I've heard that he was an eighth black, but I don't know if that's a fact or not nor do I know what the actual federal/state racial definitions at the time were. But the important thing is he was raised culturally white. I like to tell people Warren G Harding was black because it's a funny thought, but he wasn't really black in any kind of important sense.
0
Options
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
edited April 2012
Donkey Kong on
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
0
Options
simonwolfi can feel a differencetoday, a differenceRegistered Userregular
J, the way you talk to and about people don't give you the right to act confused or alarmed when they emotionally respond poorly to it
if you can't get that then i think you might have a touch of the 'tism, old bean.
like if you don't get what it was you said that made Lawndart shit a kitten in rage, then you gotta do some fuckin' self-analysis, brah
I could understand getting upset if I was all, “Your grandmother, yes, your grandmother, mamaw Jenny, who has disability-X, and who also smells funny, is a silly goose.”
That shit? Completely uncalled for and dickish. There is no place for that.
The discussion wasn't about that, though. Discussing arguments about abstractions of abstractions, in a thread focused upon discerning moral and ethical questions regarding very ambiguous conceptions of normalcy, sexuality, disorders, and those sorts of issues? I would think that a person entering the discussion would realize that
1) We aren’t talking about you.
2) We aren’t talking about you friends.
3) We aren’t talking about anyone you will or ever have met.
It’s a touchy subject. But, maybe going into the discussion with the understanding that it’s about abstractions rather than particular individuals would be a healthy mindset. I like Lawndart, and I am sad that I upset him. I am sad that he took it personally. However, I'm also not sure why he took it so personally. It’s not my place to tell him that he wasn’t supposed to take it so personally.
Though, I mean…
I’m not sure why someone would put themselves in a position to be offended by something a dude posted on the internet. Especially when the post wasn't about them in any sense. It was about some weird tangent related to our conception of asexuality as it results to definitions of normalcy.
J, you just came in [chat] to whine about how your comments were received. Pot calling the kettle black.
0
Options
simonwolfi can feel a differencetoday, a differenceRegistered Userregular
edited April 2012
Oh god now we're posting memes in here
someone hit the emergency self-destruct
there's nothing left to save
simonwolf on
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
Things I have learned tonight:
1. I can almost kill Preacher with laughter.
2. Nerd really likes stripper names.
3. Nerd will take forever to chose the spelling of his character's stripper name.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
J, you were being a giant douche in there. You can say "This isn't about you" all you want, but when you say that disabled people cannot inspire awe and that large segments of the population have a "disease" you don't have the high ground.
intentionally and blithely being rude, ignorant, and trying to outrage with people with showing NO regard for their feelings whatsoever
OR
dude you have some fucking social maladjustment issues that I think might medically be classified as a disorder, at least when it comes to interacting with people online, and you need to do some fucking self-analysis and possibly talk to a medical professional
it's one or the other. You're either doing it on purpose, and thus being malicious, or you're doing it out of ignorance so comprehensive that i question your cognitive normalcy.
pick one
Pony on
0
Options
ElldrenIs a woman dammitceterum censeoRegistered Userregular
Suggesting limitations on what are sensible conceptions of the self requires a bit of careful argumentation, I think, particularly if you want to adhere to liberal norms. I think it is entirely possible - for one thing, in practice modern political liberalism as she exists is not, in fact, neutral on what the good entails. We typically think that being cosmopolitan and accepting of multiculturalism is better than not being so, for instance, even if no identifiable harm seems to occur.
One way would be to identify universal goals that seem plausible and argue that these goals place limitations on gender-relevant identities, although I don't think _J_ has successfully argued as such.
0
Options
OnTheLastCastlelet's keep it haimish for the peripateticRegistered Userregular
Posts
they could, you know, not do that
the last time it happened was just embarrassing for everyone
Do you have a better solution
I've heard that he was an eighth black, but I don't know if that's a fact or not nor do I know what the actual federal/state racial definitions at the time were. But the important thing is he was raised culturally white. I like to tell people Warren G Harding was black because it's a funny thought, but he wasn't really black in any kind of important sense.
Why it was posted here I'll never know, but it may interest some people. Title embellishes a bit of course.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Stormfront is the Britta of websites
There we go. Mah feelings are purrtected.
if you can't get that then i think you might have a touch of the 'tism, old bean.
like if you don't get what it was you said that made Lawndart shit a kitten in rage, then you gotta do some fuckin' self-analysis, brah
Agreed.
...
Why am I still awake? Night [chat]!
Being in GMT+10, I understand what you mean
http://router7.selfip.net/map/#/9060/64/-3860/-2/0/0
That is fantastic.
whaaaaat
4year olds Captain America cake
is that what chat has become
I could understand getting upset if I was all, “Your grandmother, yes, your grandmother, mamaw Jenny, who has disability-X, and who also smells funny, is a silly goose.”
That shit? Completely uncalled for and dickish. There is no place for that.
The discussion wasn't about that, though. Discussing arguments about abstractions of abstractions, in a thread focused upon discerning moral and ethical questions regarding very ambiguous conceptions of normalcy, sexuality, disorders, and those sorts of issues? I would think that a person entering the discussion would realize that
1) We aren’t talking about you.
2) We aren’t talking about you friends.
3) We aren’t talking about anyone you will or ever have met.
It’s a touchy subject. But, maybe going into the discussion with the understanding that it’s about abstractions rather than particular individuals would be a healthy mindset. I like Lawndart, and I am sad that I upset him. I am sad that he took it personally. However, I'm also not sure why he took it so personally. It’s not my place to tell him that he wasn’t supposed to take it so personally.
Though, I mean…
I’m not sure why someone would put themselves in a position to be offended by something a dude posted on the internet. Especially when the post wasn't about them in any sense. It was about some weird tangent related to our conception of asexuality as it results to definitions of normalcy.
:^:
someone hit the emergency self-destruct
there's nothing left to save
1. I can almost kill Preacher with laughter.
2. Nerd really likes stripper names.
3. Nerd will take forever to chose the spelling of his character's stripper name.
http://www.youtube.com/coachella
What the fuck. It's not like he drinks or anything. How did he do it twice in a row!
It's his schtick
so, here's a binary for you
in that thread you were either:
intentionally and blithely being rude, ignorant, and trying to outrage with people with showing NO regard for their feelings whatsoever
OR
dude you have some fucking social maladjustment issues that I think might medically be classified as a disorder, at least when it comes to interacting with people online, and you need to do some fucking self-analysis and possibly talk to a medical professional
it's one or the other. You're either doing it on purpose, and thus being malicious, or you're doing it out of ignorance so comprehensive that i question your cognitive normalcy.
pick one
Is that snow on my old homestead?
One way would be to identify universal goals that seem plausible and argue that these goals place limitations on gender-relevant identities, although I don't think _J_ has successfully argued as such.
Modern Worf Hair.
i want to get unreal tournament 1999 on steam but i know the servers will be empty
HELP