Read a book...

submitted by Happy_Blueberry3910 from (i.imgur.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (22 children)

Ugliest drawings I've seen in a cartoon series.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 13 insightful - 5 fun13 insightful - 4 fun14 insightful - 5 fun -  (21 children)

Ugliest drawings I've seen in a cartoon series.

Shills gonna shill. :-/

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

Don't be an imbecile, Tom, but if you insist:

Gender was not 'coined' in 1955.

It's from the Latin 'genus' (a type or class of noun), which in Old French referred to people according to their 'gendre'....

And that cartoon is ugly

[–]Tom_Bombadil 9 insightful - 5 fun9 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 5 fun -  (19 children)

but if you insist:

Gender was not 'coined' in 1955.

Take it up with wikipedia

Don't be an imbecile,

Exactly

Tom

;-)

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

The modern academic sense of the word, in the context of social roles of men and women, dates at least back to 1945

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

It referenced the genders of words, and before 1945 was used for fun to reference the sexes, according to H.W. Fowler in his 'Dictionary of Modern English Usage' (Oxford & London: Claredon Press, 1926):

To talk of persons...of the masculine or feminine g[ender], meaning of the male or female sex, is either a jocularity (permissible or not according to context) or a blunder

[–]Tom_Bombadil 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (17 children)

in the context of social roles of men and women, dates at least back to 1945

Wow. Cool story.

Take it up with wikipedia

Do you have any comments about your buddy Dr. John Money the pedo advocate (from John Hopkins U)?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Alrighty - Tom - I'm afraid playtime is over

[–]jet199 8 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 5 fun -  (15 children)

Which is an incredibly dodgy turn of phrase from someone purposely trying to distract about a post related to child abuse.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

Are you implying that I want to boink Tom?

(You may be the only one who reads the comment in this way, and I don't think the cartoon must be read specifically as a comment on child abuse. And why are the ugly characters in the cartoon crying? It's an ugly, stupid, extreme right-wing hate-mongering ad.)

[–]Comatoast 9 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 4 fun -  (8 children)

Socks, no one is implying that at all.

Your phrasing was fucked up given the context of what the red hat person was reading about the very much child abuser and pedophile John Money.

The cartoon is ugly as sin, but besides that no one is crying. Pink-hair is giving "oh shit, let me cover that part" expression with panic, red hat guy has "what the absolute fuck did I just read?" look and is visibly disturbed.

Judgements of John Money should have no ties with a personal political affiliation, he was a monster that subjugated innocents so that he could experiment and get off.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Are you implying that I want to boink Tom?

Nobody is saying anybody wants to "boink" anybody.

Mainly, because self-respecting adults wouldn't dream of using the word "boink".

That is language a closet Pedo would use to trivialize rape.