*friend’s parents…reading comp fail
*friend’s parents…reading comp fail
Your parent’s house is one of my all time favorite episodes for the flowers stapled all over the walls. Reality gold.
You should go. Since you already purchased your tickets, the “harm” is already done. Go see everything except for the orcas.
THIS JUST CHANGED MY LIFE WOW GAIZ
Lol wut? Who ever asked you to act like it’s the 17th century? How do you do that anyway? Sounds entertaining.
@Bjforrest You don’t know that for sure. It’s ambiguous. So the OP’s point may still need to take a seat.
Usually, when someone says “I never see you as X,” they don’t mean “I see you as a complete person, without any racial attributes.” The speaker usually means, “I don’t see you as X because you don’t act like a stereotypical X.”
#16 could be race-related if the girl’s mother isn’t white. I agree with you about #17.
I’m not sure I want to know someone who’s idea of an icebreaker is to ask me an insensitive, dumb question. Next time you want to stumble into understanding with someone, try talking to them about the stuff you’d talk about with other white people. It’s not that hard.
Obviously a hoax. He didn’t react at all to having supposedly been in coma for the last ten years— no shock, sadness, disbelief, anger, etc. He also didn’t really look hungover, which is suspicious, since he was supposed to have passed out drunk the night before.
You sort of had me until you accused him of making fun of disabled people…
@24Ahead If you actually looked at all the pictures in this article, you’d see there was a white woman holding a sign as well talking about how people try to silence her because she’s white. But go ahead, tell us about how those big, mean minorities left you out of the conversation and got all that “power.”
Umm…nobody said this was the worst thing that ever hapened to them. The article calls them “microaggressions.” As in “small.”
Ask yourself a few questions. If someone’s race is ambiguous, why do you feel the need to ask? Why do you feel entitled to have someone take time out of their day to “educate” you about their family history? Are they in a museum? Nobody owes you an explanation of “what” they are just because you felt curious.
Would you ask someone with the last name Schmidt if they spoke German? Probably not, because you would probably assume that they are (1) not recent immigrants and (2) fully assimilated into American, English-speaking culture. Obviously, it’s not a bad thing to be bilingual. The problem is that you are assuming that a person has ties to their “culture of origin” (whatever that means), even though they were probably born in the US and may be descended from a long line of people who were born in this country. It also implies that the person is somehow “foreign” or “different” from other Americans. That’s negative because most people want to feel like they are recognized as a part of the country they grew up in, and only want to be seen as “different” based on their individual characteristics, not their race/ethnicity.
I don’t believe this for a second. If it seems too good to be true…
True. But what’s criminal here isn’t not knowing your status. It’s lying to your partner about it on purpose.
For #2: Yes, they probably would have been better off. The reason why we always have to practice safe sex is because other people either (1) don’t know their status or (2) will actually lie about their status when asked, like Rhoades did. Ultiately, it’s not about whether disclosure actually prevents the “victim” from contracting HIV. The criminal act is not the actual transmission of HIV, but the knowing failure to not disclose your status to another person. The problem with purposely not telling others that you have HIV (or any other STI) is that you take away their opportunity to make informed consent to have sex with you and their ability to mitigate their risk of being infected. When they find out through the grapevine that you lied to them and potentially exposed them to HIV, they feel deep anguish and betrayal. That’s why state legislatures have made this kind of knowing deceitfulness a crime. It’s one thing to say that you don’t think this behavior should be criminalized (and then provide actual, cogent reasons), or to say that you think the punishment is too steep. But I don’t understand why you and the other commentors on this board are here vigorously defending the “right” of people to lie (yes, material omissions are effectively the same as lies) to their partners about having HIV. What is defensible or desirable about that kind of behavior?
I’m sure it hurts to have to disclose one’s status to other people. And it’s fine to keep people on a “needs to know” basis. But if someone’s going to have sex with another person, that other person needs to know that their partner’s HIV+. It’s extremely unfair for someone to expose another person to a serious disease (even if s/he feels the odds of communicating it are remote) because letting the other person know would make her/him feel uncomfortable.
Same goes for #1 and #6. SMH at this article. Somewhere in America, someone is probably getting hair grease and bonnets for Christmas this year…
#4 Thanks, I guess?
The original comment is scary. People should absolutely have to volunteer their status. HIV isn’t necessarily a “death sentence,” but it requires a lifetime of maintenance, so don’t downplay its seriousness. If the HIV+ person discloses his condition to a potential partner before sexual activity begins (esp. if he has an online profile like Rhoades), the worst thing that should happen is that the potential partner will turn them down. Then this person can continue to search for partners who can give them full, informed consent, and everyone is saved all the pain and anxiety. I do agree with you that the punishments in the highlighted cases seem like overkill.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I have a real job. Defensive much? Do you work there? My condolences.
#3 Hahahaha seriously, fuck Etsy. “What does it do to “end mass production” when it just ignores resellers? Also, all of these offices are ugly as sin.
The website sucks. Alot. Everyone agrees about this. Can we move on to something else?
Photographs…of real people or objects.
Did the good doctor pay for this advertising?
The tortured life you lead…
He’s 5. Give him a chance.
It’s not important. I just like to gawk at people like these on the internet. I also find it interesting that their pictures/usernames were blocked when nobody else’s were— why protect their identities?
I don’t understand the handstand, but I think the outfit is supposed to look like an LDS temple garment.
*picture. Also, to save anyone else the 2 seconds it takes to find out, their usernames are @DopeBieber and @kinkystyles.
Why did you block out #17’s info and their faces? They put it on twitter, so they’re obviously okay with having this pictures and their screen names out there.
Because you don’t know any black people?