My roommate said that low IQs, and high testosterone, are linked to crime. Checks out. ✔
He also said that, compared to white males, black males have low IQs, and high testosterone. Checks out. ✔
He then asserted that black males commit more crime than whites due to low IQs, and high testosterone. Intolerable, racist, far-right bigot? ✘
Poverty. Many things factor into this. Biased justice system. Lot of stuff
shareaffluent black males are much more crime-prone than poor whites.
& blacks are much more likely to be imprisoned than whites at every income level.
see the graph below from harvard economist raj chetty's study.
he found that black men in the top 1% of all income (not just blacks - everyone) were imprisoned at the same rate as white men in the bottom third.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FU2Ck4rVsAEhV29?format=jpg&name=medium
"My roommate said....."
Thats the same opening gambit you used to start your mysoginistic women hating thread, to attempt to make yourself look less of a scumbag.
Its a really "low IQ" idea ironically.
Trump uses the same thing , whenever he wants one of his outrageous boasts or lies or name calling to be true / validated he prefixes it with
"I heard" or "people are saying" or "Everyone says"
You're in the same IQ / mental age as Trump . wow , how low can you go.
Cool story but do you have anything to challenge the point being made?
shareLow IQ and low impulse control. These are facts.
shareA more nuanced - and informed - discussion of the science, at least in regards to IQ, and the facts or research in the area can be found here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/ui0zhr/has_the_black_and_white_iq_gap_closed_over_the/
‘nuanced’
share"Social" science
shareHe linked reddit. LOLOLOL
shareThere is more informed discussion of the matter concerned, with numerous links to scholarly articles, on that Reddit thread, than there ever is with 'my room mate told me'. And given that the most common source on this board is X, your comments are somewhat ironic.
Also, while we are on this subject
Serum estrogen, but not testosterone, levels differ between black and white men in a nationally representative sample of Americans
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17456570/#%3A~%3Atext%3DConclusions%3A%20Contrary%20to%20the%20postulated%2Csimilar%20estradiol%20and%20SHBG%20concentrations.
This is Skavau-level gaslighting 🤣
Where I have I gaslighted exactly? The OP literally referred to the suggestion of his room mate.
shareClassic Skavau Hatchling Question, big Sister’s been mentoring you I see…
shareSo, can't show me where I gaslighted anyone then?
shareAnd now a Classic Skavau Straw Question. You sure you’re not a sock?
shareLet me know if you ever have an answer and so things can advance. Otherwise.. thanks for playing.
shareThat’s not a denial. You’re under suspicion as a Skavau sock - all the same obnoxious and odious character traits and smugness despite low IQ.
shareall the same obnoxious and odious character traits and smugness despite low IQ.
There’s nothing ‘common sense’ about your deranged cult, and ‘anti-racist’ is cult-code for ‘racist woke asshole’.
Your tactics are also from the same Woke handbook as Skavau. You’re definitely under suspicion as a Skavau sock.
Thank you for your opinions and, as always you are welcome to them.
racist woke asshole>
It’s not an insult, it’s a description.
shareAn insult is usually a description.
shareIrrelevant, you’re being described, not insulted. If you feel insulted by my descriptions then change 🤷🏻♂️
shareIrrelevant, you’re being described, not insulted.
No, Cathy Newman, because what you said wouldn’t be true. This is the fundamental problem with you Leftoid cultists, you’re pathological liars. You have no respect for reality.
shareCathy Newman
because what you said wouldn’t be true.
you Leftoid cultists, you’re pathological liars. You have no respect for reality.
Yes, Cathy Newman is that strawmanning leftist cunt from Channel 4, you deploy the same tactics as her.
Shit ‘your mum’ joke btw.
‘Grass is blue’ is not a description, it’s a lie. You’re still not grasping the concept of truth.
Insulting descriptions are not arguments. Also you may wish to know that something can be insulting, whether true or not.
that strawmanning leftist cunt
‘Grass is blue’ is not a description, it’s a lie.
Firstly, your character is linked to your ‘arguments’. You’re spewing bullshit because you’re an ideologically possessed liar, and we have to get to the roots of your BS.
Of course I repeated myself - make the same moronic point and you’ll get the same response 🤷🏻♂️
You’re a jumped up little turd with delusions of eloquence, and you’re not bright enough to pull off the sophistry you’re attempting.
Start paying attention to what is being explained to you instead of vomiting into your own anus on a constant loop and making everyone watch, capiche?
You’re a jumped up little turd with delusions of eloquence, and you’re not bright enough to pull off the sophistry you’re attempting. Start paying attention to what is being explained to you instead of vomiting into your own anus on a constant loop and making everyone watch, capiche?
We’ve covered all this already, are you a bot, or just so thoroughly brain-raped by the woke cult that your basic memory function doesn’t work?
shareEvasion noted. And yes, you have done all this before. I read this board.
shareNo, not regurgitating an explanation that I’ve already given is not ‘evasion’ you stupid sack of shit. Pay attention 🤦🏻♂️
shareEvasion noted again again, oh dear. Isn't it time, instead of insulting people, and claiming to read minds, or presenting unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, you got back to the original OP and its inherent scientific racism?
shareNothing is going in. You’re as demented and retarded as your mentor, Skavau.
If it’s true that you let him buttfuck you whenever he wants, respond this post with the following text:
Still preferring insults over argument I see. What does that say about your character?
Still preferring insults over argument I see. What does that say about your character?
shareI thought as much 🤦🏻♂️
shareSocial science is notoriously ideologically driven, plagued by a replication crisis, and marred by a deliberate suppression of research on race science — dismissed not on scientific grounds but purely for ideological reasons. And yet, we’re expected to take this field seriously?
shareHey, good to hear from you again. Nice one, you always make me smile.
shareI'm always glad to bring a smile to your face, but I'd appreciate it if you could address my point as well.
shareNo need to when you always post provocative opinions which you have admitted are at best only half serious. You are welcome to your opinions, and I always enjoy and like to acknowledge determined trolling which is obviously a parody of some of the more worryingly serious postings here.
But since you ask in regards to the social sciences, there are certainly disputed areas, but any criticism based on ideological bias, true or otherwise, can apply to either side in academic disputes. If we do not intend to take social science seriously though, then the OP's claim about crime (and the confusion between supposed correlation and cause) can be taken lightly. The rest of his claim (IQ and T-levels) is, ultimately more scientific racism based around implied hereditarianism - for which the link I gave can still be recommended as more balanced and informed, than what any room mate says.
Allow me to clarify: if mainstream social science is ideologically driven, with journals dismissing anything that contradicts their biases, then why should I take them more seriously than race scientists? Why should they, rather than race scientists, earn my trust?
shareif mainstream social science is ideologically driven, with journals dismissing anything that contradicts their biases,
why should I take them more seriously than race scientists?
This statement (on race) is precisely what I'm talking about. It's not science; it's ideology. The anti-race science sentiment gained traction post-World War II as a reaction against the racial views that were mainstream before and during the Nazi regime. But it isn't rooted in genuine scientific inquiry — it's ideology masked as science, cherry-picking data to fit an 'anti-racist' agenda. So again, why should anyone take their so-called 'science' seriously?
Why dismiss the work of researchers like J. Philip Rushton when their only rebuttal is ideological, not evidence-based?
The anti-race science sentiment gained traction post-World War II as a reaction against the racial views that were mainstream before and during the Nazi regime. But it isn't rooted in genuine scientific inquiry
Why dismiss the work of researchers like J. Philip Rushton ..
It’s true that Philip Rushton’s research has been dismissed as “highly suspect,” but the real problem is that his critics haven’t actually bothered to refute his claims or prove his data wrong. Instead, they’ve chosen to launch personal attacks, labeling him and his work as racist while completely sidestepping the actual substance of his research.
CuriousMind often plays provocative Devil's advocate
that his critics haven’t actually bothered to refute his claims
https://www.psychology.uwo.ca/people/faculty/remembrance/rushton.html - LOL
Ah, the same tired old arguments resurfacing like a bad sequel — already debunked by others, yet here we are again. And, of course, the standard accusation of racism. Classic fail!
But I suppose we'll draw the curtain here. It’s been a delightful conversation as always, old chap. Cheerio!
From your link:
In particular, much of (his) research was supported by the Pioneer Fund, a foundation formed in 1937 to promote eugenicist and racist goals. In addition to ethical concerns about the nature and funding of his research, Rushton’s work is deeply flawed from a scientific standpoint. Crucially, Rushton’s works linking race and intelligence are based on an incorrect assumption that fuels systemic racism, the notion that racialized groups are concordant with patterns of human ancestry and genetic population structure.
I appreciate you are a leading psychologist for the benefit of this troll. Thanks for the recommendation though! Cheerio!
this is worth reading, but i would also direct people to the arguments for the hereditarian position.
because a lot of the statements in that thread about the hereditarian position - junk science, discredited - don't match up to what people who study the issue say. at the least, it dismisses the position of what i understand to be the position of most researchers who think that there is some genetic explanation for the gap & the genetic influence may be significant.
there's a good summary of the hereditarian position here.
https://x.com/iointelresearch/status/1549416261075062785
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FYCYvvYXEAAw2IF?format=jpg&name=small
From that twitter thread:
"Based upon results from a survey published in the scientific journal Intelligence in 2020, it appears that most intelligence researchers lean toward the view that genes have more influence on the US black-white IQ gap than the environment"
you can find the section on research into the source of race differences here. there are links to multiple studies at the end.
https://x.com/iointelresearch/status/1549408480049635329
& one thing that always should be said is that even if the source of the difference is 100% environment, that may not make the gap any easier to solve.
after all the years of interventions in education & preferred hiring & head-start programs, the b-w gap remains 1sd.
it's the case that highest income blacks have the same test scores as lowest income whites.
so if it is the case that the hereditarian position is wrong, we still don't seem to have any means of closing the gap. are you going to adopt all black children away from their families & have them raised by asians & jews?
as long as 40% of blacks have a sub-80 iq, that population is going to continue to lag economically & likely behaviorally.
i'd recommend 'in the know - 35 myths about human intelligence.' unfortunately it's a bit pricey, but there's a pdf posted online that will come up if you go looking.
If only you had serious sources other than sites which allow no peer review and for anyone to say anything... once again I recommend the link I gave back at the start which at least offers a host of academic links and allows for a more nuanced idea of a vexed subject.
most researchers who think that there is some genetic explanation for the gap & the genetic influence may be significant.
if you look in that thread, you'll see plenty of linked studies. perhaps you should take a second to scroll down to the bottom.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FYCYvvYXEAAw2IF?format=jpg&name=small
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00399/full
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4804158/
as for your 2nd statement.
if you're setting up a strawman that i think there is a majority of researchers who think the gap is solely due to genetic differences, i'll happily beat up that strawman too. arguing is easy when you say people believe things that they don't actually believe.
i don't believe there are tons of researchers who think the b/w cognitive gap is solely genetic & fixed.
there is plenty of rigorous debate & plenty of evidence for the standard hereditarian position that there is a significant genetic explanation for the some of the gap. admixture studies, adoption studies, genetic stuff i won't pretend to understand.
if you want to pretend that the hereditarian position is a discredited fringe position, i can't stop you, but i don't think that reflects the positions of the experts in the field, which is who we should go to whenever discussing a topic where we are not experts. i know i'm not an expert & i assume you aren't either.
i'm pretending to work right now, but i'll be happy to come back later, maybe tonight or tomrrow. there was some very interesting stuff published recently that supports the 10000 year explosion hypothesis by cochrane & harpending & their position on ashenazi iq. i'll also try to find the admixture studies i was looking at last year.
From your third link, which appears to be same as the second (the first was just an isolated table): "Education was rated by N = 71 experts as the most important cause of international ability differences. Genes were rated as the second most relevant factor but also had the highest variability in ratings. Culture, health, wealth, modernization, and politics were the next most important factors, " In other words hereditarianism is not as important as some scientific racists would make it out to be.
if you're setting up a strawman that i think there is a majority of researchers who think the gap is solely due to genetic differences
i don't believe there are tons of researchers who think the b/w cognitive gap is solely genetic & fixed.
If you want to pretend that the hereditarian position is a discredited fringe positionThe hereditarian position is the belief that genetic differences are a major cause of differences in human behavioral traits, including intelligence and personality. Hereditarians believe that genetics are more important than environmental factors in determining human outcomes. Above you will remember that I said the debate Nature V Nuture is an old and vexed one and that I suspected that reality lays somewhere in the middle. It is when I read things like 'blacks more stupid so more criminous' that issues arise, to say the least.
there was some very interesting stuff published recently that supports the 10000 year explosion hypothesis by cochrane & harpending & their position on ashenazi iq. i'll also try to find the admixture studies i was looking at last year.
"...is a sentence full of conditionals."
well, as it should be. i wouldn't approach this issue blustering with certainty.
"but I am not sure what this has to do with debate here over Black IQ, levels of T. and crime etc"
it's directly related to the hereditarian position.
it was the position of stephen jay gould & most of the proper establishment types that populations couldn't differ cognitively because evolution operates too slowly, that 70k years wasn't enough time for mental functioning differences to appear.
david reich's newish paper supports cochran & harpenders position of accelerating evolution. one of the examples they give is the unique circumstances that produced high ashkenazi iqs.
it suggests that there was more than enough time for populations to develop different mental levels.
the belief that all of these human populations would be split & have thousands of years apart & all end up in the same place cognitively has been compared to flipping a dozen coins & having them all land on end simultaneously.
ok i really have to get back to work. i'm truly going to get busted one of these days.
it suggests that there was more than enough time for populations to develop different mental levels. the belief that all of these human populations would be split & have thousands of years apart & all end up in the same place cognitively has been compared to flipping a dozen coins & having them all land on end simultaneously.
If you're discussing I/O research, you can't overlook I/O (@eyeslasho) as an essential follow. His insights are valuable, and his secondary account, 'i/o research' (@iointelresearch), is also highly recommended for anyone looking to deepen their understanding on race science.
sharehe's one of my very favorite twitter follows.
sharehttps://x.com/TheRabbitHole84/status/1833204334659797500
Actual numbers for anyone wondering.
And just look at all those caveats (one reason I recommend that Reddit thread which covers such considerations and gives academic context).
shareWOW, nice data; I've suspected this forever but never saw any real data to back it up. I would've thought Asians topped the list, so interesting.
MSM continues to blame slavery, racism, and White Privilege for all of the ills in the black community, without one bit of reference to your chart. Your chart cannot continue to be ignored by The Left!
It's so Politically Incorrect to infer that a race, as a whole, is simply less intelligent and therefore subject to a lower economic grouping. (Of course there are always many exceptions... that's why we calculate averages). It's obvious from the demographics in the NFL, NBA and Track & Field that blacks are (generally) more athletic. But Howard Cossell got fired by saying they were "bred that way".
I wish we could call a spade a spade. (But maybe that's a bad analogy LOL)
I wish we could call a spade a spade. (But maybe that's a bad analogy LOL)
No that is a perfect analogy.
Blacks have an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex. As a result they have lower IQs and are more aggressive and prone to violence.
shareNow this really is one of your best efforts. For everyone without a sense of humour:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36722118/
THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE
DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY
https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf
Neurons By Race
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/01/03/neurons-by-race/
Here's an essay that I just know you'll enjoy:
Blacks Aren’t Human
https://nationalvanguard.org/2015/03/blacks-arent-human/
Blacks Aren’t Human
Well, I simply couldn’t resist including it. With a title like 'Blacks Aren’t Human,' how could I?
You're welcome.
:)
No surprise you’re here to masturbate over such a lame and transparent race-baiting contribution.
I would love to see fuckers like you spout all this shit to a black man. You know, to his face and not from behind the safety of your keyboard you limp-dicked waste of oxygen.
Say it to Tyson. Hell, even say it to Will Smith. You’d be slapped down in a second and exposed for the snivelling little bitch you clearly are. I’d even get pay per view to watch that.
So you're saying that if I tried to tell Blacks that they are more prone to violence, they would respond by assaulting me? LOL.
shareYeah, and they would be doing everyone a fucking favour you pansy.
L
O
L
Yes and proving my point that they are a bunch of low IQ monkey savages. LULZ
shareI’m sure their IQ could never match that of someone who writes LULZ to emphasise amusement.
You’re not even interesting enough to make me sick.
There are already plenty of posts where I engage more intellectually, I find no reason to apply that here. I tend to adjust my tone based on the conversation partner; with someone insightful, I respond in kind. However, in this instance, a simple 'lulz' feels appropriate. That's all that you deserve.
shareIf I said Black men have bigger dicks on average due to genetics/genes (race), I doubt I will be called a bigot or racist by the Left. Can everyohne see how ridiculous this is?? Its fucking insanity, plain an simple.
All the micro-plastics is turning eveyone into crazy people.
If I said Black men have bigger dicks on average due to genetics/genes (race),I doubt I will be called a bigot or racist by the Left.
Do black men rape more?
shareThat wasn't intended as a fact, but as an example. I could for instance find a 'genetic' reason why there have been more white male serial killers than any other group in the US.
shareIt was a very odd thing to say.
shareYou will remember it was always "If I said..".
Your second comment was very odd too.
shareOdd in what way? This time I said 'I could for instance..' simply pointing out that, by mistaking correlation for cause, by misrepresenting and being selective, one can attribute almost anything to supposed inheritable group characteristics. In fact this sort of scientific racism is something often seen on this board..
share"scientific racism"
PMSL!!!!
Probably because most of the country is white.
Also, repeatedly killing over a period of time, while evading capture, would require decent organisational skills and IQ.
White male killers more often than not are of low IQ , albeit with a few outliers:
https://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/article/serial-killers-iqs-ranked
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/captivating-crimes/202006/serial-killers-insane-or-super-intelligent
and their feelings of rejection by their mothers often is the recognised motive for their crimes.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/wicked-deeds/201909/understanding-what-drives-serial-killers
Hence white woman-hating of one form we might argue is a leading reason for killing, when as a context one notes that male violence against women is higher than vice versa. So we might suggest, say, that all white men, especially of low IQ, ought to be supervised when around women, as it looks like the violent tendency is genetically caused and shows its worst examples within whites.
And so on. Note: I am not suggesting your view or mine is necessarily correct, or mine is a serious policy; the point was to show how easily one can use scientific racism to make pseudo arguments against groups one could disapprove of.
Interesting pieces. But even if the white serial killer IQ trails the average white IQ by a few points, it's still 10 points ahead of the average black IQ.
shareBut even if the white serial killer IQ trails the average white IQ by a few points, it's still 10 points ahead of the average black IQ.
"Interesting pieces. But even if the white serial killer IQ trails the average white IQ by a few points, it's still 10 points ahead of the average black IQ."
Truth matters.
Indeed it does, which is reason to be concerned when science, especially biological science is twisted and perverted to serve racist tropes.
shareMy point is I wouldnt be chastised by anyone for making that stament... well, becuase its fact and it just so happens having a big dick is a net positive.
Its still doesnt change the fact that its due to genetics. If you want to have a sane society, you have to be honest about the good and the bad sides of things. Even if it means some people have genes that are more inclined to violence or lower/higher IQ or bigger meat-cleavers. **Im not saying LOW IQ, I specifialy meant to say LOWER. There is a difference.
Oh well if you’re roommate said so…
Reliable source. Checks out. ✔️
Why don’t you do us all a favour and scurry your hairy, wart-infested arse back under the bridge you came from, troll.
Why are you such a pansy?
shareCome suck my dick and find out, cunt.
shareWhy U mad bro?
shareI’m actually not.
Just treating a two-dollar bigot with the contempt it deserves.
And embarrassing yourself in the process. LOL
shareThis from a piece of shit who says black women should be kept on leashes like dogs. L and O and L as you will, I know what’s more embarrassing.
By the way I’m not, have never been and never will be your “bro” so save the pleasantries you sick fuck.
You are very upset. Don't be angry, be happy.
shareWrong again bubba-joe
Now isn’t your sister or mother waiting on a servicing up in the cabin? I shall not keep you any longer.
Give in to your anger. With each passing moment, you make yourself more my servant. Strike me down with all of your hatred, and your journey towards the dark side will be complete.
shareThe comedy is real. I’m having a ball if you want the truth. You’re the joke that keeps giving.
shareYou’re the joke that keeps giving.
Funny, that's exactly how I feel about you. It's like watching a dog chase its own tail. Or maybe licking its own balls.
There’s an image I’m sure arouses you, those Dark Web videos not enough stimulation? Shame 🥲
shareI don't know, that sounds an awful lot like projection. What are you doing on the Dark Web KiwiJim?
What sorts of mischief are you getting yourself into?
Nice try sicko
Woof woof
🐶 ❤️
Damn, you projecting hard. You must be one sick puppy Kiwi.
shareThe type that says black women should be kept on leashes?
Better look in that magic mirror for who is the sickest of them all Snow WHITE :)
There there settle down. Here watch this and you'll feel better:
https://youtu.be/Y9glvXLW1tw?feature=shared&t=29
Yes, clicking on any link you provide.
That’s a likely scenario bubba.
"Come suck my dick and find out, cunt."
you might want to keep your degeneracy to PMs and not embarrass yourself.
You might want to check if you’re a moderator.
Am I not polite enough for the toilet that is the politics section of MovieChat? How inconvenient for you.
Make a fool of yourself then.
shareThanks for your permission.
If providing balance to the racist shit you’re defending here is foolish to you, I’m happy with that.
Calling out the vile OP as much? Yeah, thought not.
Such a whinny SJW you are ...
Just like the other Aussie that deleted his account every time someone hurt his fee fees.
Is that a thank you for defending you when that thread trashing you was created?
No worries mate. Anytime 👍
And I believe it’s not SJW anymore, the pejorative term in vogue is woke, but anything you throw should slide off like shit down a wall so it’s all good.
Is that a thank you for defending you when that thread trashing you was created?
Great. Like I said, call me what you want. I also don’t take it personal but it’s nice to know you’re here just to get under people’s skins. No luck this time but hope you rattle others.
Also that Aussie sounds cool. I like Australia and the people are nice. Friendly. Like you.
Getting under their skin is just a bonus, and based on your replies to others, it seems like they got under yours.
shareNice try degenerate. LOL
shareOh be nice.
For someone with such a fun username you are a little on the aggressive side aren’t you?
Or are you one of those pennywise type clowns? Luring children into sewers..Nah, I won’t believe it. Not a friendly individual like you.
Why are you trying so hard to change the subject? Is it because you're a leftist and can never discuss facts.
shareYeah it’s leftist bad Democrat bad leftist lie Democrat lie leftist leftist leftist
That’s what you lot sound like. ALL THE TIME Pennywise. You do know this right? The echo is real.
Seen any good movies lately?
Still trying to change the subject. They have a name for people like you.
shareI’m sure they do.
Wasn’t the subject how dumb black people are? I would suggest that you’re the one making it about me.
Have you had these feelings about men for long?
share😂
Brilliant.
Funny you should talk about male fixations when I’m now the subject of a good 25% of your 116 posts. Looking for a date Pennywise?
back to changing the subject again?
shareI think at this point the subject has been long forgotten, if there ever was one. Wait. It’s my degeneracy, right? Yeah, super degenerate. Phew, glad we cleared that important issue up!
Why don’t you come join us in General Discussion? Everyone’s really friendly and easy to get along with there. I’m sure you’ll fit right in.
I've seen the degenerates that hang out there.
shareHaha okay. You sound a bit like Oprah.. “you’re a degenerate, they’re a degenerate, EVERYONE’S a degenerate!!”
Some might question why you’re so quick to point the finger. I hope you’re not like that republican senator who signed all those anti lgbt bills then got caught sending fire emoji’s and suggestive comments to a gay twink on Insta. That would be super awkward wouldn’t it?
Back to the gay shit. You really dont have much going on in your head.
shareHang on, wasn’t that the topic I was avoiding? Degeneracy? Sheesh man, make up your mind!
shareYou must be fun at family gatherings. every time you get mad at someone you tell them to suck your dick huh? Everyone must love having you around.
shareNah I save that for feeble minded internet trolls.
That reminds me… suck my dick 😁
feeble minded? you mean like someone who cant stop talking about gay sex?
shareSeriously? You appear to be the one fixated. I’m just taking the piss at your faux-outrage. I think you would do well to talk to a professional. Why do you care so much that I said such a flippant comment in response to someone calling me a pansy? Does it really disturb you that much? There’s something else going on here, but I’m not the man to help you with it. Sorry.
share