I’m doing this in the pit because people often get heated about this sort of thing and I prefer fewer rather than more constraints.
I think words are just words. I think that the minute you ascribe characteristics (anthropomorphising if you will) to them is not merely being silly but counter-productive.
A word is not bad or good or racist or anything but a word. To say otherwise is to give power to syllables and sever any sort of context.
I think that if a word is denoted “bad” then the word is bad. That means that the word is “bad” regardless of time, place and speaker. I think that is wrong.
I think if a word is “bad” if one colour, orientation, creed etc. uses it then it cannot be “good” if another uses it.
I think that if nigger is “bad” - to use a worn-out example - when a white person uses it then it is equally “bad” when a black person uses it. Otherwise the “bad” denotation of the word is a racist idea.
See, a person can use the word nigger (or any other) without harbouring any ill-will or bad thoughts about niggers. To assume that a white person using the word is racists is, in and of itself, racist. Here’s the logic:
a) A black person using the word is reclaiming it and is clearly not racist since they are, in fact, black.
b) A white person using the word is racist
c) Ascribing a negative characteristic to a person based on race is racism
d) Ascribing racists attitudes to a white person for using a word that other races may use freely is racist.
I’ll disarm certain predictable objections now.
I am a white, heterosexual cisgendered male.
I have been the victim of gay-bashing, I have been called every epithet in the book that applies to me - cracker, mayo, slaver, white-boy, breeder, gai loa (sp?) etc. - and in certain cases I’ve taken offense. I’ve taken offense because offense was intended and it was clear.
In other cases I’ve been intimidated because that was the intent and setting.
In other cases I’ve laughed it off or fired back because that was proper in context.
But in the end my reaction was not to the words but the intent behind them.
Frankly, when a group of Natives* decides that I embody the whole of the white-race at this moment (as has happened) it doesn’t fucking matter if they call me white-boy or my-lord-and-saviour. What matters is there is a group of people that want to take out their hurt on me and I’d best figure this shit out on the double.
The words themselves are meaningless.
Further, Trump has said all kinds of racists shit. I defy you to find one slur. If the words and not the intent are important then, in order to call him racist, you should find some slurs in there. You won’t.
If the intent isn’t the important thing then you can’t call racist regardless the phraseology.
But you can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that intent doesn’t matter with some words but intent does matter in the context of other words. That just allows you to yell racist whenever you feel like and use whatever justification is handy at the time.
What about other slurs?
What about calling people “tards” is it okay to slag the mentally infirm? If not, then why do so many who would blanch at “nigger” toss tard around so casually? Is it because “tards” come in all colours?
Same thing goes for bitch, whore, slut.
Same thing goes for hobo and tramp.
How about this?
Is it proper for white people to tell ethnic people that they are not allowed to use a word that is used as a pejorative when referring to their ethnicity?
Slurs are only slurs if context dictates and, even then, possibly only in that limited context.
For those not affected by the slurs to take offense, on principle, on behalf of those slurred is patronizing at best and transparently self-righteous at worst.
I think you made some plausible points, but I really couldn’t tell because you kind of rambled.
I’m sure others will be along shortly to tell you the same in MUCH less kind words.
I will say, I’ve never felt hurt or offended by white slurs* (I’m actually American Indian but that’s a distinction others may not make) regardless of intent. BECAUSE there’s not enough historical precedent or they simply don’t make sense.
I’ve actually stopped the insulter to ask (High school…it was a different time. You could hurl slurs and then stop to talk about the slurs) “What is a cracker? What is a honky??”
the answer was “Uhhhh…you’re white like a cracker? Uhhh…white people have nasally voices??”
How the hell am I supposed to be hurt if the person hurling the slurs doesn’t even understand the slur??
*Frankly, usually the slurs were skipped and the people in question went straight to kicking my ass for being in the wrong neighborhood.
Literally everyone draws a line in what slurs they allow. I would never expect those who call me BigTard to also go around calling other people “niggers.” Some slurs are worse than others.
Hell, I got into a conversation where “tard” was said to be okay, but “retard” wasn’t. I think that’s dumb, but that doesn’t change the fact that this is what happens.
I know some people who consider “crazy” and “lame” to be slurs. If you think all slurs or not, the solution will be all, since no one is going to say that saying “nigger” or “faggot” is okay. And we will basically have to shut down the Pit.
A 4 page pit thread based on Clothahump using the term “wetback” gets all kinds of people screaming that he is a dick for using “slurs” but I do a thread (as suggested by the mods - who can move it to GD if they see fit) to continue the discussion and this is what results.
So you’ll thump someone who won’t or can’t lay out his opinion in a clear and followable way but when someone does then this is it?
Or is it that you can scream racism and leave satisfied when it is him but this won’t allow for that?
Or was this TLDR (the replies so far suggest that)?
Or am I too stupid to warrant a meaningful response? If that’s the case then I may as well drown on my own drool.
I have put forward a position, with basis, open to discussion, without trolling and I get this?
[QUOTE=Zeke N. Destroi]
For those not affected by the slurs to take offense, on principle, on behalf of those slurred is patronizing at best and transparently self-righteous at worst.
[/QUOTE]
There is nothing more patronizing or transparently self-righteous than a white person deliberately using offensive racial slurs to lecture others on how they mustn’t find the slurs offensive because he didn’t mean them that way.
Demanding that everybody else is obligated to figure out your “intent” before judging your “words” reeks of bumptious and privileged arrogance.
Nobody’s saying that. What rational people are saying is that the intent and the words themselves both matter in interpreting meaning.
You don’t get to decide what other people think of your words, and you don’t get to decide how other people interpret your intended meaning via those words.
:dubious: Really?!? A nice person like you? I’m immensely surprised.
I didn’t once say “you musn’t find them offensive” I said it is counter-productive and wrong-headed.
Nor did I say that a white person should be able to be deliberately offensive in order to lecture. I used “nigger” simply because that is the easiest to use in the context of the conversation I was hoping to continue - and it was the one most referenced after “wetback” - which very seldom comes up in rural Manitoba.
Nor did I claim white people should be able to say whatever and get a pass because…white? I clearly said that I have been called every nasty name a white person can be called and I have reacted with offense, fear or laughter dependant upon the speaker and situation.
I kind of expect other people to be capable of making the same distinction.
I consistently said “I think.” As in this is my opinion regarding why your opinion is wrong.
No, it doesn’t.
It suggests that my audience is bright enough to get whether I am using a term ironically, offensively or jovially. Just like when I have had epithets thrown at me I have gauged the apparent intent of those using them.
You assume that both me and my audience - or the speaker and I - are equally capable of reading cues and situations.
But that isn’t what you said,
So in one bit you say that to expect my audience to gauge intent “reeks of bumptious and privileged arrogance”
Then in the same post you insist that rational people gauge
So which is it?
Nope, I sure don’t. But that doesn’t mean that they are right or justified in their conclusions
See? You have drawn a conclusion that anyone who knows me would know to be false. You are free to draw your conclusions but that doesn’t mean that they are correct or that I am beholden to them.
Expecting people to gauge your intent without paying attention to your choice of words is arrogant. You expect people to just ignore the fact that you’re deliberately using an extremely offensive racial slur, until they’ve evaluated everything else about your remarks for evidence of offensive intent.
Then you claim that if the other aspects don’t seem offensive, your listeners are obligated to disregard the offensiveness of your choosing to use that word in the first place. Because you’ve decided in your own complacency that its offensiveness is optional at the speaker’s discretion. That’s a very egotistical position.
They’re not contradictory. Both your choice to use a racial slur and inferences drawn about your intent from other aspects of your remarks play a part in interpreting what you said. For you to claim that the choice to use a racial slur should be disregarded in constructing that interpretation is unrealistic and, as I said, arrogant.
(And for you to claim that your expectation of linguistic deference is actually complimenting your listeners, by implying that they’re “bright enough to get” your non-offensive intent even though you’ve deliberately obscured it with offensive words, is an especially impudent distortion. No matter how bright somebody is, it’s arrogant of you to expect them to waste their time figuring out whether you really meant to be offensive in deliberately choosing to use an obviously offensive word.)
Based on your own words.
Which is kind of my point: people who think that the effective impact of their words on other people should depend solely on what they intended the words to mean in their own minds are deluding themselves.
If you come across like an asshole, then no amount of assuring people that you’re not actually an asshole, and that unspecified other people who know you personally agree that you’re not an asshole, is going to change that impression.
And deliberately using racial slurs, just to make the point that you think your own personal interpretation of the words ought to override the well-known usual meaning of them, makes you come across like an asshole.
No, expecting someone to gauge my intent without my words would be fucking stupid - not arrogant - because I’m not a mime. Without speaking it would be hard to gauge my intent unless I happened to be waving a knife at them.
I never said judge intent without words.
I said don’t judge based on words alone.
Seriously Kimstu have you never used the terms “tard”, “retard”, “bitch”, “barbarian” for example?
If you can honestly say that you haven’t (I admit barbarian is a stretch) then you are a better [person] than I am Gunga Din.
If you have then you have used slurs do I assume you are a xenophobic misogynist prick (another slur) because of it? No.
I don’t because words, in and of themselves, don’t matter. It is context and intent. I can say “you’re the best!” as I swing an axe at your head. Do you duck or do you stay put because I said nice words? I give you enough credit to assume you duck.
Context and intent.
You are in a burning car and I’m helping you get out and say, “Give me your hand nigger.” Do you refuse to give me your hand? I give you enough credit to assume you would take my hand.
Context and intent.
To return to an analogy I used earlier - show my one instance of Trump using a racial or ethnic slur. I can point out lots of racists and ethnocentric shit he’s said, but not one slur.
So what matters more? Is he racist because of the content of what he says regardless the specific words or is he clean because he never said “spic” or “wetback” or what have you.
In a sense I do. I certainly expect that the person (or people) I’m speaking to is (are) able to figure out if I am being “deliberately” offensive or offensive at all.
That’s because I give people credit for baseline functionality. You can’t exist in this world without making judgements based on ALL available stimuli - that includes context and intent.
Right.
So when my gay friend called me “fag” I should have jumped on him (not that way ) him rather than saying, “this from a breeder.” Because fag is an offensive term and he was being offensive by using it.
Then he should have jumped on me (still not that way ) for “breeder”.
No? That’s because he’s a fag and I’m a breeder so it’s okay cuz it’s self-deprecating? Context and intent?
Or my “I don’t know what the fuck he is but he ain’t white” friend that used to call me “cracker” and whom I called “moolie” as we played poker for cigarettes should have lectured each other about proper terms of endearment?
Perhaps you are thinking that I’d use these terms to a wider audience. Like if I was a performer of some sort. Yup I would - not to denigrate but as a rhetorical device. And if some in the audience didn’t get it then such is life. But see, I can gauge an audience and setting and I can adjust my verbiage to match.
See, now you’re getting personal Kimstu
You’re making assumptions about my “complacency.” Assumptions that you have no basis in fact to make. You make this assumption based on my assumed privilege. But in actual fact you know fuck all about me so lets not get personal… okay?
As I have said words is words. The speaker has a duty to gauge the audience and situation, the audience has a duty to gauge the speaker and situation. It is mutual.
Okay, so other than my use of “slurs” - which are understandable given the context of the conversation - what inferences can you draw about my “intent from other aspects of [my] remarks”?
.
Okay, you’ve finished by restating your original position. Good form. Now please address the content of my response.
But you go on…
I refer you to Richard Pryor, George Carlin, Chris Rock, Robin Williams, Louis CK, Sarah Silverman.
I don’t know where you dragged that up from but I’ll accept that it is me (a link would be nice next time though.)
Okay, so you caught me contradicting myself (maybe out of context I don’t know - provide a link) but I’ll roll with it.
You’ll note that I said “solely” as in, if people only have your words to judge you then they can get a wrong idea. For a concrete example check out how many library’s have removed Mark Twain from the shelves.
But I stand by what I said there. If people only have your words to draw from then they will make inferences from them and no amount of friendly support will change that.
But if people ONLY take your words into account then no amount of friendly support will sway them.
You will, if you choose, note that I did not, at anytime limit this to racial slurs. I’m talking slurs in general (now as always) and have said that there are a great many slurs that are consistently overlooked because people - in their rush to prove righteous - overlook all of the other ones.
Maybe people remember the last time you did something like this, and are thinking about the definition of insanity. Not to worry, though-- it’s still early. The troll feeders will be along shortly.
But you’re asking people to ignore your choice of words based on other aspects of your remarks. You want to unilaterally declare a word inoffensive if you don’t mean it offensively, and expect everybody else to abide by your declaration.
To take an example, you’re saying that if you meet a black friend and give him a big hug, exclaiming “Oh you wonderful nigger, I’ve missed you so much!”, then he shouldn’t be offended by the fact that you called him a racial slur, because obviously your feelings toward him are positive.
That’s arrogant. That’s saying that his reaction to the racial slur itself is unimportant: all that matters is what you individually and unilaterally meant by the racial slur.
You’re claiming that the word itself, with all its associations and baggage, is unimportant and shouldn’t affect anybody in any other way than the way you personally intend it to affect them. You egotistically declare that “words, in and of themselves, don’t matter” apart from the way you want them to matter.
Sorry, but you’re not the Emperor of Language. Get over yourself and realize that words have recognized and accepted common meanings that are going to affect how other people interpret them regardless of how much you may intend the word to mean something different.
[QUOTE=Zeke N. Destroi]
You are in a burning car and I’m helping you get out and say, “Give me your hand nigger.” Do you refuse to give me your hand? I give you enough credit to assume you would take my hand.
[/quote]
So? Just because you’re saving a black person’s life doesn’t mean it’s not still racist and assholish to call them a nigger in the process. Just because the person you’re saving would accept your help rather than burn to death, even though you addressed them insultingly, doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t, or shouldn’t, still assume you’re a racist asshole for using that insult. Even racist assholes sometimes have enough basic human compassion to try to rescue a target of their bigotry from life-threatening danger.
[QUOTE=Zeke N. Destroi]
To return to an analogy I used earlier - show my one instance of Trump using a racial or ethnic slur. I can point out lots of racists and ethnocentric shit he’s said, but not one slur.
So what matters more? Is he racist because of the content of what he says regardless the specific words or is he clean because he never said “spic” or “wetback” or what have you.
[/quote]
Those are not the only two choices. Using racial slurs is bad, and making offensively racist remarks even without including racial slurs is also bad. I’m not sure why you seem to be having so much difficulty grasping this.
[QUOTE=Zeke N. Destroi]
So when my gay friend called me “fag” I should have jumped on him (not that way ) him rather than saying, “this from a breeder.” Because fag is an offensive term and he was being offensive by using it.
Then he should have jumped on me (still not that way ) for “breeder”.
[/quote]
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Nobody is trying to police the private conversations of friends who already understand each other’s intentions and attitudes and enjoy using slurs as part of friendly banter. Nobody gives a shit what you and your gay friend like to call each other.
But that doesn’t give you the right to declare that “words, in and of themselves, don’t matter” as a general policy, and expect any other gay person not to resent your calling him a “fag” just because you meant it in a friendly way.
[QUOTE=Zeke N. Destroi]
See, now you’re getting personal Kimstu
You’re making assumptions about my “complacency.” Assumptions that you have no basis in fact to make. You make this assumption based on my assumed privilege. But in actual fact you know fuck all about me so lets not get personal… okay?
[/quote]
[shrug] All I know about you is what your words convey. The attitude they convey does strike me as egotistical and complacent, so that’s how I called it.
[QUOTE=Zeke N. Destroi]
I refer you to Richard Pryor, George Carlin, Chris Rock, Robin Williams, Louis CK, Sarah Silverman.
[/quote]
:rolleyes: “Edgy” comedians are not the arbiters of ordinary language use. Such entertainers deliberately use shocking words in performance in order to produce a particular effect, as entertainers.
Which is fine and dandy if you like that sort of thing and want to pay to hear it in an entertainment venue. But what “entertainment effect” are you trying to achieve when you gratuitously call a black person “nigger” while rescuing them from a burning car?
[QUOTE=Zeke N. Destroi]
I don’t know where you dragged that up from but I’ll accept that it is me (a link would be nice next time though.)
[/quote]
What on earth are you talking about? When I said that the conclusion I drew about the way you came across was “based on your own words”, I just meant the aggregate of words you had been using in your previous posts.
In no way did I state or imply that I was attributing to you the next remarks I went on to make, which you seem to believe were statements of your own that I “dragged up from” somewhere. Not in the least. The words that you assumed were made by “Ostensibly Me” (i.e., you yourself) were in fact all mine.
Because there isn’t a factual one. The OP is right. Words and other forms of communication always should be interpreted in context. Failure to do so is a problem with the listener.
Unfortunately there is power in controlling language and by extension thought. By making certain words taboo it makes certain ideas taboo. That is far too much power for liberty favoring individuals to delegate to the state or to the unwashed mob.
It’s not limited to “one race”. People who are neither white nor black shouldn’t be calling black people “nigger”, either.
Or if they choose to do so, at least they shouldn’t have the arrogance to assume that their use of the term should be considered inoffensive unless they mean it offensively.
When black people call one another “nigger”, on the other hand, that’s not (necessarily, though it can be) offensive, because it’s an “in-group use”.
Not at all. I do not consider myself the arbiter of language.
I am saying, now as always, that a word can not be good or bad. It can only be a word. Any weight put on it is put on it by the speaker and the audience.
Quoth the Bard, " There is nothing good, nor bad, but thinking makes it so" <– if that’s not exact that’s close enough.
Why is it okay for a black guy to say nigger? Why is okay for a gay guy to say fag? Why is it okay for a Polack to say Polack (there’s a fun one) because no ne thinks it is insulting because the “maligned” party is using it. To quote (closely) George Carlin, “Why don’t people get upset when Richard Pryor or Eddie Murphy say nigger? Because they’re niggers.”
Nigger is okay from a black person’s mouth (although Richard Pryor came to disagree with that) because no one thinks they mean anything by it.
If a white person says “nigger” then it becomes “racist.” why? Because of the weight that has been put on the word by mainly white people. Certainly black people have objected to the word but it was white folk that took up the flag and ran with it.
Do a quick search and see how many white people say “nigger” (or any variant) vs “the n word.” Now do a search and see how many black people use the term “n-word”
You’ll see it is at least 10 - 1 white people using a phrase white people came up with in order to avoid offending black people who regularly use the word that white people are avoiding.
“There is nothing good nor bad but thinking makes it so.”
Yup.
Because if I am comfortable enough in our relationship that I can hug him and call him a wonderful nigger I’d expect him to come back with “and you to you kick-ass cracker.”
Now if I was walking down the street an bumped into a black guy I wouldn’t say, “Sorry nigger.” Because to say that would be, to my way of thinking, deliberately provocative. I’d at, “Sorry man.” the same as I’d say to anyone that is male regardless of colour. If I bumped a female it would “Sorry Ma’am” or “Sorry Miss” dependant on age. If I bump a child it is “Sorry little one”
See, I don’t try to be offensive. I don’t try to be inoffensive. I try to be polite.
I’ve never said that and I’d prefer you not put word in my mouth. If I’m to be hanged I can do so sufficiently with my own words thank-you…
I say again: 1)words are just words 2)context is important 3) intent is important.
A mere word cannot indicate hatred anymore than a word can indicate love. A word is a word and nothing more unless we make it so.
Yup. You don’t move forward by dragging baggage with you. You drop the baggage and move on - isn’t that what all of the therapy type people say? Acknowledge and then go forth bravely.
I, again, notice you are focussing on one particular slur.
I haven’t noticed you rise to object to slut, 'tard, hobo, cracker or any of a gillion other slurs that are used in daily discourse.
Are black people especially deserving of your protection?
Are you black?
Or are you a white person defending the dignity of the defenseless black people?
Cuz I know of more than a handful of black people on this board that are plenty bright and more than eloquent enough to defend themselves.
Sounds a bit like the old “white man’s burden” creeping in.
You do know what has been done to the homeless, the promiscuous, the challenged historically right? Are they less deserving of your championing?
Again, I never said that. As much as I appreciate you attributing the idea that words are just words to me - I doubt it was original.
Nope. Again I keep saying words + context + intent.
You insist that I think the whole thing is words. I don’t. I’ve never suggested that I do.
You are hung up on words alone.
Oh f-bomb does that mean I don’t get a gosh-darned tiara?
Oh poopsies I’m over myself and now see that words are much more meaningful if they are bolded.
That bit of blunt mockery being done with, I’ve asked you a number of questions. I’d appreciate an answerto them if it so pleases you.
And I will leave you - for now - with this:
Richard Pryor used to use the word nigger a lot in his act. He grew up with it. After he became mucho famous he ended up travelling to Africa (I forget the specific country) and came back determined never to say “nigger” again.
See, everyone in his neighbourhood called each other niggers and he grew up thinking it was cool. Then he went to Africa and saw that no one called anyone niggers and he saw that that was the way to be.
This is a black man having the epiphany that No One should be using that word.
George Carlin - as I mentioned earlier - pointed out that the only reason that Richard Pryor (prior to his epiphany) and Eddy Murphy could say nigger is because they were black - so no one could call them racist.
Chris Rock said, “I love black people but man, I hate niggers.”
See, now I honestly thought this was done but there was just a whole bunch more shite hiding down page.
So much for my big finish.
Yup. And the point that one can use a bad word and still not harbour ill-will went right over your head. Cuz…wordz.
You kept saying that words were the arbiter. I kept saying words +context + intent were the arbiter. You kept insisting that words were intent.
I gave a concrete example of words (non-offensive) + content (offensive) + intent (offensive) where the words were the inoffensive part but everything else was offensive. It is entirely possible to be virulently racist while speaking politely.
It is equally possible to be utterly race-blind and use impolite language.
Here one for you, who’s the asshole?
a)I don’t fucking care where trannies piss. Pick a crapper and go.
b) gender dysmorphic people still have a functional gender and ought to evacuate in the washroom set aside for their at-birth gender
I know which one I’d flag as asshole.
Then why’d you fucking ask me if I’d hug my black friend coming off a plane and call him nigger?
It seems like I’m paying more attention to what you say than you are.
Oh fuck, I’m contradicting myself by paying attention to words
I don’t know what kind of person you have decided I am but just to be clear for you. I don’t run around going “nigger, nigger, queer, fag, dike, kike, spic, moolie, hebe, dago, wop, slope, dink, wop, wetback”
But there is no word on that list (which could have gone on for miles) that I would not use given the right circumstance.
My reservation would not be, “Oh, that’s a bad word so I shouldn’t say it.” My reservation would be, “I’m gonna take ridiculous shit from people who are hung-up on sounds.”
[shrug] All I know about you is what your words convey. The attitude they convey does strike me as egotistical and complacent, so that’s how I called it.
Again you accuse me of complacency. Either you don’t know what that means or your to lazy to do your homework and to smug to cop to it you fucking monkey.
Feel free to check my posts retread. You’ll find that, right or wrong, I’m anything but complacent. Get a dictionary and a clue.
You got personal first :dubious:
Specifcally Richard Pryor and George Carlin are not “edgy comedians” they provide some of the most insightful social commentary that you can find. The fuck you are going to throw them in with the likes of Andrew Dice Clay. Heretic.
Your continuing proof of prowess with bolding and smileys not withstanding.
I do. See, I like to listen to folks that make me think. Sorry, repeat just for you’
"I like to:rolleyes::rolleyes::eek::smack:listen to folks:eek:that makeme think:cool::eek::):rolleyes::dubious::o
Ummmmmm, none. It was an absurd analogy in order to illustrate a concrete point.
Holy fuck, do you never end?
Such as?
What “next remarks”?
Truth to tell wading through this morass has caused me to forget the tribulation of the last bit o’ brilliance.
But I do know that I copped to the bit that I said was “ostensibly me” likely being me. I just asked for a cite so I could get some context on the remarks you referenced.
Point a) Not the same thing at all. John **Fucking **Mace in again with nothing to say but the determination to say it any way.
Point b) You got me. I picked the wrong slur that white people are protecting Asian people from and so must prevent Asian people from using it and thereby offending Asian people.
Thanks for that.
Now go back to fucking Big T and leave my ass alone.
I’d rather not become butt-hurt.
Which is an acceptable(?) euphemism for someone who has been ass-raped but it’s okay because the victim is not identifiably white, black, green, yellow, pink, catholic, anti-Catholic, Piscean or any other identifiable group.
Merely someone who has been ass-raped and is enjoying(?) the benefits(?) of it. Since butt-hurt is okay to use ass-rape must be good right?
Zeke
P.S. John Fucking Mace - you’ll notice that when I first started the John **Fucking ** Mace thing everyone else joined in and I asked them to stop because I thought it was unfair and mean.
You’ll notice that your name has come up a number of times as being a twat and not once has anyone leapt to your defense.
The only person on this whole board that has ever stood up for you is me. And I think you are the not-spoken-of result of a failed bris.
Take that into consideration you fucking slobber-monkey.
) him rather than saying, “this from a breeder.” Because fag is an offensive term and he was being offensive by using it.
What on earth are you talking about? When I said that the conclusion I drew about the way you came across was “based on your own words”, I just meant the aggregate of words you had been using in your previous posts.
:rolleyes::rolleyes::eek::smack:listen to folks:eek:that makeme think:cool::eek::):rolleyes:
(:mad::)