TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 4 minutes ago, Orlion Determined said: It really is a problem of classification. Over classification, I would say. Risking getting to the point where there is a term for a male that considers himself male in everyway except he likes to eat pink ice cream. Cishet masculine-presenting non-masculine ice cream enthusiast?
marsoupial they/them Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 (edited) 2 minutes ago, TwiLyghtSansSparkles said: Cishet masculine-presenting non-masculine ice cream enthusiast? Non-masculine, ice cream enthusiast? Or enthusiast of non-masculine ice cream? I like pink... which really says nothing about the masculinity of it, I can be rather effeminate Edited October 3, 2016 by bleeder
Silverblade5 he/him Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 1 hour ago, bleeder said: Non-masculine, ice cream enthusiast? Or enthusiast of non-masculine ice cream? I like pink... which really says nothing about the masculinity of it, I can be rather effeminate But pink is a manly color! Back in the day, when the French army did desert campaigns, they'd wear pink/salmon uniforms for camouflage. 2
TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 2 hours ago, bleeder said: Non-masculine, ice cream enthusiast? Or enthusiast of non-masculine ice cream? I like pink... which really says nothing about the masculinity of it, I can be rather effeminate YOU'RE ABOSLUTELY RIGHT WE NEED ANOTHER SUB-CLASSIFICATION WHO CARES IF IT FITS MAYBE ONE PERSON ON THE PLANET THINK HOW TRIGGERING IT MUST BE FOR THAT ONE PERSON TO NOT HAVE THEIR VERY OWN RIDICULOUSLY SPECIFIC LABEL FOR THEIR LIFESTYLE CHOICES 8
marsoupial they/them Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 Just now, TwiLyghtSansSparkles said: YOU'RE ABOSLUTELY RIGHT WE NEED ANOTHER SUB-CLASSIFICATION WHO CARES IF IT FITS MAYBE ONE PERSON ON THE PLANET THINK HOW TRIGGERING IT MUST BE FOR THAT ONE PERSON TO NOT HAVE THEIR VERY OWN RIDICULOUSLY SPECIFIC LABEL FOR THEIR LIFESTYLE CHOICES Oh Twi how I love you sometimes 1
Silverblade5 he/him Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 15 minutes ago, TwiLyghtSansSparkles said: YOU'RE ABOSLUTELY RIGHT WE NEED ANOTHER SUB-CLASSIFICATION WHO CARES IF IT FITS MAYBE ONE PERSON ON THE PLANET THINK HOW TRIGGERING IT MUST BE FOR THAT ONE PERSON TO NOT HAVE THEIR VERY OWN RIDICULOUSLY SPECIFIC LABEL FOR THEIR LIFESTYLE CHOICES I'm feeling triggered... 1
PantsForSquares he/him Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 2 hours ago, TwiLyghtSansSparkles said: YOU'RE ABOSLUTELY RIGHT WE NEED ANOTHER SUB-CLASSIFICATION WHO CARES IF IT FITS MAYBE ONE PERSON ON THE PLANET THINK HOW TRIGGERING IT MUST BE FOR THAT ONE PERSON TO NOT HAVE THEIR VERY OWN RIDICULOUSLY SPECIFIC LABEL FOR THEIR LIFESTYLE CHOICES WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO BE LABELED WHAT DO WE DO FOR THEM 1
TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 11 minutes ago, PantsForSquares said: WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT TO BE LABELED WHAT DO WE DO FOR THEM WE FIND APPROPRIATE LABELS FOR THEM AND WE FORCE THEM TO PUT THEM ON NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES THEY INSIST THEY DON'T WANT TO BE LABELED THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ACTUALLY WANT OR WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE WORLD THE WORLD WILL BE A BETTER PLACE WHEN EVERYONE WEARS THE LABELS WE WANT THEM TO WEAR 2
PantsForSquares he/him Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 2 minutes ago, TwiLyghtSansSparkles said: WE FIND APPROPRIATE LABELS FOR THEM AND WE FORCE THEM TO PUT THEM ON NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES THEY INSIST THEY DON'T WANT TO BE LABELED THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ACTUALLY WANT OR WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE WORLD THE WORLD WILL BE A BETTER PLACE WHEN EVERYONE WEARS THE LABELS WE WANT THEM TO WEAR YOU'LL NEVER LABEL ME ALIVE! NEVEEEEEEEERRRRRRRR!!!!!! 2
Darkness Ascendant he/him Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 6 hours ago, bleeder said: People confusing gender and sexual orientation. Website: There are sixty-three genders. Me: Okay, tell me more about this... Website: Reveal hidden contents I'm all good with male, female, neither, both, other, et c., but this is nonsensical... To the extent of my knowledge, gender has nothing to do with your sexual preference. If you can explain this to me please do so I can make sense of this person's personal truth. See that Androgine Female attracted Male. I think that may be me. 48 minutes ago, PantsForSquares said: YOU'LL NEVER LABEL ME ALIVE! NEVEEEEEEEERRRRRRRR!!!!!! Promptly slits his throat and labels him "dead" So be it. 2
Kaymyth she/her Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 3 hours ago, TwiLyghtSansSparkles said: YOU'RE ABOSLUTELY RIGHT WE NEED ANOTHER SUB-CLASSIFICATION WHO CARES IF IT FITS MAYBE ONE PERSON ON THE PLANET THINK HOW TRIGGERING IT MUST BE FOR THAT ONE PERSON TO NOT HAVE THEIR VERY OWN RIDICULOUSLY SPECIFIC LABEL FOR THEIR LIFESTYLE CHOICES Well, see, there is one more classification. It's called "Jack Harkness" 5
Djarskublar he/him Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 I think I've actually seen this one on the forums before, perhaps even recently, but it is relevant to the discussion. There are 10 kinds of people in this world. Jack Harkness, everyone else, and people who weren't expecting a trinary joke! 4
Eccentric Hero he/him Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 (edited) 17 hours ago, bleeder said: People confusing gender and sexual orientation. Website: There are sixty-three genders. Me: Okay, tell me more about this... Website: Reveal hidden contents I'm all good with male, female, neither, both, other, et c., but this is nonsensical... To the extent of my knowledge, gender has nothing to do with your sexual preference. If you can explain this to me please do so I can make sense of this person's personal truth. I have a textbook that early on mentioned the difference between sex and gender, and how gender is more than just male and female. Afterwards, it talks about the two genders, male and female. It also stereotypes men and women. The author: Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Spoiler Edited October 4, 2016 by Eccentric Hero
Delightful Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 23 hours ago, TwiLyghtSansSparkles said: When a book summary begins AND ends with gushing praise for the author's genius. Look, if you have to hype it up so much, it's probably not as good as you're trying to convince me it is. I have a copy of wok that Includes important setting information in a sentence about how wonderful Brandon is.
TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 1 minute ago, Delightful said: I have a copy of wok that Includes important setting information in a sentence about how wonderful Brandon is. It can be used on authors that deserve it, but the one I'm thinking of is by Annie Proulx, who is for some reason surpassing my understanding routinely praised for her overwrought, metaphor-heavy prose and unlikable, undeveloped characters shambling around tissue paper-thin, agenda-laden plotlines.
Orlion Blight he/him Posted October 7, 2016 Posted October 7, 2016 The idea that all we need to solve the world's various problems is "love." That's like telling a depressed person all he needs to do is be happy, or that an anxious person need only calm down. It shows an ignorance of the issues at hand and is empty of any utilitarian value. In fact, it serves only to give the utterer a false sense of profound insight. "Why, look at that," they pedantically muse, "I have resolved dilemmas that greater minds with greater drive have failed at!" Also, the trope of the child confounding the learned/wise. 1
Argent he/him Posted October 7, 2016 Posted October 7, 2016 When people who don't use Oxford commas. When people use decimate, but mean devastate.
Sunbird she/her Posted October 8, 2016 Posted October 8, 2016 I get annoyed when people mix up "illusive" and "elusive." An elusive animal is eluding you, whether you're trying to look at it, photograph it, or capture it, or whatever. An illusive animal is an illusion, meaning it isn't actually there, regardless of what you think you're seeing. 1
ThirdGen Posted October 8, 2016 Posted October 8, 2016 22 hours ago, Argent said: When people who don't use Oxford commas. When people use decimate, but mean devastate. Was the first one intentional?
Argent he/him Posted October 9, 2016 Posted October 9, 2016 11 hours ago, ThirdGen said: Was the first one intentional? The malformed sentence? No. I guess I couldn't decide between "When people don't use Oxford commas" and "People who don't use Oxford commas"
Sunbird she/her Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 This kind of overreaction. I'm the goldenrod poster, and I don't think I said anything remotely inflammatory to deserve the blue poster's response. 3
marsoupial they/them Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 (edited) 8 hours ago, Sunbird said: This kind of overreaction. I'm the goldenrod poster, and I don't think I said anything remotely inflammatory to deserve the blue poster's response. You were correct though, Sun. You were merely stating a fact that, in truth, a lot of people need to know. It wasn't arrogant, or obnoxious. It was quite right. Perhaps they were talking to the Red Poster. Seems likely enough. Edited October 10, 2016 by bleeder
TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 6 minutes ago, bleeder said: You were correct though, Sun. You were merely stating a fact that, in truth, a lot of people need to know. It wasn't arrogant, or obnoxious. It was quite right. Perhaps they were talking to the Red Poster. Seems likely enough. 9 hours ago, Sunbird said: This kind of overreaction. I'm the goldenrod poster, and I don't think I said anything remotely inflammatory to deserve the blue poster's response. Ah, the Internet. Where reasoned discourse goes to die. Except on the Shard. Really, I think the blue poster was drawing on the immortal advice of every novice debater: "If your argument is weak, pound the table."
Kaymyth she/her Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 1 hour ago, bleeder said: You were correct though, Sun. You were merely stating a fact that, in truth, a lot of people need to know. It wasn't arrogant, or obnoxious. It was quite right. Perhaps they were talking to the Red Poster. Seems likely enough. Unfortunately, the color blocks indicate that Red Poster was replying to Sunbird by name. And Trump wasn't "outstanding". It's just that everyone expected him to implode like he did in the first debate, and then when he held it together looked OK in comparison. 1
Delightful Posted October 10, 2016 Posted October 10, 2016 On 7 October 2016 at 11:03 PM, Argent said: When people use decimate, but mean devastate. I find this so hard to ignore. Like some words take on different meanings, sure. But the meaning is in the word! DECimate like DECember and DECagon it means ten cause they killed every tenth person! It does not mean wholesale destruction! It mean killing every tenth person! Or at the very least, killing 1/10 of a population. argh. 1
Recommended Posts