|Void 71 - 2016-06-13 |
If Elton John and Zangief had a butt baby.
|Ugh - 2016-06-13 |
a touch too proportionally correct but overall i had a lol
|Gmork - 2016-06-13 |
Too fabulous for his own good.
Holy fuck, what are you getting your panties in a bunch over THIS time?
Over this 'casual homophobia' gimmick you've got going. "Too fabulous"? And now "panties in a bunch" - a phrase implying that there is something emasculating/inferior about wearing panties or being overly emotional, which is both misognystic and transphobic?
Uhhh... how is anything I said "homophobic"?
You're reading WAAAAAY too far into an irreverent comment.
Also I'm not going to even acknowledge the "panties" thing as you're clearly on 100% troll mode at this point.
"Too fabulous for his own good". You are implying he's gay, implying that gays are "fabulous", and implying that these are bad things to be. And you just DID acknowledge the panties thing - you're simply not going to *defend* your archaic, hateful idiom, because you know I'm right.
EH can you give the "new EH" thing a rest every now and then?
I'm here to spoil your antics.
""Too fabulous for his own good". You are implying he's gay, implying that gays are "fabulous", and implying that these are bad things to be. "
Holy fuck, how is it possible for you to be so wrong?
I refuse to believe you're actually this stupid. This is just more of your schtick.
Artful troll, again disregarding reality to create your own narrative. I almost fell for it.
So what did you mean by that? What else could you POSSIBLY mean? Your "joke" only makes sense within the context of a homophobic world-view. :(
(A) Neither of us know if he is actually homosexual
(B) I wasn't implying that he was, only that his glasses and fashion choices seem like that of a flambouyantly gay man
(C) It was your personal interpretation that "too fabulous for his own good" was a bad thing, which isn't at all what I was implying.
(D) Holy fuck those glasses are fabulous. Why would being "fabulous" or gay be a bad thing? It only makes sense to think that they are if you yourself hold a homophobic worldview. I do not.
"Too fabulous for his own good" is inherently negative, Gmork. It's not hard to deconstruct; it assumes that there is a certain quality - in this case, fabulousity - which, past a certain quantifiable point, becomes problematic - and that point vis a vis fabulousness is, according to you, the point at which someone starts looking "like a flambouyantly gay man". (a ridiculous stereotype, BTW. I don't know how many gay men you know IRL, but I know plenty, and not one of them looks like this)
I don't know how it's possible to innovate in being the most tiresome person on a site, but Evilhomer manages it.
|lotsmoreorcs - 2016-06-13 |
what does Is is have to do with this
|SolRo - 2016-06-13 |
Bono really went down hill after everyone bagged on his free iTunes album fiasco.
|chumbucket - 2016-06-13 |
That dude for prez
|That guy - 2016-06-14 |
not enough random scars
|Old_Zircon - 2016-06-14 |
Let's not overlook Teeny Tiny Roger Daltry on his right.
And Bernie Sanders in the front!
Bernie Sanders and The Seventies Supergroup!
| Register or login To Post a Comment|