The Tender Branson Repository of Sexist/Racist Posts and Pejoratives

[dead0man]

I was happy to report Tender's post.

Governments shouldn't prosecute hateful views.  They should protect them from everybody else.  We need to hear stupid hateful sh**t from time to time, it reminds the rest of us why we shouldn't be hateful (and/or stupid).

     Pretty much. If folks get offended by hateful views, they need to learn to develop thicker skin. Banning a view that you find distasteful doesn't make you any more right.

That's sound advice for the whiners here who report posts, PiT.......I hope they listen.

I didn't go looking for that, 'twas just a happy accident.

[dead0man]

You and BRTD have a lot in common.

[dead0man]

Every post by dead0man, DavidB., Col. Roosevelt, Rockefeller GOP, Schadenfreude, oakvale, and DemPGH in this thread: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=221203.0

Eh, some of them are being nastier than others.

Indeed.  I got two posts in that thread, and one of them is just about me seeing naked people in public showers.  The only thing one could be offended by is the fact that I said I agreed with the school.  Some people need to grow thicker skin.

[dead0man]

You guys can do whatever you want, but you're either running a bad joke into the ground, or you're bigots.  We've given you plenty of chances to admit it's a bad joke you're running into the ground, but you keep saying "no, we're bigots!".  What else are we to assume?

[dead0man]

In response to a poll showing Clinton winning the African-American-majority SC Democratic primary:

Ok.  Go lynch yourselfs.   I wish I could explain such stupidity. 

jesus christ

Seriously, this is sickening.

Has HockeyDude ever posted anything of the slighest value?

More often than Lief, less often then Tony.

[dead0man]

Fat man introducing TRUMP

Not exactly racist or sexist, but very low to make fun of Christie's weight.

Because people here would never bully someone because they're fat?  It's one of the most entertaining things for a disturbing number of your fellow posters here.  It was one of the main reasons the Toxic Place was created.

[dead0man]

Well thank you.  It's rare that a point is proven so well by somebody arguing against you.  Thanks man! 

Geez, 16%, I would have assumed it was lower.  You guys have a problem, and you seem to be totally oblivious to it.

[dead0man]

Well thank you.  It's rare that a point is proven so well by somebody arguing against you.  Thanks man! 

Geez, 16%, I would have assumed it was lower.  You guys have a problem, and you seem to be totally oblivious to it.

Spin it anyway you want, dead0.  There are a lot of good discussion threads there with no silly restrictions.  Create an account and browse......or just pull sh**t out of your ass as usual.

Somebody already has the name and a few fools actually bought it.  I did consider (for about 30 seconds) being all ironic hipstery and creating a sock to troll, but then I remembered I wasn't 12...sorry, that's mean to people that are 12, then I remembered I wasn't a giant loser and had better things to do.


(and just so we're clear, I'm not saying you have to be a giant loser to join your little forum (where now only 1 in 5 posts are bullying a single individual!), I'm saying a person that creates a username just to troll is a giant loser)

[dead0man]

the corporate whore.

Stay classy, Tender.

"Corporate whore" is not sexist. Most Republicans (like Mitt Romney) are also corporate whores.

Again. When you call woman a "whore", it has this nasty ring about this.

a "corporate whore" doesn't have a gender, or rather, the gender of the person being called it is irrelevant.  If I call a group of people a bunch of "corporate whores" and several of them are women is it wrong?

[dead0man]

the corporate whore.

Stay classy, Tender.

"Corporate whore" is not sexist. Most Republicans (like Mitt Romney) are also corporate whores.

Again. When you call woman a "whore", it has this nasty ring about this.

a "corporate whore" doesn't have a gender, or rather, the gender of the person being called it is irrelevant.  If I call a group of people a bunch of "corporate whores" and several of them are women is it wrong?

Well, "wrong" is subjective, but I've reached a point in my life where I'd judge pretty much anyone who uses that word negatively. There's no need for it and everyone knows where it comes from and what it connotes. And throwing it around to describe Hillary Clinton and then trying to argue that it's not an attack on her gender—this being someone who is blazing trails for women and who's been subjected to it all—rings pretty hollow. No one ever called Mitt Romney a "corporate whore" even though I suspect he'd fit the definition more than almost anyone... and I think it's pretty obvious why no one thought to give him that moniker.

people called Mitt (and still do) a corporate whore.  It's an old term and I'm pretty sure it wasn't coined with women in mind.  I believe it came from punk.  First time I saw was on a Nirvana shirt I had in the 90s.  It means selling out.  Perhaps one shouldn't call a lady that even if she is, just so nobody ....ahem....gets their panties in a bunch, but that doesn't mean it has anything to do with gender.

I know I know, it doesn't matter what words mean, it's all about how offended someone gets to be it's perceived.

[dead0man]

Whore is indeed an ugly word, which is why it's part of the phrase "corporate whore".  "corporate sell out" doesn't have the same weight.  "corporate whore" has weight, but not gender, like that weird uncle at family reunions.  As a bonus, when somebody calls someone a corporate whore and the whore in question happens to be a lady, you guys get to work on your outrage muscle!  Really, it's a win for everybody.