3 ms·
> Dude. I never said that they were indistuinguishable. Then why would you police my language and demand I use the exact same terminology for a very wide range
by yellowapple 4y ago
> Dude. I never said that they were indistuinguishable.
Then why would you police my language and demand I use the exact same terminology for a very wide range of body sizes/masses?
> There's levels from fat to hambeast to "their movement influences tides".
And there's likewise levels from thin to fit to bulky to curvy to plump to fat.
> That doesn't make the first category acceptable.
And who, pray tell, are you to decide what is or is not "acceptable"?
- AllegedAlec 4y ago> Then why would you police my language and demand I use the exact same terminology for a very wide range of body sizes/masses? I never said anything about the language you should use. I said "that is really fat though". This is all pure projection on your end.
- yellowapple 4y agoYou literally did: > it's frankly an indictment of the US that people try to sweettalk this sort of behaviour with words like 'curvier' and 'plumper' Your words, not mine.