2 ms·
Sigh. Reductionist thinking again. Yes, of course, if you literally say “small penis” the plaintiff would rightfully cite this history. But it’s not meant to b
by brookst 3mo ago
Sigh. Reductionist thinking again. Yes, of course, if you literally say “small penis” the plaintiff would rightfully cite this history.
But it’s not meant to be taken literally, like those are magic words. You say “he failed upwards, funded by family wealth and connections, despite everyone thinking he was an idiot who could barely string a sentence together”
The point is to emphasize, even exaggerate, low-status negative qualities.
- genxy 3mo agoIt isn't the size of your tort, it is how you use it. Also, are men this easily manipulated? Yes.
- pessimizer 3mo agoWere you trying to reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48797302 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48797302? Because as it is it seems like you're being snarky with Wikipedia.
- techscruggs 3mo agoThis sounds like exactly the kind of thing that some with a small penis would say ...
- to11mtm 3mo ago> The point is to emphasize, even exaggerate, low-status negative qualities. Or, to cite other potentially preemptive design, add enough other absurdity where someone can just say something like "It is obvious nobody would think the real would %person% impregnated Satan".