911
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2024
911 points (100.0% liked)
The Onion
6786 readers
232 users here now
The Onion
A place to share and discuss stories from The Onion, Clickhole, and other satire.
Great Satire Writing:
- The Onion
- Clickhole
- McSweeney's
- Reductress
- The Chaser
- The Hard Times
- The Needling
- Tattletale Times
- The Beaverton
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Sorry. I didn't realize I was talking to the man in the article.
That's a non argument.
"You're a bad person! How dare you ask a legitimate question in a respectful way!"
Rather than "x is because of y" or "I'm sorry I'm not sure I can answer that" but rather going out of your way to be cruel.
So fun question, how is the way you're talking to me not dehumanizing.
Oh it is dehumanizing. You're crazy.
See another non answer and an insult. If you had an argument you'd make it and clearly you haven't because you don't. If someone asks a question maybe be nice or I dunno keep your hateful inside shit inside to save for a therapist.
No one owes you the pretense that you're not a kook.
Several people have given you reasonable answers and your responses have ranged from irrational nonsense to TimeCube lunacy.
Having given a reasonable answer and gotten tinfoil craziness in response, no rational person is going to continue interacting with you like you're rational.
I never said now implied anyone owed me anything, that's all in your imagination but does sorta parse or the type of person you are.
Yes, we are having a conversation, ie. An exchange of ideas and ideals. If someone says ""x is because of y" doesn't make sense to me because q is not y" for future reference the answer is almost never going to be "hah retard! Why are you so retarded!".
They're not tinfoil crazy questions or they'd be easy to answer, the fact you haven't answered them and instead turned to personal insults based on your personal perceptions of me proves you can't answer the question. You're literally proving my point as to why perception of offense is different than intended offense.
Hilariously inept, love it.
I like that you call some nonsense about woman meaning wifeman an "exchange of ideas". It's utter nonsense, so in what sense is it an idea - that you thought of it? Or have you been reading "A history of English words for people with preconceived notions"?
That's is literally it's origin, I'm sorry facts are offensive to you.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/woman
Takes three seconds to look up bud.
Yet you didn't bother to read it...
In what way boss. Vague answers aren't a thing worth giving in this context, you're not a yogi just say what you mean.
It's only vague because you can't read.
I've already explained this all ... but you can't read...
Use a source bud, nuh uh don't mean nothin.
You're the source. You post crazy shit. So you're crazy.
Really not hard....
You're the source. You post childish douchebaggy conments. So you're a douchebag.
Really not that hard.
Yep. That's the point. That's the rational way to approach irrational people.
You inserted yourself into a conversation not me so the hubris and feigning indignantion is straight up moronic.
You brought it up, kook...
Not at all. I was having a conversation with another person and you insisted your vile fucking personality into the situation.
Just further demonstrating your inability to read.
Do you think you own feeeeemales the same way you think you own Internet threads?
Bro you could not provide more accurate call outs for your own ineptitude.
A. I don't own anyone nor do I think anyone should be owned. B. I'm not six so I don't "pwn" anyone nor do I add inexplicable extra letters.
"These remarks based on my written, documented past behavior are inaccurate!"
Yeah buddy. That doesn't say it means or has ever meant wifeman. Woman has always, from its first use up to now, meant a female human. So you read things and then interpret them as having whatever meaning you like?
You're a bafoon. Quote where I said it meant wife man or in any way departed from the cited evidence.
You don't know what you're talking about, that's ok.
"Wif = wife / man = mankind. Literally the wif of men"
It meant no such thing, ever. Wif didnt mean wife when this word was created. It meant what we now mean by the word woman. And the word wifman in today's language would mean woman-person. It's right there in the article you linked that you are unable to understand, or quite possibley, chose to misunderstand.
That's how a compound word becomes a thing, yes. You're not making the point you think you're making bud.
You should read the comment chain instead of cherry picking and assuming you know what I meant with your limited context and outward hostility.
You have no idea what your talking about. It is not and never was a compound word of wife and man. The word wif meant the same thing as the modern day word woman. The word wifman was a compound word that would be translated into modern English as woman-person, with the exact same meaning as woman is used to today. It had nothing at all to do with being married. I've read the comment chain, where you say, repeatedly, that the word woman originates with a meaning related to marriage. It doesn't, at all. You do not understand what you are reading.
No, it was wif - man. I offered a source, an indignant nuh uh is not a source so how about you go and get one.
Compare that to female.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/female
Which one seems to you to be more sexist and therefore dehumanizing? The one who's derived from the concept of a wife as property or the one based on Latin for basically can breastfeed.
Property v fucking life creator