clmensds--disqus
?Cl?mens?ds ?
clmensds--disqus

Well while you focus on that I'll focus on actual harm done, okay

I'm serious, I'm not the best at doing this, and I have no time right now. I think this is not hypocrisy, that you calling it that is some last bastion of hope their argument is shaky hence the entire thing is and you can dismiss it wholesale.

Cause I don't owe you shit?

It's a good thing this video came out yesterday because I can link it and it'll neatly explain what's wrong with your argument. https://www.youtube.com/wat…

I'm going to point in a random direction on the Internet you won't even need to see to stumble upon billions of articles explaining precisely and with more talent than I can ever pretend to have why your #NotAllMen argument has no value.

We have to be careful when using that line of thinking because it's just to easy to find ourselves standing side by side with people who use that very same line to silence minorities because "they're not fighting for their rights correctly". Which is the worst

As long as you have your priorities in order (and I'm not the one who should be the judge of that, obviously) you're fine by me. But do be careful about the opinions of whom your contextless statements online may help perpetuate. I know starting every comment with "disclaimer: I recognize my privilege and I realize my

Ignoring it doesn't work and it's implicit condoning. What we can do is develop spaces embedded with moral attitudes where this behavior is never acceptable. It won't wipe it down but trust me, it doesn't mean we can't do better. Telling people to just get off the Internet is not doing better.

There are two things different people mean when "racism" is used. What you use it for is "individual hatred toward a group of people based on their race". This definition is worthless.

FUN FACT:
Butters is the one who retweeted a SkankHunt42 picture on Twitter.

Nah, it comes after the black woman telling how society collectively think of these types of people to, I think, prepare for a greater commentary on online abuse. The segment where he jolts around town is not the show acknowledging "see, online abuse has positives" but "we have antiquated opinion on online abuse (the

Wow did you get that one horrendously wrong.
In dramatic terms it directly led to the "disappearance" of Cartman and all the girls breaking up with the boys. Adding it to the bitterness of the girls that's consistently showcased and never mocked.
And I seriously worry the way you chose to interpret it was to keep it

The keys of the car stands for the ability to define the rules of conduct of a space. The ones who punch the hardest are abusers.
Because, when you ask yourself "why don't the victims leave", aren't you implicitly tolerating the perpetuation of abuse? It speaks to the belief that: either online bigots don't do

"Such is the power of the ultra-PC bubble."
As in, wildly unimpressive? You get "white straight male" references thrown around. Oh my God. So deserving of complaint, I'm heartshaken, how do you wake up every day, etc.

There is no cruelty gene.

Why should they leave? Since when do we give the keys of the car not to the people who can drive responsibly, but to the ones who punch the hardest?

So did anybody catch the fact that the pedestrian traffic light right in front of the joint Darlene and Cisco were ambushed at had a crossing countdown? Which reached up to 0 at the same moment the shooter started spreading fire?

It sucks that I'm not sure it's a joke, because it's a good one.

I don't know, I can't know, does anyone? They try to "investigate" the thing and ask it what it is and it answers "I'm the sticky." "What?" "The sticky! The sticky of the hole."
And then the cat announces advertisements, and it's never mentioned again. Gawd, Eraserhead is less non sequitur than this nightmare.

I'd argue it's just part of the performance, but it's fair if you don't like it. Personally it's the jokes that make me facepalm.
But I think it's pretty clear he's not *actually* "certain" of his theories. I mean, for the most part they're Watsonian explanations anyway, what sense would that even make.