ChesterTheMolester
ChesterTheMolester
About
- Username
- ChesterTheMolester
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
Someone get Prime over here.
-
Winner Winner Chicken Dinner...Chicken said:Hitting the killer is really illegal and you go jail if you do so (in jail you will find the killer that has a big stick)
-
Agreed, that had to be said.KiraElijah said:It’s much worse -
That was a buff then...TheBean said:They also made it an obsession perk.
They also removed the ability of every survivor in the match from being able to use it like the obsession. Those not the obsession get the DS skill check after a certain percentage of wiggle done.
-
Chris Hansen hereShad03 said:I feel bad for anyone lewding Susie then.
Random Dude or Girl on the internet: -Enters Google and searches for Susie r34-
Ladies and Gentlemen, we got em'.
FBI: FBI OPEN UP!
Why don't you take a seat?
-
That'd be true if all Killers could apply the same kind of pressure equally.Theluckyboi said:@Fenrir said:
This just proves that this game is truly unbalancedLets face it, genrush is just a poor excuse bad killers use when they are uncapable of applying enough map pressure, you must be blind to not notice all the mistakes he made in the video
You cannot chase and pressure gens at the same time, or even switch within a reasonable timeframe due to the hooking, maps and mobility.
BHVR often balances out chasing potential with poor pressure, most notably Freddy and Huntress.
Freddy has an ability that easily pressures multiple people at the same time, and perhaps the best stalling in the game but lacks any chasing unless the survivors either don't know how to mindgame or are dumb enough to run into deadzones during a hit and run.
Huntress is the opposite by being among the best chasers, but the frequent locker visits and 110% mm with a giant directional lullaby that makes it easy to hide basicly risks giving up any and all pressure fast, and you can only perform as good as the map allows you to.
Same apply to Clown, Hag, Wraith, Doctor and Myers. All Killers who viability vary the most depending which you ask. -
Clown.
Its truly ######### up, but i love it -
Well we got a catmask.
Now we need a catsuit.
No native american costume before catsuit. -
Nothing more needs to be said.Rebel_Raven said:1 good reason? Here is a few.
Cosmetics.
Testing perks before you make them teachable.
The fact that the instant that survivors have any real inherent bonuses some jackass will message you and demand you switch characters to fit their meta, and that garbage can [BAD WORD] outtahere. -
I wanna see him vaultibg over pallets lol.
Lets see if they break. -
I should never trust my own threads again.KiraElijah said:Vietfox said:
@The_Crusader@KiraElijah said:@KiraElijah said:
I’m gay for @EveryoneKiraElijah said:
I'm gay for @ChesterTheMolesterPhantomMask20763 said:
KiraElijah is awesomeKiraElijah said:
Dn’t misqout m e!PhantomMask20763 said:
Na, jus did on. Mor for hmm than anyone else.KiraElijah said:
U steeling his idias?PhantomMask20763 said:
Wat y?! You meaniChesterTheMolester said:I sneek typos in many posts i qoute to make you look stopid.
-
Still glitched afaik.
-
They won't, they are working on reducing the grind.
-
Just have the 50% debuff and a action cancel during the dream transition and fix him not being able to pick up survivors getting healed. Also remove RNG for wake up.
That'd fix Freddy for the most part. -
SoonTM ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)Shad03 said:@ChesterTheMolester said:
Shad03 said:@ChesterTheMolester said:
Well since this thread is pretty much done for multiple reasons i'm just going to let you know that this is my 2000th post.
Thanks for reading.
Ayy, congrates. Though I seem to be a little late saying so. Moving on.
You know what i realized? I can't brag with having more upvotes than posts anymore cause the upvotes say 2k.
[BAD WORD] me.
When?~ ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
-
Well it was always implied that he's good with the ladies.
-
"F13 IZ GUNA KIL DBD!"
"DETHGADIN IS GUNNAW KEL DBD"
"LAST YEAH IIIISSSS REALI GUNA KILL DBD FO REAL."
Just like a R20 Survivor, that never gets old.
-
fell for it... niceMushwin said:omg if you didn't get thot! their you are an idiot!
-
You know what i realized? I can't brag with having more upvotes than posts anymore cause the upvotes say 2k.Shad03 said:@ChesterTheMolester said:
Well since this thread is pretty much done for multiple reasons i'm just going to let you know that this is my 2000th post.Thanks for reading.
Ayy, congrates. Though I seem to be a little late saying so. Moving on.
######### me. -
Obviously no.Tsulan said:
So more balancing around rank 20?Fenrir said:
Yeah but i think it needs some help for baby survsDemonDaddy said:I sabotaged over half a map with tier 1, then popped em 1 after the other on last gen. This made for a very sad legion with only the basement for an option. Sabo works fine, its all in the execution.
Haven't we learned from Freddy? -
No one mentions pickle pizza?
-
And while we are at it...
Premonition should force windows updates upon the Killer when detected
Alert short circuits the players PC or Console when he breaks a pallet or gen.
Slippery Meat now spawns IRL bear traps on the Killers doormat.
Spine Chill will euthanise the Killers cat when they look at you. -
I agree but i have a few suggestions too:
Sprint Burst is permanently active
Adrenaline now gives DW when hit.
Decisive Strike gets unlimited uses
Sabotage now destroys hooks permanently
Self Care should heal instantly
Unbreakable prevents being downed
-
When you see someone getting killed by some huge armed guy while being locked in with him you'd probanly fear death more than ever xd logicTru3Lemon said:i agree everything except thanatophobia reason its simple thanatophobia its known as "fear of death" if youre dead why you fear the thanatophobia xd logic
-
You can restore licenses on PS4, i'd suggest googling that cause i haven't done it myself
-
Agreed
-
Yeah thats one reason he can be difficult for either or both sides, its one of the things i adressed in my idea for the rework, a simple "forced skillcheck" channel on gens and healing, should be more balanced for both sides as it takes the RNG out.Eninya said:I hate playing against him, and he doesn't interest me to play. I get that he gets smashed by SWF, and can struggle greatly against good randoms, but I don't think he's all that mechanically challenged. Some of his addons are utterly absurd to play against.
Freddy's real issue is his RNG swing. Take Pig's RNG and then amplify it by 10,000. Freddy's power is like Ruin 5000, but his RNG is massive, and some survivors can get out quickly, and other times they're locked in the dream world, spending an eternity on a generator trying to get out.
Ex: Get two instant self care heals while being chased one time, both of them occurring right before getting hit.
However, another time, I was sitting on a generator from 0-70%, CRAWLLLLLING through trying to get a skill check that never came. That was, like, 2.5 minutes of repairs, including a full Self Care heal, in which I never got a skill check to get myself out, and no one nearby to help.
He just falls into one extreme or the other where, like The Pig, the only real buff he needs is the narrowing of this band in his favor. His design is actually very strong at even punishment, and his addons further support this intent.
I can link you some material (guides and such) which helped me a lot if you wish.Lateral said:Bought this Killer despite all the bad reviews just because Freddy is a rock star pimp and have had a mixed experience, Fun but extremely challenging.
-
I didn't, though i'd be for insidious and tombstones in basekit for every Killer.Vietfox said:Someone, don't remember who (maybe @ChesterTheMolester ) suggested that would be nice to enable all perks in matches for april fools, and i agree
-
Well since this thread is pretty much done for multiple reasons i'm just going to let you know that this is my 2000th post.
Thanks for reading. -
It was because when my brother introduced me to DBD we joked about how he looks a lot like him., after a short time i realized the grind takes forever and i need WGLF.
Thats how i became a David main. -
Hooking is not the same as downing.brokedownpalace said:
Downing survivors doesn't require skill? Huh? What does that even mean? You cannot hook someone who isn't downed.ChesterTheMolester said:
You'd have a point if hooking was anything that requires any skill, but it doesn't, so you don't.brokedownpalace said:No. You need to earn the stack. There's absolutely no reason to give you a free 25% extra BP. Could the DC bonus be a little bit bigger? Sure. But I'm not sure why, if you play a 25k game, you think you deserve 6k+ BP handed to you even though the game itself is made much, much easier for you when there's a DC and much harder for the remaining survivors?
A much more prevalent issue is survivors losing everything when a killer rage quits. They are actually LOSING what they earned. You're complaining about something you may not have even gotten in the first place.
While we could argue that standing survivors should not give a stack, im not gonna give any room in saying that downed survivors who DC should. -
Pretty good actually.
-
A pencil... a ######### pencil.Shad03 said:@LCGaster said:
I would like a scythe, scissors, some kind of whip, a pencil (Surprisingly effective to puncture skulls, you can ask me how I know), a Northstar, chain or a medieval mace with a chain, and a spoon (For the memes)John Wick is a confirmed killer (no he's not) so you'll see him running at you with a pencil.
-
You'd have a point if hooking was anything that requires any skill, but it doesn't, so you don't.brokedownpalace said:No. You need to earn the stack. There's absolutely no reason to give you a free 25% extra BP. Could the DC bonus be a little bit bigger? Sure. But I'm not sure why, if you play a 25k game, you think you deserve 6k+ BP handed to you even though the game itself is made much, much easier for you when there's a DC and much harder for the remaining survivors?
A much more prevalent issue is survivors losing everything when a killer rage quits. They are actually LOSING what they earned. You're complaining about something you may not have even gotten in the first place.
-
Its not only RNG in the sense of totem spawns but also in who you run into, for some survivors its hell to work through ruin while others negate the perk to the point its either like Thanatophobia or nothing.powerbats said:@DocOctober said:
A Perk that often gets destroyed within the first minute of the game is OP. Sure........Yeah most games it doesn't last long but there's been a few recently where it either went the full game or at least 5 minutes and only 1 or no gens done. It's really feast or famine with nothing in the middle sadly.
-
Its inbuilt MLGA basicly. Im just lucky i don't have to deal with that as a console peasant.powerbats said:@ChesterTheMolester said:
Lets be homest those kind of system would find way more abuse in the sense of "Good killer/survivor = dodge".Basically an MLGA tool?
-
Hmm maybe an update changed it then?thesuicidefox said:@ChesterTheMolester said:
And he does counter BT as the lullaby does not count as a TR, which punishes hookrushing.Actually it does count. I'm positive of this.
Still not as problematic as you think, its not like they can hide, or heal, and in doubt you can avoid pulling the others in the dreamworld to avoid bodyblock.
Plus Freddy can use the DW effect to his advantage, once you hit him you can go for the savior and juggle back and forth to have the DW go down while still keeping pressure (mending does not wake you up). -
Lets be homest those kind of system would find way more abuse in the sense of "Good killer/survivor = dodge".
-
Imao. Someone here knows what hes doing.George_Soros said: -
Why would you run in there if its an LF anyway. Its so stupid they deserved it.
Even with insidious and sound decreaser the chainsaw isn't exactly subtle. -
I meant that as a joke...Myerinodudd said:
With doctor you canChesterTheMolester said: -
-
Aww, thanks, you are rotating my kinsey scale btw. Love you.lasombra1979 said:@sadmuffins13 said:
ChesterTheMolester said:
sadmuffins13 said:
ChesterTheMolester said:
sadmuffins13 said:
Gorgonia said:W> @ChesterTheMolester said:
Gorgonia said:u
ChesterTheMolester said: Gorgonia said: Orion said: @Gorgonia said: I never said they shouldn’t? I’m talking about when they use gay as in “man, that’s gay” (? That doesn’t make people ######### unless they go overboard about it knowing it can alter someone else’s peace of mind. I never said you never said they shouldn't. I said that you should speak for yourself instead of projecting, in your words, your "over sensitive" nature to the entire LGBT community. I think I mentioned I never felt oppressed due to my sexuality? I’m not over sensitive myself but many of my friends are and sometimes they react badly towards unintended offenses or jokes coming from people that ignore what being gay is and how gay people feel when their sexuality/orientation is used as a joke. Not justifying them, just saying that before we get mad we need to try and educate those people. Sorry but you contradict yourself there, you say its unintended that means there is no offense given, yet claim you don't justify that as if there was a crime. Given that its unintended, they may need to learn to differentiate between the two, because emotions don't justify actions, no matter if you are gay or misinterpreted a joke. They are after all responsible for their own behavior. I’m saying that I’m not justifying the joke or the offense based on their ignorance or lack of intention. How is that contradictory? And how is an unintended action with a negative consequence not an offense? Negligence does have a consequence, legally.
Correct me if I read your response incorrectly
Im not talking legal term, and i haven't said there was no offense, there was no offense GIVEN. Huge distinction. If someone takes offense and reacts "badly", and the result is something unethical, then its all on the one who has taken the offense , in this case the gay. Saying that just because someone is LGBT he is not in control over his emotion is not only ridiculous but attacks their agency in return.
Okay, I think I know where the confusion is.
Someone feels offended by a joke and gets mad. Offender doesn’t know he is provoking this.
I said I don’t justify the offender because of his negligence, I also said that instead of getting mad at them I would rather educate them.
Unfortunately some people dont want to be educated. They are close minded an ignorant. Until they go through a similiar situation it means nothing to them. People would rather provoke and get a rise out of somebody then actually talk. An i personally don't have time to waste on it. An what do you mean joke??? Because i dont see how its funny. Its more like someone is taking a word and turning it into a negative. A word people use to idetify themselves with. So now am i a stupid gay...? Hahaha no.... How about we educate these people by throwing them a dictionary?
Another appeal to emotion here.
And what i've said applies to you too, just because you don't think its funny does not mean they are close minded and ignorant, though im pretty sure you will assume it, which would speak more about your misanthropic mindset than it does about them.And btw being ignorant is different from being an edge lord.
Seriously trying to justify something that is wrong? If something bothers me i will speak up. Its not being sensitive its called speaking my mind. Ive delt with people like you. An im done entertaining you.
Congratulations, you failed to read.
There is no thing as universal wrong when it comes to jokes, its highly context related, especially regarding who the audience of the joke is. And if you saw the thread in entirety then you'd know that i said that actual homophobic attacks should be banned so get out of here if you don't even know what the conversation you mixed yourself in is about.I know what this thread is about. Read the comments. Saw something someone said and commented. Saying thats gay isnt a joke... Maybe you should be the one leaving. Your always getting into arguemnts with people on here. Your toxic bro.
Guess what, to many people, including a good amount in the LGBT+ community, "that's gay" is a joke. They take it as a joke. They do not get offended by the joke.
@ChesterTheMolester is one of the less toxic members of this forum. The fact you call him toxic because he does not agree with your point of view is bad form. Your....I mean you're way off base attacking him.
-
Gay can be the punchline of a joke, its all up to context and the nature of the joke itself (which does not necessarily have any negative connotations), your perspective does not change what the joke was objectively.sadmuffins13 said:
I know what this thread is about. Read the comments. Saw something someone said and commented. Saying thats gay isnt a joke... Maybe you should be the one leaving. Your always getting into arguemnts with people on here. Your toxic bro.ChesterTheMolester said:
Congratulations, you failed to read.sadmuffins13 said:
Seriously trying to justify something that is wrong? If something bothers me i will speak up. Its not being sensitive its called speaking my mind. Ive delt with people like you. An im done entertaining you.ChesterTheMolester said:
Another appeal to emotion here.sadmuffins13 said:
Unfortunately some people dont want to be educated. They are close minded an ignorant. Until they go through a similiar situation it means nothing to them. People would rather provoke and get a rise out of somebody then actually talk. An i personally don't have time to waste on it. An what do you mean joke??? Because i dont see how its funny. Its more like someone is taking a word and turning it into a negative. A word people use to idetify themselves with. So now am i a stupid gay...? Hahaha no.... How about we educate these people by throwing them a dictionary?Gorgonia said:W> @ChesterTheMolester said:
Gorgonia said:u
ChesterTheMolester said:
Gorgonia said:
Orion said:@Gorgonia said:
I never said they shouldn’t? I’m talking about when they use gay as in “man, that’s gay” (?
That doesn’t make people ######### unless they go overboard about it knowing it can alter someone else’s peace of mind.
I never said you never said they shouldn't. I said that you should speak for yourself instead of projecting, in your words, your "over sensitive" nature to the entire LGBT community.
I think I mentioned I never felt oppressed due to my sexuality? I’m not over sensitive myself but many of my friends are and sometimes they react badly towards unintended offenses or jokes coming from people that ignore what being gay is and how gay people feel when their sexuality/orientation is used as a joke. Not justifying them, just saying that before we get mad we need to try and educate those people.
Sorry but you contradict yourself there, you say its unintended that means there is no offense given, yet claim you don't justify that as if there was a crime.
Given that its unintended, they may need to learn to differentiate between the two, because emotions don't justify actions, no matter if you are gay or misinterpreted a joke. They are after all responsible for their own behavior.
I’m saying that I’m not justifying the joke or the offense based on their ignorance or lack of intention. How is that contradictory? And how is an unintended action with a negative consequence not an offense? Negligence does have a consequence, legally.
Correct me if I read your response incorrectlyIm not talking legal term, and i haven't said there was no offense, there was no offense GIVEN. Huge distinction. If someone takes offense and reacts "badly", and the result is something unethical, then its all on the one who has taken the offense , in this case the gay. Saying that just because someone is LGBT he is not in control over his emotion is not only ridiculous but attacks their agency in return.
Okay, I think I know where the confusion is.
Someone feels offended by a joke and gets mad. Offender doesn’t know he is provoking this.
I said I don’t justify the offender because of his negligence, I also said that instead of getting mad at them I would rather educate them.
And what i've said applies to you too, just because you don't think its funny does not mean they are close minded and ignorant, though im pretty sure you will assume it, which would speak more about your misanthropic mindset than it does about them.
And btw being ignorant is different from being an edge lord.
There is no thing as universal wrong when it comes to jokes, its highly context related, especially regarding who the audience of the joke is. And if you saw the thread in entirety then you'd know that i said that actual homophobic attacks should be banned so get out of here if you don't even know what the conversation you mixed yourself in is about.
Im not having arguments all the time btw, most are just conversations.
And if getting into arguments is what makes me toxic, you should have a look at track record of @Orion btw. -
Here is the deal, no one believes any of this if no religion (or idiology, culture or any other believe system) is somewhere involved.Gorgonia said:Who> @George_Soros said:
@Gorgonia said:
How is educating condescending? Really? You educate customers, you educate people on certain topics, say drugs, safe sex practices. You educate people when you give information on a topic that is usually not discussed. It is not a matter of feeling you know better, it’s a matter of making information available to others whether they agree or not with the topic.But it definitely IS condescending, when it's about moral, religious or personal opinions. If you know a lot about astrology or Korean history and I don't, it's obviously not condescending, and no reason for me to feel insulted if you propose to educate me. However, everyone has some sort of view on the "human experience", life, morality, and so on. Again, suggesting to "educate" someone implies you claim to know better, without even bothering to ask why they feel the way they do. It is a dead end.
Whoever said educating is about transmitting moral, religious or personal opinions? When you educate you provide information. Educating is not telling you to accept homosexuals because your belief is wrong, it is telling you that homosexuals are not the same as HIV, that babies adopted by homosexual parents don’t magically turn gay, that homosexuality is not a sickness nor a mental disease.
Most branches of christianity and virtually all of islam, for example oppose homosexuality dogmatically because of moral concerns, you may try to educate them but it honestly doesn't matter if they think you are apparenty literally Aids like say Ronny Boi Reagan did. And if you try to any further you inevitably touch the territory of general faith and experience, where what @George_Soros says applies. -
Congratulations, you failed to read.sadmuffins13 said:
Seriously trying to justify something that is wrong? If something bothers me i will speak up. Its not being sensitive its called speaking my mind. Ive delt with people like you. An im done entertaining you.ChesterTheMolester said:
Another appeal to emotion here.sadmuffins13 said:
Unfortunately some people dont want to be educated. They are close minded an ignorant. Until they go through a similiar situation it means nothing to them. People would rather provoke and get a rise out of somebody then actually talk. An i personally don't have time to waste on it. An what do you mean joke??? Because i dont see how its funny. Its more like someone is taking a word and turning it into a negative. A word people use to idetify themselves with. So now am i a stupid gay...? Hahaha no.... How about we educate these people by throwing them a dictionary?Gorgonia said:W> @ChesterTheMolester said:
Gorgonia said:u
ChesterTheMolester said:
Gorgonia said:
Orion said:@Gorgonia said:
I never said they shouldn’t? I’m talking about when they use gay as in “man, that’s gay” (?
That doesn’t make people ######### unless they go overboard about it knowing it can alter someone else’s peace of mind.
I never said you never said they shouldn't. I said that you should speak for yourself instead of projecting, in your words, your "over sensitive" nature to the entire LGBT community.
I think I mentioned I never felt oppressed due to my sexuality? I’m not over sensitive myself but many of my friends are and sometimes they react badly towards unintended offenses or jokes coming from people that ignore what being gay is and how gay people feel when their sexuality/orientation is used as a joke. Not justifying them, just saying that before we get mad we need to try and educate those people.
Sorry but you contradict yourself there, you say its unintended that means there is no offense given, yet claim you don't justify that as if there was a crime.
Given that its unintended, they may need to learn to differentiate between the two, because emotions don't justify actions, no matter if you are gay or misinterpreted a joke. They are after all responsible for their own behavior.
I’m saying that I’m not justifying the joke or the offense based on their ignorance or lack of intention. How is that contradictory? And how is an unintended action with a negative consequence not an offense? Negligence does have a consequence, legally.
Correct me if I read your response incorrectlyIm not talking legal term, and i haven't said there was no offense, there was no offense GIVEN. Huge distinction. If someone takes offense and reacts "badly", and the result is something unethical, then its all on the one who has taken the offense , in this case the gay. Saying that just because someone is LGBT he is not in control over his emotion is not only ridiculous but attacks their agency in return.
Okay, I think I know where the confusion is.
Someone feels offended by a joke and gets mad. Offender doesn’t know he is provoking this.
I said I don’t justify the offender because of his negligence, I also said that instead of getting mad at them I would rather educate them.
And what i've said applies to you too, just because you don't think its funny does not mean they are close minded and ignorant, though im pretty sure you will assume it, which would speak more about your misanthropic mindset than it does about them.
And btw being ignorant is different from being an edge lord.
There is no thing as universal wrong when it comes to jokes, its highly context related, especially regarding who the audience of the joke is. And if you saw the thread in entirety then you'd know that i said that actual homophobic attacks should be banned so get out of here if you don't even know what the conversation you mixed yourself in is about. -
Another appeal to emotion here.sadmuffins13 said:
Unfortunately some people dont want to be educated. They are close minded an ignorant. Until they go through a similiar situation it means nothing to them. People would rather provoke and get a rise out of somebody then actually talk. An i personally don't have time to waste on it. An what do you mean joke??? Because i dont see how its funny. Its more like someone is taking a word and turning it into a negative. A word people use to idetify themselves with. So now am i a stupid gay...? Hahaha no.... How about we educate these people by throwing them a dictionary?Gorgonia said:W> @ChesterTheMolester said:
Gorgonia said:u
ChesterTheMolester said:
Gorgonia said:
Orion said:@Gorgonia said:
I never said they shouldn’t? I’m talking about when they use gay as in “man, that’s gay” (?
That doesn’t make people ######### unless they go overboard about it knowing it can alter someone else’s peace of mind.
I never said you never said they shouldn't. I said that you should speak for yourself instead of projecting, in your words, your "over sensitive" nature to the entire LGBT community.
I think I mentioned I never felt oppressed due to my sexuality? I’m not over sensitive myself but many of my friends are and sometimes they react badly towards unintended offenses or jokes coming from people that ignore what being gay is and how gay people feel when their sexuality/orientation is used as a joke. Not justifying them, just saying that before we get mad we need to try and educate those people.
Sorry but you contradict yourself there, you say its unintended that means there is no offense given, yet claim you don't justify that as if there was a crime.
Given that its unintended, they may need to learn to differentiate between the two, because emotions don't justify actions, no matter if you are gay or misinterpreted a joke. They are after all responsible for their own behavior.
I’m saying that I’m not justifying the joke or the offense based on their ignorance or lack of intention. How is that contradictory? And how is an unintended action with a negative consequence not an offense? Negligence does have a consequence, legally.
Correct me if I read your response incorrectlyIm not talking legal term, and i haven't said there was no offense, there was no offense GIVEN. Huge distinction. If someone takes offense and reacts "badly", and the result is something unethical, then its all on the one who has taken the offense , in this case the gay. Saying that just because someone is LGBT he is not in control over his emotion is not only ridiculous but attacks their agency in return.
Okay, I think I know where the confusion is.
Someone feels offended by a joke and gets mad. Offender doesn’t know he is provoking this.
I said I don’t justify the offender because of his negligence, I also said that instead of getting mad at them I would rather educate them.
And what i've said applies to you too, just because you don't think its funny does not mean they are close minded and ignorant, though im pretty sure you will assume it, which would speak more about your misanthropic mindset than it does about them.
And btw being ignorant is different from being an edge lord. -
Like i said in the thread you mentioned.
Only if i can spray giant dicks on walls. I insist. -
Im not talking legal term, and i haven't said there was no offense, there was no offense GIVEN. Huge distinction. If someone takes offense and reacts "badly", and the result is something unethical, then its all on the one who has taken the offense , in this case the gay. Saying that just because someone is LGBT he is not in control over his emotion is not only ridiculous but attacks their agency in return.Gorgonia said:
I’m saying that I’m not justifying the joke or the offense based on their ignorance or lack of intention. How is that contradictory? And how is an unintended action with a negative consequence not an offense? Negligence does have a consequence, legally.ChesterTheMolester said:
Sorry but you contradict yourself there, you say its unintended that means there is no offense given, yet claim you don't justify that as if there was a crime.Gorgonia said:
I think I mentioned I never felt oppressed due to my sexuality? I’m not over sensitive myself but many of my friends are and sometimes they react badly towards unintended offenses or jokes coming from people that ignore what being gay is and how gay people feel when their sexuality/orientation is used as a joke. Not justifying them, just saying that before we get mad we need to try and educate those people.Orion said:@Gorgonia said:
I never said they shouldn’t? I’m talking about when they use gay as in “man, that’s gay” (?
That doesn’t make people ######### unless they go overboard about it knowing it can alter someone else’s peace of mind.I never said you never said they shouldn't. I said that you should speak for yourself instead of projecting, in your words, your "over sensitive" nature to the entire LGBT community.
Given that its unintended, they may need to learn to differentiate between the two, because emotions don't justify actions, no matter if you are gay or misinterpreted a joke. They are after all responsible for their own behavior.
Correct me if I read your response incorrectly
