"I'm starving" offensive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, it was better when bleeding hearts didn't hold other people's speech or opinions hostage with the threat of being labled offensive or worse.

Way to take away from real offensive issues.

"Holding people's speech hostage"? You are free to say whatever you want to say. Likewise, I am free to say whatever I want to say, including my opinions about what you said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

"Retard" is no longer okay. "I'm starving" is fine. Not offensive.

Why is one no longer okay but the other is fine?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, it was better when bleeding hearts didn't hold other people's speech or opinions hostage with the threat of being labled offensive or worse.

Way to take away from real offensive issues.

"Holding people's speech hostage"? You are free to say whatever you want to say. Likewise, I am free to say whatever I want to say, including my opinions about what you said.

But 'll will be labled "offensive" or "cruel" by you. People are easily marked now as racist or sexist for the smallest comment, so yes, I agree it's like holding your tongue hostage.

[Anonymous]

But pp^ will be labled-sorry phone

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, it was better when bleeding hearts didn't hold other people's speech or opinions hostage with the threat of being labled offensive or worse.

Way to take away from real offensive issues.

"Holding people's speech hostage"? You are free to say whatever you want to say. Likewise, I am free to say whatever I want to say, including my opinions about what you said.

But 'll will be labled "offensive" or "cruel" by you. People are easily marked now as racist or sexist for the smallest comment, so yes, I agree it's like holding your tongue hostage.

Oh no!

Why do you care what I think?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, it was better when bleeding hearts didn't hold other people's speech or opinions hostage with the threat of being labled offensive or worse.

Way to take away from real offensive issues.

"Holding people's speech hostage"? You are free to say whatever you want to say. Likewise, I am free to say whatever I want to say, including my opinions about what you said.

But 'll will be labled "offensive" or "cruel" by you. People are easily marked now as racist or sexist for the smallest comment, so yes, I agree it's like holding your tongue hostage.

Oh no!

Why do you care what I think?

Not pp, but I don’t!!!
That’s why I don’t hang around with people with your mindset.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, it was better when bleeding hearts didn't hold other people's speech or opinions hostage with the threat of being labled offensive or worse.

Way to take away from real offensive issues.

"Holding people's speech hostage"? You are free to say whatever you want to say. Likewise, I am free to say whatever I want to say, including my opinions about what you said.

But 'll will be labled "offensive" or "cruel" by you. People are easily marked now as racist or sexist for the smallest comment, so yes, I agree it's like holding your tongue hostage.

Oh no!

Why do you care what I think?

Why do you care about what someone else says?.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, it was better when bleeding hearts didn't hold other people's speech or opinions hostage with the threat of being labled offensive or worse.

Way to take away from real offensive issues.

"Holding people's speech hostage"? You are free to say whatever you want to say. Likewise, I am free to say whatever I want to say, including my opinions about what you said.

But 'll will be labled "offensive" or "cruel" by you. People are easily marked now as racist or sexist for the smallest comment, so yes, I agree it's like holding your tongue hostage.

Oh no!

Why do you care what I think?

People like you are so aggravating. Do you have any friends? Non imaginary ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously? I mean it's a figure of speech. Its not meant to say that I haven't eaten in weeks, take pity on me. Why are people trying to say that it's offensive to those who go hungry.

Because it is. It's a figure of speech, AND it's offensive. Just as a rich person saying "I'm broke" is a figure of speech AND offensive.

+1000. It's just more proof of how privileged people are; not everyone was lucky enough to be born into your over privileged little world. Y'all need to check it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, it was better when bleeding hearts didn't hold other people's speech or opinions hostage with the threat of being labled offensive or worse.

Way to take away from real offensive issues.

"Holding people's speech hostage"? You are free to say whatever you want to say. Likewise, I am free to say whatever I want to say, including my opinions about what you said.

But 'll will be labled "offensive" or "cruel" by you. People are easily marked now as racist or sexist for the smallest comment, so yes, I agree it's like holding your tongue hostage.

Oh no!

Why do you care what I think?

People like you are so aggravating. Do you have any friends? Non imaginary ones.

Here is the argument.

1. People who take offense at non-offensive things are stupid.
2. I can't say non-offensive things lest those stupid people who take offense at non-offensive things take offense.

That doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously? I mean it's a figure of speech. Its not meant to say that I haven't eaten in weeks, take pity on me. Why are people trying to say that it's offensive to those who go hungry.

Because it is. It's a figure of speech, AND it's offensive. Just as a rich person saying "I'm broke" is a figure of speech AND offensive.

+1000. It's just more proof of how privileged people are; not everyone was lucky enough to be born into your over privileged little world. Y'all need to check it.

No. Neither of those are offensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously? I mean it's a figure of speech. Its not meant to say that I haven't eaten in weeks, take pity on me. Why are people trying to say that it's offensive to those who go hungry.

Because it is. It's a figure of speech, AND it's offensive. Just as a rich person saying "I'm broke" is a figure of speech AND offensive.

Poke a stick in your eye so that you have a real problem to worry about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously? I mean it's a figure of speech. Its not meant to say that I haven't eaten in weeks, take pity on me. Why are people trying to say that it's offensive to those who go hungry.

Because it is. It's a figure of speech, AND it's offensive. Just as a rich person saying "I'm broke" is a figure of speech AND offensive.

Do you have any awareness of how uncomfortable people with your mindset make others?

I don’t spend my time around people with the pp.’s mindset. Why would I want to be around someone who I had to “walk on eggshells” around when conversing? I suppose pp could find something offensive in pretty much anything I would say. No thanks.

And now you've offended chickens!

[Anonymous]

It's offensive to people who've starved. I never thought babies were cute because of their healthy baby fat, until I met an Ethiopian baby who'd been flown to the US and was literally, starving to death. She had no baby fat.

After walking out of the hospital the next time I saw a healthy, fat baby I cried. It changed how I interpret the word "starving" and I don't let my daughter say it anymore.

[Anonymous]

I mean, I probably wouldn't say it in front of a group of homeless people. But offensive? Not really.