements in which men dominated women.
it's not my job to explain this to you, you should be able to have a conversation without resorting to hate speech.
Anonymous M double-posted this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,326
@1,173,324 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
"Resident"? You mean the "Housed" I presume? The same class that controls all of politics, and treats the unhoused like vermin?
You can call yourself a NIMBY, it's apparent how you see people so poor they have no access privacy or sanitation.
"Resident" is a term that was introduced by colonists BTW. Indigenous people didn't create the term, and separate people into groups that did and did not deserve shelter.
"Resident"? You mean the "Housed" I presume? The same class that controls all of politics, and treats the unhoused like vermin?
You can call yourself a NIMBY, it's apparent how you see people so poor they have no access privacy or sanitation.
"Resident" is a term that was introduced by colonists BTW. Indigenous people didn't create the term, and separate people into groups that did and did not deserve shelter.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 47 seconds later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,327
@1,173,325 (M)
You are oriented towards civil unions, some are oriented towards weddings. Many places offer both, what a great outcome!
You are oriented towards civil unions, some are oriented towards weddings. Many places offer both, what a great outcome!
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,328
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,329
@1,173,327 (N)
Did your yellow face charicatures fail to upload on that post?
Want to tell me it's OK to associate Asians with being good at math, that's not "real racism"?
Please read this: https://www.weareresonate.com/2016/07/oriental-racist-term/
When you understand the violence in your language, when you understand that your intent does not matter as much as how it makes people feel, THEN you will be ready to rejoin the discussion.
Did your yellow face charicatures fail to upload on that post?
Want to tell me it's OK to associate Asians with being good at math, that's not "real racism"?
Please read this: https://www.weareresonate.com/2016/07/oriental-racist-term/
When you understand the violence in your language, when you understand that your intent does not matter as much as how it makes people feel, THEN you will be ready to rejoin the discussion.
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,331
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 17 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,332
@1,173,325 (M)
I'm working within the confines of a male oppressor created system.
As a man, I know you have a hard time not centering your opinion in this discussion, but please try.
I recommend you taking a step back and to stop trying so hard to mansplain concepts that have been covered for over 6 years now.
I'm working within the confines of a male oppressor created system.
As a man, I know you have a hard time not centering your opinion in this discussion, but please try.
I recommend you taking a step back and to stop trying so hard to mansplain concepts that have been covered for over 6 years now.
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 31 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,333
@1,173,328 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Dehumanizing a class of people isn't excusable just because you say "I didn't mean it that way".
Dehumanizing a class of people isn't excusable just because you say "I didn't mean it that way".
Anonymous M double-posted this 3 years ago, 32 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,334
@1,173,332 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Assuming my gender now, picking my pronouns for me?
This is exactly the sort of violent rhetoric I talked about.
My pronouns are they/them, not that you cared to ask.
Assuming my gender now, picking my pronouns for me?
This is exactly the sort of violent rhetoric I talked about.
My pronouns are they/them, not that you cared to ask.
(Edited 35 seconds later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 5 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,335
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 3 years ago, 28 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,336
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 33 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,337
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 9 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,338
@1,173,333 (M)
You literally picked the wrong double speak to pounce on even though the correct one was right there
You literally picked the wrong double speak to pounce on even though the correct one was right there
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 3 years ago, 23 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,339
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC triple-posted this 3 years ago, 25 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,340
Marcus is literally retarded
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,342
@1,173,339 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I'm FORCING you to use my pronouns?? For fuck sake.
It's not hard to do. I am able to use preferred pronouns every day without issue.
I'm FORCING you to use my pronouns?? For fuck sake.
It's not hard to do. I am able to use preferred pronouns every day without issue.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,343
@previous (M)
That is not what I said. Please take an extra second to read something before responding, Marcus
That is not what I said. Please take an extra second to read something before responding, Marcus
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 1 second later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,344
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 18 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,345
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 3 years ago, 17 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,346
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 24 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,347
@1,173,337 (M)
> Privilege is when I ask you to use my chosen pronouns.
@1,173,339 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> No privilege is doing it by force
@1,173,342 (M)
> I'm FORCING you to use my pronouns?? For fuck sake.
>
> It's not hard to do. I am able to use preferred pronouns every day without issue.
@1,173,343 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> That is not what I said.
π€ Read it again, and you clearly think you are being forced to use gender neutral pronouns.
> Privilege is when I ask you to use my chosen pronouns.
@1,173,339 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> No privilege is doing it by force
@1,173,342 (M)
> I'm FORCING you to use my pronouns?? For fuck sake.
>
> It's not hard to do. I am able to use preferred pronouns every day without issue.
@1,173,343 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> That is not what I said.
π€ Read it again, and you clearly think you are being forced to use gender neutral pronouns.
(Edited 45 seconds later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,348
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,349
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
After calling me "he" which is NOT my pronouns, but the pronouns of the privileged oppressive class that has abused me and many others for thousands of years, what do you do?
Tell me you are forced, and then make 5 comments conspicuously avoiding using any pronouns for me to get out of referring to me by nonconforming pronouns.
What does that accomplish? Am I now duty bound to join the false binary you want to perpetuate? No I refuse! So you accomplish nothing, but you will tell yourself this is a victory for cishet hegemony. Delusional.
π³οΈβ§οΈ
After calling me "he" which is NOT my pronouns, but the pronouns of the privileged oppressive class that has abused me and many others for thousands of years, what do you do?
Tell me you are forced, and then make 5 comments conspicuously avoiding using any pronouns for me to get out of referring to me by nonconforming pronouns.
What does that accomplish? Am I now duty bound to join the false binary you want to perpetuate? No I refuse! So you accomplish nothing, but you will tell yourself this is a victory for cishet hegemony. Delusional.
π³οΈβ§οΈ
(Edited 48 seconds later.)
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,350
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,351
@1,173,349 (M)
I'm saying that a member of the oppressor class changes nothing by using a different pronoun, if they haven't plucked the dick out of their brain. Stop trying to explain the poisonous history of marriage to a woman, Marcus Jr. You sound ignorant
I'm saying that a member of the oppressor class changes nothing by using a different pronoun, if they haven't plucked the dick out of their brain. Stop trying to explain the poisonous history of marriage to a woman, Marcus Jr. You sound ignorant
(Edited 38 seconds later.)
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,354
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
You don't know what genitals or hormones I was born with.
This gender essentialist language, the belief that AMAB can never "pluck the dick out of their brain" doesn't make me mad. It makes me incredibly sad for all the transfems out there that will be treated differently because you can't understand some people were born with a feminine brain and a dick too.
I hope anyone that sees kooks hateful, and out of character behavior, knows there are resources and phone numbers from many organizations that you can talk to.
Here's a list of resources:
https://www.trans.ac.uk/ResourcesInformation/Helplines/tabid/7257/Default.aspx
You don't know what genitals or hormones I was born with.
This gender essentialist language, the belief that AMAB can never "pluck the dick out of their brain" doesn't make me mad. It makes me incredibly sad for all the transfems out there that will be treated differently because you can't understand some people were born with a feminine brain and a dick too.
I hope anyone that sees kooks hateful, and out of character behavior, knows there are resources and phone numbers from many organizations that you can talk to.
Here's a list of resources:
https://www.trans.ac.uk/ResourcesInformation/Helplines/tabid/7257/Default.aspx
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 10 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,355
@1,173,349 (M)
Are you saying that men can't use they pronouns? You still haven't claimed to not be a man
Are you saying that men can't use they pronouns? You still haven't claimed to not be a man
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,356
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 46 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,357
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,358
@previous (N)
I said some women were born with dicks, and I feel sorry they have to deal with the kooks of the world.
My genitals are none of your business, I'd prefer to keep the discussion away from direct sexual harassment if that's alright?
I said some women were born with dicks, and I feel sorry they have to deal with the kooks of the world.
My genitals are none of your business, I'd prefer to keep the discussion away from direct sexual harassment if that's alright?
(Edited 15 seconds later.)
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 35 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,359
@previous (M)
You've directed the conversation towards your
own genitals, they are now a topic of discussion on this forum. Thanks
You've directed the conversation towards your
own genitals, they are now a topic of discussion on this forum. Thanks
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 3 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,360
@1,173,354 (M)
I'm a good guesser, Marcus the sequel, and you have a gross man brain. That likely won't ever change because you enjoy it too much.
Also this behavior is completely in line with who I am and I would say it in front of anyone who wishes to hear it
I'm a good guesser, Marcus the sequel, and you have a gross man brain. That likely won't ever change because you enjoy it too much.
Also this behavior is completely in line with who I am and I would say it in front of anyone who wishes to hear it
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,361
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,362
Anonymous M double-posted this 3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,363
@1,173,361 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Faggots
A reference to the state tearing down an industry that employed many people on a living wage because the Jewish minority who worked so hard to build that business didn't fit in with the "Aryan ideal" held by people like kook.
Organic leaves, traditional aboriginal medicine? It had to be sabotaged, and now kook wants us all to remember what happened last time nonwestern culture tried to exist.
> Faggots
A reference to the state tearing down an industry that employed many people on a living wage because the Jewish minority who worked so hard to build that business didn't fit in with the "Aryan ideal" held by people like kook.
Organic leaves, traditional aboriginal medicine? It had to be sabotaged, and now kook wants us all to remember what happened last time nonwestern culture tried to exist.
(Edited 27 seconds later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,365
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,366
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
I'm new here so I wouldn't get the joke.
I guess Marcus also doesn't tolerate your hate?
I'm new here so I wouldn't get the joke.
I guess Marcus also doesn't tolerate your hate?
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 53 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,367
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,368
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 26 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,369
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,370
@1,173,299 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> It's not even that big of an issue. Oh no, did you get called a homophobe by someone you used 'prefrence' around?
> It's not even that big of an issue. Oh no, did you get called a homophobe by someone you used 'prefrence' around?
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 17 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,371
@1,173,369 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Have the mods share your IP, I want to know if you live in a colonial state like I suspect you do.
Have the mods share your IP, I want to know if you live in a colonial state like I suspect you do.
Anonymous M double-posted this 3 years ago, 39 seconds later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,373
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,374
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,375
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Oh, nothing in that post about getting a mod to confirm you aren't another yank?
Oh, nothing in that post about getting a mod to confirm you aren't another yank?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 53 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,376
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,377
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,378
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 44 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,380
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,383
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 48 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,384
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,385
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,386
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 29 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,390
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
It's a photo of a woman.
Binary gender fails to express my identity, so I do not identify as either man or woman.
Just as one should not identify as either master nor slave.
Yet in kook's kranium you must take on one role, as kook is thoroughly attached to this ideological framing. And like everyone else who is attached to it, is utterly unable to see that it frames their perception. How sad for him.
It's a photo of a woman.
Binary gender fails to express my identity, so I do not identify as either man or woman.
Just as one should not identify as either master nor slave.
Yet in kook's kranium you must take on one role, as kook is thoroughly attached to this ideological framing. And like everyone else who is attached to it, is utterly unable to see that it frames their perception. How sad for him.
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 6 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,393
@previous (M)
Warning: Googlr's SafetyChek has detected violent language in your post. Your Gscore has been lowered by 49 points. Click here to learn to avoid this behavior in the future
Warning: Googlr's SafetyChek has detected violent language in your post. Your Gscore has been lowered by 49 points. Click here to learn to avoid this behavior in the future
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,395
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 54 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,396
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 3 years ago, 57 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,398
@1,173,395 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
It's literally Marcus pretending to be a new poster and using the stalest woke strawman possible
It's literally Marcus pretending to be a new poster and using the stalest woke strawman possible
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 22 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,399
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,401
@1,173,398 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Strawman? They changed the dictionary entry after making a SCOTUS nominee apologize.
Strawman? They changed the dictionary entry after making a SCOTUS nominee apologize.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 45 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,402
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 3 years ago, 59 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,403
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC triple-posted this 3 years ago, 24 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,404
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,405
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 46 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,406
@1,173,153 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> What is the point of this diatribe?
I think it's saying (basically): "I'm gay and I don't want to be gay, so I will just rationalize it by doing a postmodernism thing and saying that labels are just arbitrary and made up anyway"
> What is the point of this diatribe?
I think it's saying (basically): "I'm gay and I don't want to be gay, so I will just rationalize it by doing a postmodernism thing and saying that labels are just arbitrary and made up anyway"
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,407
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 43 seconds later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,408
Anonymous M double-posted this 3 years ago, 38 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,409
Anonymous M triple-posted this 3 years ago, 30 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,410
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 7 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,415
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,416
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 3 years ago, 7 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,419
Meta !Sober//iZs double-posted this 3 years ago, 24 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,420
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 3 years ago, 49 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,421
Dead !Pool..v42s double-posted this 3 years ago, 39 seconds later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,422
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 51 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,425
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,430
@previous (M)
> "In this case, we released the update for sexual preference when we noticed that the entries for preference and sexual preference were being consulted in connection with the SCOTUS hearings. A revision made in response to an entry's increased attention differs only in celerity β as always, all revisions reflect evidence of use."
> "It's used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice. It is not. Sexual orientation is a key part of a person's identity," Hirono said. "That sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable was a key part of the majority's opinion in Obergefell."
So like I said, are you just afraid of being called *phobic?
> "In this case, we released the update for sexual preference when we noticed that the entries for preference and sexual preference were being consulted in connection with the SCOTUS hearings. A revision made in response to an entry's increased attention differs only in celerity β as always, all revisions reflect evidence of use."
> "It's used by anti-LGBTQ activists to suggest that sexual orientation is a choice. It is not. Sexual orientation is a key part of a person's identity," Hirono said. "That sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable was a key part of the majority's opinion in Obergefell."
So like I said, are you just afraid of being called *phobic?
Dead !Pool..v42s double-posted this 3 years ago, 56 seconds later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,432
@1,173,425 (M)
One person brought it up, and then the nominee apologized and clarified. So what's the issue?
One person brought it up, and then the nominee apologized and clarified. So what's the issue?
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,436
@1,173,430 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
If I were afraid I'd enthusiastically switch my language to appease those who call people *phobic. Then I wouldn't need to worry (until the next time).
If I were afraid I'd enthusiastically switch my language to appease those who call people *phobic. Then I wouldn't need to worry (until the next time).
Anonymous M double-posted this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,439
@1,173,432 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
And then the dictionary changed the definition, and then it become another way for liberals to police the language of people that never had a problem with gay people.
Liberal Newspeak is exactly why the Republicans can do so much absurd shit and people are still reluctant to vote for the opposition.
No reason the left can't win except that they are stuck in passive aggressive games for attention.
And then the dictionary changed the definition, and then it become another way for liberals to police the language of people that never had a problem with gay people.
Liberal Newspeak is exactly why the Republicans can do so much absurd shit and people are still reluctant to vote for the opposition.
No reason the left can't win except that they are stuck in passive aggressive games for attention.
boof replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,440
101 more posts? you think I read all that? let me tell you seomthing. I did not.
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 3 years ago, 32 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,474
@1,173,436 (M)
@1,173,439 (M)
This kinda reminds me of the southpark episode with the trans wrestler where even the PC Babies understood that there's nuance in every case. It's important to bring up in the case of a SCOTUS nominee specifically because it's such an important nomination.
You're acting like every person using the term has someone ramming the updated definition down everyone's throat instead of what's actually happening. A casual explanation that 'prefrence' is being used by some to explicitly state that someone's sexuality is a conscious choice, when it is not.
@1,173,439 (M)
This kinda reminds me of the southpark episode with the trans wrestler where even the PC Babies understood that there's nuance in every case. It's important to bring up in the case of a SCOTUS nominee specifically because it's such an important nomination.
You're acting like every person using the term has someone ramming the updated definition down everyone's throat instead of what's actually happening. A casual explanation that 'prefrence' is being used by some to explicitly state that someone's sexuality is a conscious choice, when it is not.
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,478
@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> A casual explanation that 'prefrence' is being used by some to explicitly state that someone's sexuality is a conscious choice, when it is not.
It is.
> A casual explanation that 'prefrence' is being used by some to explicitly state that someone's sexuality is a conscious choice, when it is not.
It is.
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 50 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,503
@1,173,474 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> A casual explanation that 'prefrence' is being used by some to explicitly state that someone's sexuality is a conscious choice, when it is not.
A false claim because preference does not imply you chose to like what you like anywhere else. Only only on this particular woke issue.
The root problem is that the speaker no longe chooses what they mean, and the listener can infer anything they want.
> A casual explanation that 'prefrence' is being used by some to explicitly state that someone's sexuality is a conscious choice, when it is not.
A false claim because preference does not imply you chose to like what you like anywhere else. Only only on this particular woke issue.
The root problem is that the speaker no longe chooses what they mean, and the listener can infer anything they want.
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,509
@previous (M)
The root problem is that people rail against being able to say the words they want in the way they want
The root problem is that people rail against being able to say the words they want in the way they want
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,512
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,514
@previous (M)
They rail against not being able to say what they want in the way they want. Yikes, I'm high
They rail against not being able to say what they want in the way they want. Yikes, I'm high
(Edited 30 seconds later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,518
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 50 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,519
@1,173,514 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
That's true, but don't conflate actual hate speech with contrived hate speech.
Just because you can get upset and feel offended doesn't mean the word many what you thought it meant.
She could look up every word in that statement before making it, and it wouldn't matter because it was added later.
There's was not implication "preference" meant you chose what you preferred until some grifter realized they could make people feel guilty over it.
Democrats support popular issues and then brand themselves as opportunistic scolds.
That's true, but don't conflate actual hate speech with contrived hate speech.
Just because you can get upset and feel offended doesn't mean the word many what you thought it meant.
She could look up every word in that statement before making it, and it wouldn't matter because it was added later.
There's was not implication "preference" meant you chose what you preferred until some grifter realized they could make people feel guilty over it.
Democrats support popular issues and then brand themselves as opportunistic scolds.
Anonymous M double-posted this 3 years ago, 43 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,520
@1,173,518 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
It wasn't in the definition until it could be weaponized in a high profile political event.
It wasn't in the definition until it could be weaponized in a high profile political event.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,523
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,525
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,527
What's wrong with saying orientation?Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,532
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,534
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 7 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,535
@1,173,519 (M)
you're mad that you're being "forced to" say orientation instead of saying preference, but when you insist that preference is the correct newspeak aren't you forcing everyone to identify as bisexual???? Think about it, Marcus
you're mad that you're being "forced to" say orientation instead of saying preference, but when you insist that preference is the correct newspeak aren't you forcing everyone to identify as bisexual???? Think about it, Marcus
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 16 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,537
@previous (N)
No one has said you can't say orientation.
Meanwhile many people are saying "preference" is an inappropriate term.
Can't just throw it back when your side is the only one doing this.
No one has said you can't say orientation.
Meanwhile many people are saying "preference" is an inappropriate term.
Can't just throw it back when your side is the only one doing this.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,539
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,541
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Since preference never meant that (we just went over how it wasn't in the dictionary) how was it "never accurate"?
And no, a small group of rabid activists can't just redefine language to give themselves an excuse to get mad.
Since preference never meant that (we just went over how it wasn't in the dictionary) how was it "never accurate"?
And no, a small group of rabid activists can't just redefine language to give themselves an excuse to get mad.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,554
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 16 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,555
what
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 48 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,558
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 54 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,561
Anonymous P replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,566
@1,173,558 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
tbh I didn't even read a single post in here I can tell it's just one of those draads. lol
tbh I didn't even read a single post in here I can tell it's just one of those draads. lol
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,571
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 27 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,572
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 50 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,573
Anonymous P replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,575
@1,173,572 (J)
the one that cited me? where I got an alert and the person I replied to was replying directly to my first reply? that wasn't really a random selection but ok. glad u are confident enough to say things like that.
the one that cited me? where I got an alert and the person I replied to was replying directly to my first reply? that wasn't really a random selection but ok. glad u are confident enough to say things like that.
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,580
Anonymous P replied with this 3 years ago, 20 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,581
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,582
Anonymous P replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,583
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 16 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,584
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,587
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 30 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,588
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 47 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,589
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/15/amy-coney-barrett-merriam-webster-tweaks-sexual-preference-entry/3662507001/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/10/15/amy-coney-barrett-merriam-webster-tweaks-sexual-preference-entry/3662507001/
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 37 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,590
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,591
@1,173,589 (M)
They've tweaked it when it's been used in connection with sexual preference. Not the actual word "preference". Are you fucking slow?
They've tweaked it when it's been used in connection with sexual preference. Not the actual word "preference". Are you fucking slow?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 3 years ago, 16 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,592
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,594
@1,173,589 (M)
the entry for the phrase "sexual preference" being updated as archaic is not the same as the illuminati retconning the word "preference" into existence, you fuking r-word
the entry for the phrase "sexual preference" being updated as archaic is not the same as the illuminati retconning the word "preference" into existence, you fuking r-word
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 40 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,596
@1,173,591 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Are you fucking slow?
Getting hostile is an easy way to move.the conversation away from a cold discussion of the facts.
If this is too hard for you, try taking a deep breath and reading the article again.
> Are you fucking slow?
Getting hostile is an easy way to move.the conversation away from a cold discussion of the facts.
If this is too hard for you, try taking a deep breath and reading the article again.
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 48 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,597
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 41 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,598
@1,173,596 (M)
I've read the article. You didn't understand it.
Show us the old definition of preference
I've read the article. You didn't understand it.
Show us the old definition of preference
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,599
@1,173,594 (N)
Preference already existed as a word.
No one thinks "he prefers chicken over pork" means he decided one day to like one meat over another. Anyone would understand the preference is innate, and we still call it a preference.
Then self-appointed language police decided it also implied you do make some conscious lifestyle choice and that meant anyone who used the word in the context of sexuality was actually a homophobe.
Not really though, because those people were just referring to what someone wanted, without any other implications.
Preference already existed as a word.
No one thinks "he prefers chicken over pork" means he decided one day to like one meat over another. Anyone would understand the preference is innate, and we still call it a preference.
Then self-appointed language police decided it also implied you do make some conscious lifestyle choice and that meant anyone who used the word in the context of sexuality was actually a homophobe.
Not really though, because those people were just referring to what someone wanted, without any other implications.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,600
@previous (M)
When I think that someone prefers chicken over beef, I think that he will still eat beef, but likes chicken better.
And most other people think that. That's always what preference has meant
Also do you think that people are born with an innate taste for chicken?
When I think that someone prefers chicken over beef, I think that he will still eat beef, but likes chicken better.
And most other people think that. That's always what preference has meant
Also do you think that people are born with an innate taste for chicken?
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,603
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> When I think that someone prefers chicken over beef, I think that he will still eat beef, but likes chicken better.
What about the definition implies you'd like both?
You could prefer to smack your head once, rather than twice and it doesn't mean you like either.
You added in your own assumption, based on nothing in the actual definition and that leads you to believe people that don't give a shit who you fuck and who also believe your desires are innate are somehow actually telling you that they think you choose it.
It's schizophrenic. You conjure meaning out of thin air and can't anchor it back to reality.
> And most other people think that. That's always what preference has meant
Based on what?
> When I think that someone prefers chicken over beef, I think that he will still eat beef, but likes chicken better.
What about the definition implies you'd like both?
You could prefer to smack your head once, rather than twice and it doesn't mean you like either.
You added in your own assumption, based on nothing in the actual definition and that leads you to believe people that don't give a shit who you fuck and who also believe your desires are innate are somehow actually telling you that they think you choose it.
It's schizophrenic. You conjure meaning out of thin air and can't anchor it back to reality.
> And most other people think that. That's always what preference has meant
Based on what?
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 48 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,604
@1,173,599 (M)
No, you moron... saying sexual preference implies that everyone is fully Bisexual, but has a type. How can't you see that??
No, you moron... saying sexual preference implies that everyone is fully Bisexual, but has a type. How can't you see that??
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 34 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,605
@1,173,600 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
> Also do you think that people are born with an innate taste for chicken?
Either that, or through passive experience.
People don't just make a decision to like one food over another.
> Also do you think that people are born with an innate taste for chicken?
Either that, or through passive experience.
People don't just make a decision to like one food over another.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 3 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,606
@1,173,603 (M)
Based on its definition and how it's always been used.
Also tons of people worry about who fucks who and even legislate against it
Based on its definition and how it's always been used.
Also tons of people worry about who fucks who and even legislate against it
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 3 years ago, 54 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,607
Show us the old definition
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 9 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,608
@1,173,603 (M)
You don't even understand words... maybe next time there's a spooky headline about the dictionary you should skip it
You don't even understand words... maybe next time there's a spooky headline about the dictionary you should skip it
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,609
@1,173,604 (N)
It doesn't because preference never implied you like both choices.
You could prefer one option of three, and hate all three options.
Where in the definition of preference does it say having a preference means you like the options given to you?
It doesn't because preference never implied you like both choices.
You could prefer one option of three, and hate all three options.
Where in the definition of preference does it say having a preference means you like the options given to you?
Anonymous M double-posted this 3 years ago, 31 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,610
@1,173,607 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Show is any definition that isn't the new one that article mentioned.
No definition for preference says you like the choices presented.
Show is any definition that isn't the new one that article mentioned.
No definition for preference says you like the choices presented.
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 1 second later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,611
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 0 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,612
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 3 years ago, 20 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,613
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,614
@1,173,612 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
No definition, except that new one uses it the way you do.
We can use any other definition to see it never says "having a preference means you like the options presented". It's a complete fabrication by the left to get offended.
No definition, except that new one uses it the way you do.
We can use any other definition to see it never says "having a preference means you like the options presented". It's a complete fabrication by the left to get offended.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 11 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,615
You've said it's changed. Show us
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 3 years ago, 16 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,616
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 16 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,617
Anonymous M double-posted this 3 years ago, 17 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,618
Anonymous M triple-posted this 3 years ago, 16 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,619
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,620
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,621
@previous (N)
You can put your argument into words, it's all namecalling.
That must mean you are the correct one here.
You can put your argument into words, it's all namecalling.
That must mean you are the correct one here.
(Edited 7 seconds later.)
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,622
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 28 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,623
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,624
@1,173,622 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
No, and I've already said that multiple times, so why are we going over this again?
I made a food analogy, remember? I said people don't chose those things, and we still call them a preference.
Just as the definition does not say we like one or either of the options presented, but you claimed it does mean that. What dictionary says so?
No, and I've already said that multiple times, so why are we going over this again?
I made a food analogy, remember? I said people don't chose those things, and we still call them a preference.
Just as the definition does not say we like one or either of the options presented, but you claimed it does mean that. What dictionary says so?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 18 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,625
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 27 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,626
@1,173,623 (N)
> Forgo writing out a defense of your point
> state "I'm correct"
> leave
Were you in debate club?
> Forgo writing out a defense of your point
> state "I'm correct"
> leave
Were you in debate club?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 25 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,627
@1,173,624 (M)
In the definition you just posted. The selecting of one thing over another. They arent selecting being gay
In the definition you just posted. The selecting of one thing over another. They arent selecting being gay
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 12 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,628
@1,173,624 (M)
In your analogy, since it's just a preference... if chicken weren't available the person would just select pork... see how retarded you've been now?
In your analogy, since it's just a preference... if chicken weren't available the person would just select pork... see how retarded you've been now?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 52 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,629
From the etymologyAnonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,630
@1,173,626 (M)
This isn't a debate club, idiot. If you would like me to expound on calling you a retard, I can.
Are you so idiotic that you would present evidence that flies in the face of the argument you have been making across hundreds of posts, as if it were evidence in favor of your retarded argument?
This isn't a debate club, idiot. If you would like me to expound on calling you a retard, I can.
Are you so idiotic that you would present evidence that flies in the face of the argument you have been making across hundreds of posts, as if it were evidence in favor of your retarded argument?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 37 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,631
Is Op Catherine?
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 19 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,632
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 49 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,633
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 3 years ago, 59 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,634
Get laid Catherine
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,635
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 13 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,636
@1,173,627 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Are you both so dense you don't understand what the word means by choice?
A gay man would prefer sex with a man over a woman because he's gay. he would make a *choice* to pursue a man over a woman. That's not the same thing as chosing to be gay.
Just as I might choose to order chicken over pork. I made a choice, I could order the one I don't want.
That's not the same thing as saying they chose to be gay. It's saying someone who is already gay, innately, could chose to have sex with a woman. They probably wouldn't (unless they were a jigaloo) because of something they didn't chose: that they are gay.
Are you both so dense you don't understand what the word means by choice?
A gay man would prefer sex with a man over a woman because he's gay. he would make a *choice* to pursue a man over a woman. That's not the same thing as chosing to be gay.
Just as I might choose to order chicken over pork. I made a choice, I could order the one I don't want.
That's not the same thing as saying they chose to be gay. It's saying someone who is already gay, innately, could chose to have sex with a woman. They probably wouldn't (unless they were a jigaloo) because of something they didn't chose: that they are gay.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 52 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,637
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 18 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,638
@1,173,628 (N)
Not necessarily.
If I prefer chicken over pork because I can eat chicken, but pork is against my religion, or it makes me sick, or I really don't like the taste I might just get nothing.
Preference never implies you want any of the choices, just that you would prefer one relative to another, and if forced to make a choice they are not all equal.
Not necessarily.
If I prefer chicken over pork because I can eat chicken, but pork is against my religion, or it makes me sick, or I really don't like the taste I might just get nothing.
Preference never implies you want any of the choices, just that you would prefer one relative to another, and if forced to make a choice they are not all equal.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 17 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,639
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,640
Just suck a dick, Catherine! Why are you like this?
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,641
@1,173,630 (N)
How hard is it to understand that someone can be in a situation where they have to make a choice, and that's not the same thing as choosing what they like?
A gay man could choose to have sex with a woman, but he can't choose whether he's gay.
You are trying to say the definition says you like the alternative and it doesnt. It doesn't even say you like the one you prefer. You could prefer losing $5 to losing $10 and that doesn't mean you like either.
How hard is it to understand that someone can be in a situation where they have to make a choice, and that's not the same thing as choosing what they like?
A gay man could choose to have sex with a woman, but he can't choose whether he's gay.
You are trying to say the definition says you like the alternative and it doesnt. It doesn't even say you like the one you prefer. You could prefer losing $5 to losing $10 and that doesn't mean you like either.
Anonymous M double-posted this 3 years ago, 36 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,642
@1,173,639 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
unrelated to the point really.
If you like one thing over another you *prefere* it.
You have a preference.
unrelated to the point really.
If you like one thing over another you *prefere* it.
You have a preference.
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 30 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,643
@1,173,641 (M)
you're literally saying that sexuality is a choice while screaming that the words you're saying couldn't possibly mean that... you are being retarded
you're literally saying that sexuality is a choice while screaming that the words you're saying couldn't possibly mean that... you are being retarded
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 20 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,644
@1,173,641 (M)
You just argued against yourself. People are saying that their sexual orientation is not a preference. Not that their choice of sexual partner isn't a preference
You just argued against yourself. People are saying that their sexual orientation is not a preference. Not that their choice of sexual partner isn't a preference
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 3 years ago, 27 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,645
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC triple-posted this 3 years ago, 28 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,646
Answer me this, seriously. Why do you feel gay for wanting to touch dicks? Why?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC quadruple-posted this 3 years ago, 49 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,647
If you're a woman, it isn't gay to be with a man
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 22 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,648
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 16 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,649
@1,173,643 (N)
No, I never said sexuality is a choice.
People do make choices that their sexuality influences.
If you prefer the romantic company of the same sex, you didn't chose to have the preference. But having the preference means you would chose one thing over another.
No, I never said sexuality is a choice.
People do make choices that their sexuality influences.
If you prefer the romantic company of the same sex, you didn't chose to have the preference. But having the preference means you would chose one thing over another.
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 26 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,650
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 34 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,651
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 13 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,652
@1,173,645 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
"Attraction" meaning you you chose the romantic company of a particular person.
"Attraction" meaning you you chose the romantic company of a particular person.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 26 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,653
How about instead of acting out, you see a therapist. It's free where you live
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 3 years ago, 15 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,654
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 1 second later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,655
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 4 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,656
@1,173,649 (M)
you're wilding out because of a CNN story... You are a retard if you can't understand the implications of the word
you're wilding out because of a CNN story... You are a retard if you can't understand the implications of the word
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 1 second later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,657
Anonymous M double-posted this 3 years ago, 20 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,658
@1,173,651 (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
You didn't chose your preference, correct. But it's still a preference.
You didn't chose your preference, correct. But it's still a preference.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 11 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,659
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 3 years ago, 27 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,660
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 2 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,661
@1,173,657 (M)
you said you weren't a man, now you're mad that Kook used a feminine pronoun for you??
you said you weren't a man, now you're mad that Kook used a feminine pronoun for you??
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 32 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,662
Do you want me to call you?
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 1 second later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,663
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 35 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,664
@1,173,656 (N)
The literal definition means you'd chose one thing over another.
So would gay people chose one gender over another? Or are all options equal in their eyes.
They'd chose one over another, so it's a preference.
Whichever gender they prefer is not something they chose. They didn't decide to like men or women one day.
The literal definition means you'd chose one thing over another.
So would gay people chose one gender over another? Or are all options equal in their eyes.
They'd chose one over another, so it's a preference.
Whichever gender they prefer is not something they chose. They didn't decide to like men or women one day.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 2 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,665
@1,173,663 (J)
About what? I can call you Catherine, if you want me to. You know that. Do you want to talk?
About what? I can call you Catherine, if you want me to. You know that. Do you want to talk?
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 16 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,666
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 8 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,667
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 3 years ago, 23 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,668
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 8 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,669
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 17 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,670
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 2 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,671
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC double-posted this 3 years ago, 20 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,672
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 7 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,673
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 16 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,674
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 48 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,675
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 56 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,676
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
People change names, they change numbers. I had your number last time you posted it, but I deleted it because wouldn't respond to texts.
People change names, they change numbers. I had your number last time you posted it, but I deleted it because wouldn't respond to texts.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 34 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,677
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 28 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,678
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 11 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,679
Kook: why are you so obsessed with calling people?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 34 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,680
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 41 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,681
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,682
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,683
@previous (N)
Saying someone chooses one thing over another isn't the same as saying they chose what they like, thanks.
Saying someone chooses one thing over another isn't the same as saying they chose what they like, thanks.
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,684
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,685
@previous (N)
Nowhere in the definition does it say that.
It's also correct to say "I'd rather lose $5 than $10" and it's clear that both options are not desired, but one is preferred.
Nowhere in the definition does it say that.
It's also correct to say "I'd rather lose $5 than $10" and it's clear that both options are not desired, but one is preferred.
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 38 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,686
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,687
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 38 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,688
@1,173,686 (N)
You know how the words "would still like the alternative" aren't in the definition? That's what I mean.
And there's ways you could rephrase that, but those aren't there either.
And people routinely frame preferences between one thing they'd like and one they would not, or between two things they would not like.
So from just speaking the language with others you should know that it has never meant you liked all the options.
It just means that you wouldn't consider them all equal. If you were bisexual and didn't care, you don't have a preference. If you are either straight, gay, or bisexual with a favorite then you do have a preference.
You know how the words "would still like the alternative" aren't in the definition? That's what I mean.
And there's ways you could rephrase that, but those aren't there either.
And people routinely frame preferences between one thing they'd like and one they would not, or between two things they would not like.
So from just speaking the language with others you should know that it has never meant you liked all the options.
It just means that you wouldn't consider them all equal. If you were bisexual and didn't care, you don't have a preference. If you are either straight, gay, or bisexual with a favorite then you do have a preference.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,689
I can't find my iPhone! I'll have to look tomorrow. I'll post the number again
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 19 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,690
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 55 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,691
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 22 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,692
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 58 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,693
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 54 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,694
@previous (M)
that isn't how definitions or dictionaries work, you're onto some even stupider retardation now
that isn't how definitions or dictionaries work, you're onto some even stupider retardation now
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 13 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,695
Anonymous J double-posted this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,696
@1,173,694 (N)
Can one reference a dictionary in defining a dictionary? Or have we reached the end of the line?
Can one reference a dictionary in defining a dictionary? Or have we reached the end of the line?
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 32 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,697
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 35 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,698
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 4 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,699
@1,173,696 (J)
Yes, this isn't some infinite regress problem, there's just a short entry explaining that a dictionary is a book of word and definitions.
Yes, this isn't some infinite regress problem, there's just a short entry explaining that a dictionary is a book of word and definitions.
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 12 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,700
@1,173,696 (J)
Had I been attempting to define the definition of a dictionary definition of the word dictionary, perhaps we would be at the end of the line. But since i was not, I believe there is another solid 300 to 400 posts left in this topic
Had I been attempting to define the definition of a dictionary definition of the word dictionary, perhaps we would be at the end of the line. But since i was not, I believe there is another solid 300 to 400 posts left in this topic
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 49 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,701
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 37 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,702
Anonymous M double-posted this 3 years ago, 50 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,703
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 5 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,704
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 4 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,705
@1,173,700 (N)
How can we discuss on the same footing if we do not have a definition of a dictionary definition? I think we need to start at the definition of a dictionary definition.
How can we discuss on the same footing if we do not have a definition of a dictionary definition? I think we need to start at the definition of a dictionary definition.
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 54 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,706
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 10 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,707
@1,173,704 (N)
Making provably false assumptions about who I am isn't helping your argument lol (of which I don't have any stake in btw).
Making provably false assumptions about who I am isn't helping your argument lol (of which I don't have any stake in btw).
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 21 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,708
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 1 second later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,709
But seriously, why won't you have sex?
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 2 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,710
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 17 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,711
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 13 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,712
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 5 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,713
Anonymous J double-posted this 3 years ago, 18 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,714
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 8 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,715
@1,173,713 (J)
you said it was provably false, why can't you prove it now?
you said it was provably false, why can't you prove it now?
(Edited 10 seconds later.)
Anonymous N double-posted this 3 years ago, 17 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,716
Anonymous N triple-posted this 3 years ago, 34 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,717
300get
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,718
@1,173,715 (N)
Can not or will not? What is the definition of not? I believe it's not the definition of will.
Can not or will not? What is the definition of not? I believe it's not the definition of will.
Anonymous J double-posted this 3 years ago, 17 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,719
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 30 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,721
Nowhere in the definition for preference does it say that you like the choices you have.
Abusing language is an old liberal trick to create a feeling of debt and guilt among their victims.
A postmodern bourgeois trick to confuse the working classes.
Abusing language is an old liberal trick to create a feeling of debt and guilt among their victims.
A postmodern bourgeois trick to confuse the working classes.
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 52 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,722
Anonymous J double-posted this 3 years ago, 39 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,723
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 39 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,724
@1,173,722 (J)
Oh so Jewish people are a monolith now?
They can only be Democrats?
I guess Trump's favorite girl didn't marry a Jew, because the Republicans are all Nazis right?
Oh so Jewish people are a monolith now?
They can only be Democrats?
I guess Trump's favorite girl didn't marry a Jew, because the Republicans are all Nazis right?
Anonymous M double-posted this 3 years ago, 22 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,725
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,727
Anonymous J double-posted this 3 years ago, 25 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,728
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,729
Anonymous M double-posted this 3 years ago, 51 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,730
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,731
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,733
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 55 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,734
Anonymous M double-posted this 3 years ago, 16 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,735
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 39 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,737
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,738
@previous (J)
Reflect on that.
Jewish representation in elite circles is rare, so Trump did a lot for those people.
Reflect on that.
Jewish representation in elite circles is rare, so Trump did a lot for those people.
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 27 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,744
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 28 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,745
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 3 years ago, 57 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,751
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,752
@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
> Actual hate speech is the exact same thing as contrived hate speech --Dead Pool
Ok.
> Actual hate speech is the exact same thing as contrived hate speech --Dead Pool
Ok.
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,753
@1,173,751 (Dead !Pool..v42s)
My bad I thought we had 300+ posts here talking about whether it was homophobic to say gay people had preferences.
What are we actually talking about?
My bad I thought we had 300+ posts here talking about whether it was homophobic to say gay people had preferences.
What are we actually talking about?
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 3 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,754
Dead !Pool..v42s double-posted this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,755
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,756
@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
Language just suddenly evolved so that preference suddenly meant you were implying that all choices were desired?
Localized entirely on sexual issues.
For what reason? And why did this not get recorded into dictionaries before a high profile SCOTUS nominee?
Even now the note in the definition specifies it's offensive in a certain context, but nowhere specifies that calling something a preference in any other context implies you like all the options. Or that you can decide what you like.
Language just suddenly evolved so that preference suddenly meant you were implying that all choices were desired?
Localized entirely on sexual issues.
For what reason? And why did this not get recorded into dictionaries before a high profile SCOTUS nominee?
Even now the note in the definition specifies it's offensive in a certain context, but nowhere specifies that calling something a preference in any other context implies you like all the options. Or that you can decide what you like.
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,765
@previous (M)
it's been in the dictionary the entire time. If John prefers watches to clocks he would still accept the use of a clock if he were in need of a timepiece. See how the word "preference" can be used in that way? Preference is a ranking of choices... if it makes it easier think of straight ppl, they would never speak as if they had made a choice not to have gay sex
it's been in the dictionary the entire time. If John prefers watches to clocks he would still accept the use of a clock if he were in need of a timepiece. See how the word "preference" can be used in that way? Preference is a ranking of choices... if it makes it easier think of straight ppl, they would never speak as if they had made a choice not to have gay sex
Killer LettuceπΉ !HonkUK.BIE joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 51 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,767
> Topic about a controversial subject rapidly gets hundreds of replies.
Ah, this is just like Minichan's olden days.
Ah, this is just like Minichan's olden days.
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 3 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,771
OK I came back and saw there are 266 new replies since my last post. I'm not reading them but can someone who did read this thread please tell me if this was a civil discussion or not? Thanks.
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
Killer LettuceπΉ !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 3 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,772
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,773
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 3 years ago, 25 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,774
@1,173,772 (Killer LettuceπΉ !HonkUK.BIE)
I was sure but you can never be too sure.
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
You are a saint! What is your secret?
I was sure but you can never be too sure.
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
You are a saint! What is your secret?
WSD !m2cp3rR5zw joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,775
If it was a preference, who on Earth would prefer a dead end relationship over a stable family?
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,778
Killer LettuceπΉ !HonkUK.BIE replied with this 3 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,788
@previous (J)
Yes, really! And I am prepared to spend over 1000 replies arguing with you about that.
Haha. Nah, let's just agree to disagree on that, my dude. π₯°
Yes, really! And I am prepared to spend over 1000 replies arguing with you about that.
Haha. Nah, let's just agree to disagree on that, my dude. π₯°
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,789
@1,173,774 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
It's easier to wrangle tards when it's one guy with 3 uids getting mad over "thought crime"
It's easier to wrangle tards when it's one guy with 3 uids getting mad over "thought crime"
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,791
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,796
@1,173,765 (N)
Nowhere in the definition does it say you'd like the alternative choice. Or even the choice you'd prefer.
You added that in yourself, show where the definition says that.
Nowhere in the definition does it say you'd like the alternative choice. Or even the choice you'd prefer.
You added that in yourself, show where the definition says that.
Anonymous M double-posted this 3 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,797
Anonymous M triple-posted this 3 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,799
Nothing about liking either choice, simply states you'd rather one over another.Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 3 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,800
@1,173,756 (M)
Yes! Anti LGBT+ activists regularly use 'sexual prefrence' to communicate to their anti LGBT+ followers that being not straight is a choice!
Yes! Anti LGBT+ activists regularly use 'sexual prefrence' to communicate to their anti LGBT+ followers that being not straight is a choice!
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,801
@previous (Dead !Pool..v42s)
Then those people don't know what the word means either, and you've been dragged into their semantic hell too.
Then those people don't know what the word means either, and you've been dragged into their semantic hell too.
Dead !Pool..v42s replied with this 3 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,807
@1,173,756 (M)
So you basically gave my argument for me, I didn't say it was hate speech, i did say it can have homophobic context. So what's the issue?
So you basically gave my argument for me, I didn't say it was hate speech, i did say it can have homophobic context. So what's the issue?
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,846
@1,173,799 (M)
arguing against yourself again? The definition you've posted there says exactly what you claim it doesn't say... "like better" would mean you like the other but less... stop being this retarded please
arguing against yourself again? The definition you've posted there says exactly what you claim it doesn't say... "like better" would mean you like the other but less... stop being this retarded please
(Edited 57 seconds later.)
Anonymous M replied with this 3 years ago, 27 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,849
@previous (N)
"I would like better to lose $5 than $10".
You can "like something better" because it is less worse, but still undesireable.
What is your first language?
"I would like better to lose $5 than $10".
You can "like something better" because it is less worse, but still undesireable.
What is your first language?
Anonymous N replied with this 3 years ago, 4 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,937
Anonymous S joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 54 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,949
I agree with @OP and Anon M, gay people can choose a better lifestyle.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 3 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,950
Anonymous S replied with this 3 years ago, 29 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,951
Anonymous J replied with this 3 years ago, 41 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,173,953
Anonymous T joined in and replied with this 3 years ago, 1 day later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,174,660
Shut the fuck up.
Anonymous U joined in and replied with this 7 months ago, 2.3 years later, 2.3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,143
I'm a lesbian trapped in a human male's body.
Anonymous V joined in and replied with this 7 months ago, 2 minutes later, 2.3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,144
> The only reason why we refer to ourselves as gay, straight, or whatever is because we just have preferences in who were date and who we fuck.
The sun doesn't exist, we only feel warmth from the bug ball of flaming gas at the center of the solar system.
The sun doesn't exist, we only feel warmth from the bug ball of flaming gas at the center of the solar system.
dreamworks joined in and replied with this 7 months ago, 6 hours later, 2.3 years after the original post[^] [v] #1,317,156
im gay lol