So you really don’t believe someone can like something for themselves and not for how others see it? In my mind, that’s a sign of massive insecurity on your part, projecting that 100% of others think that much about what people think about their stuff, rather than just buying things they like.

Some people are definitely compensating, but you can buy a Porsche as a trust fund baby with something to prove, or as an engineer who is enthusiastic about design, performance, and guaranteed replacement parts for even discontinued models.

I think you’ve gotta worry a lot about what others think of you in order to assume that’s the only reason someone else would buy something.

Yeah coming off as a winning combo of unhinged, irrational, judgmental, and (not-so) subtly racist…

OP, you say you’ll refuse to wear a ring for your wedding… Not sure that’ll be a problem.

Lol they said “threatening violence” because it was the easiest thing to ban you with. The real reason you got banned is that you’re a psycho, man. You sound like you are saying you wish you were allowed to hurt or kill your own children, and you’re talking about them as property. That’s crazy person shit.

I have some obscure tastes and have been shocked by what I can find on soulseek

Nah just gonna laugh at this specific reaction a little bit.

I’m 99.99% with you on the sentiment, right up to particularly egregious (and not culturally or ethnically significant) haircuts. On that one, I may continue to do like only half of this woman’s hair, and throw a little shade.

0K

And seem to be real sensitive about it.

Lol alright. Gimme your worst.

I get where you’re coming from, but an intentional, statement haircut that you could easily change feels like it’s ok to make a statement about, while I never would about someone’s weight, height, etc.

If I posted a picture of myself and the hair was what people roasted me for, I’d be happy lol.

Yahoo was a massive failed effort, but it hardly even compares to that haircut.

There’s a big difference between “reflecting on him” and actually being the one to write the policy. I don’t see why the former is an issue.

Imagine what the best one could do

Ah yes. Characterizing an entire population by the acts of the most extreme. Always accurate.

“Canadians aren’t saints. They’re a conquesting and genocidal people who wiped out an entire population of natives and continue to marginalize those who are left.” And going by your argument, this means we shouldn’t feel too bad if any of them get assassinated?