Build and Shoot

It is all in the title. What do you think? Do you think it is bad or good?

Nothing is really 'good' or 'bad', just more beneficial to some and less beneficial to others. You're not 5, I hope, so you don't have to use primitive phrasing.
It's good for people who like everything sugar coated and handed on a golden platter for them.
It's bad for people who prefer to discuss things openly. Aka the only people worth discussing anything with.

Fleischgeruch wrote:

It's good for people who like everything sugar coated and handed on a golden platter for them.
It's bad for people who prefer to discuss things openly. Aka the only people worth discussing anything with.

#hipsteralert

Well, I personally think that the whole racism, religious garbage, gay rights, It is all just pathetic. A library banned a doctor suess book because it was "beating dads up".

Fleischgeruch wrote:

Nothing is really 'good' or 'bad', just more beneficial to some and less beneficial to others. You're not 5, I hope, so you don't have to use primitive phrasing.
It's good for people who like everything sugar coated and handed on a golden platter for them.
It's bad for people who prefer to discuss things openly. Aka the only people worth discussing anything with.

Listen, I didn't say anything is bad. All I said was what YOU think is good or bad.

bloodfox wrote:

Well, I personally think that the whole racism, religious garbage, gay rights, It is all just pathetic. A library banned a doctor suess book because it was "beating dads up".

So wanting people to get basic human rights is pathetic because...?
The second half of your post didn't make any sense, too.

CommieBuffalo wrote:

bloodfox wrote:

Well, I personally think that the whole racism, religious garbage, gay rights, It is all just pathetic. A library banned a doctor suess book because it was "beating dads up".

So wanting people to get basic human rights is pathetic because...?
The second half of your post didn't make any sense, too.

i think he meant all the stuff they stir up to get attention to those things,

ZEB 99 wrote:

CommieBuffalo wrote:

bloodfox wrote:

Well, I personally think that the whole racism, religious garbage, gay rights, It is all just pathetic. A library banned a doctor suess book because it was "beating dads up".

So wanting people to get basic human rights is pathetic because...?
The second half of your post didn't make any sense, too.

i think he meant all the stuff they stir up to get attention to those things,

oh
Yeah, some people going overboard with that kind of thing is annoying as shit, but that doesn't remove the validity of what most of them claim.

as a pansexual genderqueer bulimic three-toed african-american homoerotic jewish dolphinkin, I am offended and I invite you to check your privilege(s) at http://www.checkmyprivilege.com/

It's usually used to cop out of discussions because "they said a word i didn't like waaah"

If the guy I like is gay, I will call him a gay (or homosexual, idk what is better)
If the guy I hate is gay, I will call him a faggot.

Easy

[RUS] Vlad01 wrote:

If the guy I like is gay, I will call him a gay (or homosexual, idk what is better)
If the guy I hate is gay, I will call him a faggot.

Easy

I don't get why faggot is even a homosexual slur. People who fancy themselves as "progressives" have been treating faggot like it's the n-word for gay people. I'm not trying to be snarky here. But is it progressive to give gay people an n-word?

I'm not saying it shouldn't be an insult, but I don't see how is it relevant towards gay people.

EDIT : I hope I'm not derailing the thread.

Commando_Ghost wrote:

[RUS] Vlad01 wrote:

If the guy I like is gay, I will call him a gay (or homosexual, idk what is better)
If the guy I hate is gay, I will call him a faggot.

Easy

I don't get why faggot is even a homosexual slur. People who fancy themselves as "progressives" have been treating faggot like it's the n-word for gay people. I'm not trying to be snarky here. But is it progressive to give gay people an n-word?

I'm not saying it shouldn't be an insult, but I don't see how is it relevant towards gay people.

EDIT : I hope I'm not derailing the thread.

Because "faggot" was used to the bundle of sticks in medieval times (in Spain?) that were used to burn homosexuals at the stake. It then became a general slur towards gays.

Alternatively, you could not use his sexuality as a qualifier for your insult and instead find a way to disparage him on the basis of his actions or beliefs.

Or you could just ignore him.

Willy wrote:

Alternatively, you could not use his sexuality as a qualifier for your insult and instead find a way to disparage him on the basis of his actions or beliefs.

Or you could just ignore him.

oh willy, you expect far to much of them.