4 ms·
Yes, and your definition is by far the exception, not the rule. Maybe don't claim a definitive meaning when you're wrong to begin with. One is much more likely
by 0ct4via 3y ago
Yes, and your definition is by far the exception, not the rule. Maybe don't claim a definitive meaning when you're wrong to begin with.
One is much more likely to set off censors. Why do you feel the need to ask ridiculous questions? The word you use had already been said, censoring it would be meaningless -- whereas you ascertained the word I meant easily ;)
- true_religion 3y agoI’m not actually the first person you were talking to, so I didn’t give you any definition. In fact, if you note, I’ve never actually used either word. I just refer to them obliquely.
- 0ct4via 3y ago"You yourself imply there are different degrees to how acceptable the two terms are." I never claimed either were acceptable or unacceptable. Interesting how you completely gloss over your needless language policing, especially when you - by your own admission -- haven't even used the terms in question (and presumably lack the nuance necessary to weigh in, despite jumping in anyway) shrug
- _a_a_a_ 3y ago> I never claimed either were acceptable or unacceptable and > Love how you're trying to justify degrees of acceptable misogynist terms So you are not saying either are unacceptable, and you endorse 'acceptable' misogyny. So you are a misogynist, but an ok one. Very well.
- 0ct4via 3y agoWhat the ever-loving fuck? I don't endorse ANY misogyny you utter melon, which was why I called you out on your "Really isn't, it's about the same as calling a woman a cow." nonsense. The only one "endorsing" misogyny here is you. Stop projecting, pillock.