Topic: If you think the dictionary is "woke" and should be banned
Anonymous A started this discussion 2 years ago #115,462
then you've lost your grip on reality, my friend.
boof joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 10 minutes later[^] [v] #1,275,245
thank goodness we can still look up what nigger means
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,246
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,249
@OP
Who's saying it should be banned?
Who's saying it should be banned?
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,250
Is this a common sentiment?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 36 seconds later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,251
@1,275,249 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
At least one Florida school district pulled it because of Desantis' stupid ass book banning laws. they may return it, but still, it's ridiculous.
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
At least one Florida school district pulled it because of Desantis' stupid ass book banning laws. they may return it, but still, it's ridiculous.
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 16 minutes later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,257
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,258
I'll wait for Anonymous H's input.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 11 minutes later, 53 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,259
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,260
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,261
Democrats are the people insisting you can define a word with the word itself.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,262
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,277
dw !p9hU6ckyqw joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,278
There's actually a video unrelated to this on YouTube. https://youtu.be/UdQ7d8Eq6II?si=r3pevQMHBvZ4w-P4
boof replied with this 2 years ago, 2 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,279
@1,275,261 (G)
> Democrats are the people insisting you can define a word with the word itself.
nigger
noun
definition: nigger
> Democrats are the people insisting you can define a word with the word itself.
nigger
noun
definition: nigger
Anonymous H replied with this 2 years ago, 35 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,291
@1,275,278 (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
> There's actually a video unrelated to this on YouTube.
I would think most videos on YouTube would fit this description.
> There's actually a video unrelated to this on YouTube.
I would think most videos on YouTube would fit this description.
dw !p9hU6ckyqw replied with this 2 years ago, 3 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,318
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,326
Queen Catherine !TGirlYJKXM joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,327
The mere concept of "woke" is a new one. Once was the meaning that someone woke was something who was strongly supportive of minority groups' struggles now has turned into a buzzword used by conservatives for anything that challenges their perspective. A lot of things prior to the coining of this word would've been considered woke which ironically is beloved by the very same people who use the woke to denounce any idea or logical thinking. The Hunchback of Notre Dame was a very progressive ("woke") film with its main villain being a member of the church, a brown woman of an oppressed people, and a main protagonist who is considered a 'freak.' Disney was planning on remaking this as a live action film and it was quite possibly the only live action remake people were looking forward, but now they cancelled that idea. Had it been released there would've been that same conservative crowd that complained about it being too progressive, thus ruining the original film, even if it was literally a shot-for-shot remake like most of the remakes have been.The left aren't allies either in the struggles of marginalized groups no matter how much they saw they are. Biden doesn't really seem to give a fuck about brown people. And there is a heavy focus on censorship than actually resolving problems that could cause bodily harm or even death. Police brutality remains an issue for a majority of black Americans that gets swept under the rug by racist whites, but god forbid, don't say the N word. That's bad! Redlining continues to be a thing in real estate, but you know, we can't have people going around saying 'nigga.'
The thing most people don't seem to understand is that within the United States of America, there is no such thing as a 'left wing.' Our liberals are still pretty fucking conservative. Our conservatives are just uneducated retards. We have a singular party that more or less bi-generated like The Doctor from Doctor Who.
So, anyone, yeah. Fuck you, OP. Fuck everyone.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 5 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,341
@previous (Queen Catherine !TGirlYJKXM)
Can't you go one post without talking about children's TV shows?
Can't you go one post without talking about children's TV shows?
boof replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,345
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,364
boof replied with this 2 years ago, 45 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,371
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 10 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,373
@previous (boof)
Perhaps you can elucidate in which moment people started fucking in this programme?
Perhaps you can elucidate in which moment people started fucking in this programme?
boof replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,374
@previous (J)
I'm not going to find and review the times. Suffice it to say that the dialogue makes it known that the girl and her friend fuck. Later, a character, smiling Jack or whatever, is described as some kind of sex hog. And, at some point it is made clear that the doctor has fucked Queen Elizabeth the first.
I'm not going to find and review the times. Suffice it to say that the dialogue makes it known that the girl and her friend fuck. Later, a character, smiling Jack or whatever, is described as some kind of sex hog. And, at some point it is made clear that the doctor has fucked Queen Elizabeth the first.
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,375
@previous (boof)
Ah, so when you said "people fuck in that show", what you actually meant was "the writers inserted sly innuendos for the adults to laugh at". This is a common occurrence with most children's media.
Ah, so when you said "people fuck in that show", what you actually meant was "the writers inserted sly innuendos for the adults to laugh at". This is a common occurrence with most children's media.
boof replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,377
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 15 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,382
@previous (boof)
They absolutely are innuendos, I know this because when I was a child I watched that TV show as it aired and know what you're talking about, even if you can't really remember them. There is nothing explicit in any of those episodes, which are pre-watershed and aimed as an evening option for children.
They absolutely are innuendos, I know this because when I was a child I watched that TV show as it aired and know what you're talking about, even if you can't really remember them. There is nothing explicit in any of those episodes, which are pre-watershed and aimed as an evening option for children.
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 21 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,386
@previous (J)
You were a child in the late 2000s and early 2010s? Are you sure about that? Besides, Doctor Who enjoys a long-standing exemption from the "watershed" rules in the UK
You were a child in the late 2000s and early 2010s? Are you sure about that? Besides, Doctor Who enjoys a long-standing exemption from the "watershed" rules in the UK
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,387
@1,275,382 (J)
Jack Harkness was described as a bisexual, fuck machine
Also there are a lot of non child friendly topics not sex related
Jack Harkness was described as a bisexual, fuck machine
Also there are a lot of non child friendly topics not sex related
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,388
@1,275,386 (F)
Yes, I am sure about what age I was in any particular year, even when that year was 19 years ago in 2005. Doctor Who enjoys a "long standing exemption" as a programme occasionally rated as a 12. It does not have carte-blanche to air a 15 or an 18. Thanks!
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Jack Harness was described as bisexual, and through his actions was shown to be a seducer. However, at no point is he explicitly said to be a "fuck machine" except in Torchwood, a different programme for a more mature audience. Doctor Who is never rated higher than 12, as I mentioned above. 12 year olds are children.
Yes, I am sure about what age I was in any particular year, even when that year was 19 years ago in 2005. Doctor Who enjoys a "long standing exemption" as a programme occasionally rated as a 12. It does not have carte-blanche to air a 15 or an 18. Thanks!
@previous (Kook !!rcSrAtaAC)
Jack Harness was described as bisexual, and through his actions was shown to be a seducer. However, at no point is he explicitly said to be a "fuck machine" except in Torchwood, a different programme for a more mature audience. Doctor Who is never rated higher than 12, as I mentioned above. 12 year olds are children.
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,389
@previous (J)
You said when those episodes aired, not 2005 specifically. That means you claim to have been a child during the original airing of every episode with The Doctor and Queen Elizabeth. Dont lie.
You said when those episodes aired, not 2005 specifically. That means you claim to have been a child during the original airing of every episode with The Doctor and Queen Elizabeth. Dont lie.
Anonymous F double-posted this 2 years ago, 11 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,390
boof replied with this 2 years ago, 4 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,392
@1,275,382 (J)
> They absolutely are innuendos, I know this because when I was a child I watched that TV show as it aired and know what you're talking about, even if you can't really remember them. There is nothing explicit in any of those episodes, which are pre-watershed and aimed as an evening option for children.
right, you couldn't see a dude's cock go into a cunt. that's your standard?
> They absolutely are innuendos, I know this because when I was a child I watched that TV show as it aired and know what you're talking about, even if you can't really remember them. There is nothing explicit in any of those episodes, which are pre-watershed and aimed as an evening option for children.
right, you couldn't see a dude's cock go into a cunt. that's your standard?
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 2 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,403
@previous (boof)
They didn't show any kind of sex scene, gratuitously imply one or use any kind of explicit language. What they did was slyly wink to what they were up to, in a way that the children would not understand.
@1,275,389 (F)
The first two were from the early seasons, and the one with Queen Elizabeth was quite later on and towards the time I stopped watching Doctor Who. If I recall, the part where "it is made clear that the doctor fucked Queen Elizabeth the first" was a scene where she confronts him, scalds him for leaving her after a previous encounter and orders him to be arrested for treason.
They didn't show any kind of sex scene, gratuitously imply one or use any kind of explicit language. What they did was slyly wink to what they were up to, in a way that the children would not understand.
@1,275,389 (F)
The first two were from the early seasons, and the one with Queen Elizabeth was quite later on and towards the time I stopped watching Doctor Who. If I recall, the part where "it is made clear that the doctor fucked Queen Elizabeth the first" was a scene where she confronts him, scalds him for leaving her after a previous encounter and orders him to be arrested for treason.
Queen Catherine !TGirlYJKXM replied with this 2 years ago, 14 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,405
@1,275,375 (J)
> This is a common occurrence with most children's media.
iCarly, Victorious, Just Fuck It, and anything that has ever been produced by Schneider's Bakery doesn't represent the market of children's entertainment.
> This is a common occurrence with most children's media.
iCarly, Victorious, Just Fuck It, and anything that has ever been produced by Schneider's Bakery doesn't represent the market of children's entertainment.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 6 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,407
@1,275,389 (F)
@1,275,392 (boof)
@1,275,403 (J)
You're actually arguing over whether fictional characters have sex in a TV show?
@1,275,392 (boof)
@1,275,403 (J)
You're actually arguing over whether fictional characters have sex in a TV show?
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
boof replied with this 2 years ago, 1 hour later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,413
Anonymous J replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,414
@previous (boof)
The question is, would children understand what is being said? And the answer is no, they wouldn't have a clue.
The question is, would children understand what is being said? And the answer is no, they wouldn't have a clue.
boof replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,417
Anonymous F replied with this 2 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,275,460
@1,275,414 (J)
Yes they would, but that's irrelevant. If you sit a pebble in front of the television and it doesn't understand that the doctor has sex with people, that doesn't change anything about the content
Yes they would, but that's irrelevant. If you sit a pebble in front of the television and it doesn't understand that the doctor has sex with people, that doesn't change anything about the content