Topic: Post-modernist thought of the day: 'F' emphasizes the hardness of man and must be depreciated
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs started this discussion 10 years ago #48,844
The phoneme 'f' is a misandric application of phonological construction, by over-emphasizing the negative aspects of masculinity and its intrinsic association with aggressivenes and the physical aspects of forthright imposition.
Meanwhile, ph, whilst emphasizing the perhaps more noxiously mythological lexicographic softness of womanhood, does at least serve to redirect in diversion away from the pathogenesis of man our attentions towards its substitution for the previously formal 'f', potentially serving the capacity to subliminally reconfigure our masculinopathic associations.
Meanwhile, ph, whilst emphasizing the perhaps more noxiously mythological lexicographic softness of womanhood, does at least serve to redirect in diversion away from the pathogenesis of man our attentions towards its substitution for the previously formal 'f', potentially serving the capacity to subliminally reconfigure our masculinopathic associations.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 22 minutes later[^] [v] #636,579
I'm pretty sure we could replace you with a bot and no one would notice.
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #636,581
@previous (B)
Yet somehow your mentally deficient smark as a disgruntled Anon smacks conspicuously of even less inspiration in its motives.
Tu quoque, per usual.
Yet somehow your mentally deficient smark as a disgruntled Anon smacks conspicuously of even less inspiration in its motives.
Tu quoque, per usual.
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #636,585
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #636,586
Green !BEERiVqJJw joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 24 seconds later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #636,587
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 35 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #636,589
@previous (Green !BEERiVqJJw)
You fail to read the implications therein, and dismiss it to a phenomenon of 'sound', which is ironically all too implicitly suggestive of your own effluvience.
You fail to read the implications therein, and dismiss it to a phenomenon of 'sound', which is ironically all too implicitly suggestive of your own effluvience.
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #636,591
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #636,592
Adam Jensen joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 40 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #636,594
kook !!mCVqftDha joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 31 seconds later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #636,595
I dont understand what this means.
Green !BEERiVqJJw replied with this 10 years ago, 35 seconds later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #636,597
@636,589 (Sophie !MLHqI35Srs)
Did you swallow a dictionary or are you literally an angry sentient dictionary?
Did you swallow a dictionary or are you literally an angry sentient dictionary?
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 43 seconds later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #636,599
@636,594 (Adam Jensen)
You are highly insecure.
And for all of this affected but transparently mawkishly-motivated bravado, none of you were able to aptly address my point beyond a barely-concealed, effective ad hominem attack of "lol, rote-automaton".
Despite the fact that my statement's incontrovertibility on its own proves my superior fluid intellect.
You are highly insecure.
And for all of this affected but transparently mawkishly-motivated bravado, none of you were able to aptly address my point beyond a barely-concealed, effective ad hominem attack of "lol, rote-automaton".
Despite the fact that my statement's incontrovertibility on its own proves my superior fluid intellect.
Green !BEERiVqJJw replied with this 10 years ago, 1 second later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #636,600
@636,595 (kook !!mCVqftDha)
I'm jotting some of these words down on pen and paper to add to my vocabulary.
I'm jotting some of these words down on pen and paper to add to my vocabulary.
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 44 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #636,603
@previous (Green !BEERiVqJJw)
I am seriously making a markov text generator when I am more sober. I am going to see if anyone can tell the difference.
I am seriously making a markov text generator when I am more sober. I am going to see if anyone can tell the difference.
Green !BEERiVqJJw replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #636,607
Dreamworks replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 49 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #636,611
@previous (Green !BEERiVqJJw)
Sure, it's Dreamworks! You caught me. Good work. Keep on Internet detecting like a boss!
Sure, it's Dreamworks! You caught me. Good work. Keep on Internet detecting like a boss!
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #636,612
@636,603 (B)
Damlol. I look forward to this.
@636,597 (Green !BEERiVqJJw)
I am unsure exactly if he has swallowed any dictionaries, but he is certainly angry. He will pretty much insult anybody in arm's reach. :')
Damlol. I look forward to this.
@636,597 (Green !BEERiVqJJw)
I am unsure exactly if he has swallowed any dictionaries, but he is certainly angry. He will pretty much insult anybody in arm's reach. :')
Green !BEERiVqJJw replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #636,618
Anonymous B replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #636,621
@636,612 (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Unfortunately I don't think anyone actually reads his posts, so it might be that any collection of certain kinds of words will be mistaken for a Sophie post.
Unfortunately I don't think anyone actually reads his posts, so it might be that any collection of certain kinds of words will be mistaken for a Sophie post.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #636,622
@636,595 (kook !!mCVqftDha)
F is too hard sounding and is sexist because it is aggressive and suggests physical imposition, which are problems with men in today's society.
Ph is soft sounding and whilst not perfect because it suggests that women are supposed to be softer than men, it is an acceptable substitute for the time being until such time as further developments allow women to move away from the man-centric mindset and come up with their own letter.
Am I right op?
F is too hard sounding and is sexist because it is aggressive and suggests physical imposition, which are problems with men in today's society.
Ph is soft sounding and whilst not perfect because it suggests that women are supposed to be softer than men, it is an acceptable substitute for the time being until such time as further developments allow women to move away from the man-centric mindset and come up with their own letter.
Am I right op?
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #636,630
@636,621 (B)
Quite possibly. I wouldn't be surprised if any generic rant about feminists or misandry would be an effective impersonation.
Quite possibly. I wouldn't be surprised if any generic rant about feminists or misandry would be an effective impersonation.
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #636,632
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
Yes, demean the rigour of my works as to ensure you aren't merely signalling a sarcastically bitter virtuosity of political supremacy in the form of misascription the rational to that which is not a brutally objective attestation to the observant and frank. Liberal mid-witted scumbag.
Yes, demean the rigour of my works as to ensure you aren't merely signalling a sarcastically bitter virtuosity of political supremacy in the form of misascription the rational to that which is not a brutally objective attestation to the observant and frank. Liberal mid-witted scumbag.
Adam Jensen replied with this 10 years ago, 0 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #636,633
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #636,634
@636,622 (G)
It is more the case that endorsing 'ph' for too long has the unintended effect of giving females undue reputational sympatheticness whilst bolstering the same antipathy towards men the aggressively connote 'f' had suggested of masculine traits in general.
It is more the case that endorsing 'ph' for too long has the unintended effect of giving females undue reputational sympatheticness whilst bolstering the same antipathy towards men the aggressively connote 'f' had suggested of masculine traits in general.
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #636,638
Anonymous G replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #636,639
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 43 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,651
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,653
@previous (Sophie !MLHqI35Srs)
Very well. I shall retune my verbiage thusly: My good madam, you are a blighter.
Very well. I shall retune my verbiage thusly: My good madam, you are a blighter.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,655
> title reads like jibberish
> open thread
> see Sophie
Stopped reading right there.
> open thread
> see Sophie
Stopped reading right there.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 4 hours later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,745
In the phuture the importance of this topic will be phully realized.
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,752
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,757
@previous (kook !!mCVqftDha)
Just generally, as a phoneme.
In addition:
th -> ph; th is aggressive as it more openly shows the teeth
v -> ph; same problem, also the sharp angularity of the letter's geometry suggests of its added connotation that it's deservingly biting in compliment to any word
Just generally, as a phoneme.
In addition:
th -> ph; th is aggressive as it more openly shows the teeth
v -> ph; same problem, also the sharp angularity of the letter's geometry suggests of its added connotation that it's deservingly biting in compliment to any word
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,759
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 21 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,760
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,761
squeegee joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,762
Anonymous H replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,764
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 13 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,767
how abouthe the the [ɹ] and [l] phonemes?
If we banish them, then we soften our speech to point of childlike, as in:
Hewwo, I feew weew good today
Be vewy quiet, wew hunting wabbits
If we banish them, then we soften our speech to point of childlike, as in:
Hewwo, I feew weew good today
Be vewy quiet, wew hunting wabbits
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,768
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 16 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,770
@636,767 (Sheila LaBoof)
I like it actually. But I'll reserve it to the therapeutic treatment of infantilism.
I like it actually. But I'll reserve it to the therapeutic treatment of infantilism.
Anonymous H replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,772
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,774
@previous (H)
Maybe it would help propel you to the only place you could ever express sarcasm properly, Mark.
In your grave.
Maybe it would help propel you to the only place you could ever express sarcasm properly, Mark.
In your grave.
Anonymous G replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,777
Big Daddy Derek !Uvm54ORbmo joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 second later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,778
@OP
Your psychopathic victim card waving is, in fact, becoming tedious. Kill yourself immediately. Thanks.
Your psychopathic victim card waving is, in fact, becoming tedious. Kill yourself immediately. Thanks.
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 10 years ago, 56 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,779
kook !!mCVqftDha double-posted this 10 years ago, 29 seconds later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,781
So you did have a speech impediment? God dammit Sophie
Anonymous G replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,783
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,785
kook !!mCVqftDha replied with this 10 years ago, 23 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,793
@previous (Sophie !MLHqI35Srs)
I feel like if you lived near me, we could have some really fun times
I feel like if you lived near me, we could have some really fun times
Anonymous H replied with this 10 years ago, 5 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,869
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,879
@previous (H)
"Mark Hefford" was a false identity that butthurt shitposters tried to pin on Tinychan's Doctor. Needless to say, the only evidence that Doc is Hefford is the shitposters insisting that it's true.
They're still trying to force it to this day.
"Mark Hefford" was a false identity that butthurt shitposters tried to pin on Tinychan's Doctor. Needless to say, the only evidence that Doc is Hefford is the shitposters insisting that it's true.
They're still trying to force it to this day.
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,882
@previous (RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx)
There's no need to propagate this patently misleading, defensive, and frankly itself-unsubstantiated claim. In fact the insistence is almost unneccessary when considering the abundant circumstantial evidence, as provided in a well-documented thread on Tinychan.
One would almost be forgiven for beleiving you might be Mark.
There's no need to propagate this patently misleading, defensive, and frankly itself-unsubstantiated claim. In fact the insistence is almost unneccessary when considering the abundant circumstantial evidence, as provided in a well-documented thread on Tinychan.
One would almost be forgiven for beleiving you might be Mark.
(Edited 31 seconds later.)
RWBY Rhubarb? !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,884
@previous (Sophie !MLHqI35Srs)Haha! Yes, it is I! Mark Hefford himself! Though you may have uncovered this identity, I have many more in play!
Now drink your domestos.
Anonymous H replied with this 10 years ago, 47 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,895
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 10 years ago, 49 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,899
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 51 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #636,912
Sophie !MLHqI35Srs (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 8 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #636,965
WSD !gxgZS8.pz2 joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #637,011
Hi sofi.