It is extremely common in a debate for people to accuse each other of "not being able to read" or insist that you were "misquoted" despite your blatant refusal to read my comments and you claiming that I misquoted and completely misunderstood you is hilarious.

@ "L":

Since I'm sure she will dismiss my reply to her reply to you, I'm just going to put it here, if you don't mind:

I never said any such thing. And you have repeatedly proven yourself to be a lunatic.

She dismissed our entire conversation because I supplied her with the actual dictionary definition of the word, and pointed out that definitions are not judgments. She replied by calling me "sexist" and "slut-shaming" because I am part of the "patriarchy" - and of saying that she should be ashamed of her breasts, as…

I'm surprised L hasn't dismissed all of your replies - not because there's anything wrong with them, but because you are absolutely right and correct on calling her out on misquoting and misrepresenting what other commenters are saying. Some people are so intent on fighting their fight that it's like they're playing…

If you need to dismiss peoples' replies because they prove your argument wrong and accurately call you out on your intentional misquotes and false accusations, then clearly you had no argument to begin with. It's sad that intentional misquotes and false accusations are what you resort to when you are shown to be…

.

It is so highly entertaining that so many commenters like you here construct their argument on a foundation of intentional misquotes and false accusations (quite often the complete opposite of what was actually said) in order to battle some perceived "slut-shaming patriarchy" that simply is not present in your…

When did I say that?

When did I say that?

When did I say that?

...says the person who thinks representing yourself to the world by showing them your tits is not objectifying yourself...

If you represent yourself (the thinking, feeling, emoting human being) by showing the world your tits, you are - by definition - objectifying yourself. It has nothing to do with any patriarchy - it has everything to do with the literal definition of the word.

Words mean things - it appears you are unaware of this fact. You are free to wage a war against dictionaries if you wish, but I think you would appear as a bit (more) of a lunatic if you did.

...did you miss the definition pulled from the dictionary..? Definitions of words are not judgmental. You are perfectly within your right to objectify yourself if you wish.

The Channing Tatum example would be objectification as well. Anyone who is reduced / reduces themselves to their exposed body (Nicki Minaj = butt / Channing Tatum = abs) when being represented in the media is, by definition, an example of objectification. It is not tied to patriarchy, it is defined by the definition…

Look, you have already tipped your hand with that last comment - so there is nothing further to discuss here. But I will say this; confirmed, indisputable evidence is often supplied by uninvolved third parties, and factored into the verdict at trial. So, not only are you not interested in hearing the police side of a…

"the presentation of these facts in one place is not a demonization, it's an accounting." - so, it's a pointless exercise on behalf of Gawker Media..? I think the phrase "This is governmental malpractice on a national scale" from the article above would prove you wrong. Whatever gets Big Gawker Media up in the morning…

That's fine - but I would argue that as detail-oriented as you are being (with intent, in reply to the OP), that it is entirely reasonable to assume that you chose your words purposefully. Words mean things, which is why I was asking if that is actually what you meant to say (since people are sometimes injured or…