XPost: alt.tv.game-shows, alt.tv.game-shows.price-is-right
On 4/1/2025 12:55 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 31, 2025 at 2:54:50 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 5:01 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 31, 2025 at 12:25:27 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/31/2025 1:22 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 31, 2025 at 9:16:57 AM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 3/30/2025 11:30 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 30, 2025 at 7:48:51 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/30/2025 7:00 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 30, 2025 at 3:19:48 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/30/2025 5:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 30, 2025 at 2:05:26 PM PDT, "moviePig" <[email protected]>
wrote:
On 3/30/2025 3:06 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Mar 30, 2025 at 1:31:02 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" >>>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]>
wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tAntcKymE4 >>>>>>>>>>>>>
That just screams Bud Light, doesn't it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think I'll never understand how anyone could watch that and
argue that
effeminate homosexuality is a *choice*.
Making that the face of your brand, however, *is* a choice.
KNIGHT TEMPLAR: They chose... poorly.
I didn't follow the Bud Light gay saga, but a youTube video suggests
that the company did no more than express "welcome" to the LGBTQ
beer-drinking community. If that's a fair characterization, >>>>>>>>>> then their
subsequent sales-drop seems surprisingly homophobic. >>>>>>>>>
Or maybe, instead of branding everyone who doesn't like that >>>>>>>>> lifestyle as
irrationally afraid of it, you could just recognize that people
found it
distasteful and voted with their wallets.
Contrary to what all the "phobe"-labelers want you to believe, it is
possible
to merely dislike a thing without being irrationally afraid of that
thing.
For
example, I don't much like broccoli but that doesn't mean I'm >>>>>>>>> afraid of
it.
I'm not broccoli-phobic.
I think you'll find that most all definitions of 'phobic' and >>>>>>>> 'homophobic' denote not only 'fear of' but also 'aversion to'. >>>>>>>
I think you'll find that they also include 'irrational' in those >>>>>>> definitions.
Google's top offering:
adjective: homophobic
having or showing a dislike of or prejudice against gay people.
"homophobic remarks"
Or we could go with something that's actually authoritative: the DSM-5-TR
(Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)
"A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder characterized by a marked, >>>>> persistent,
and irrational fear of a specific object, situation, or activity that is
generally considered excessive or unreasonable relative to the actual >>>>> danger
posed."
Now look up 'homophobic'. When *does* common usage enter your language? >>>
If people are trying to denigrate me, they better at least us the words >>> correctly.
When *does* common usage become your correct usage?
The fact that a lot of people are stupid does not impose upon me a requirement
to join in with the dumb-assery.
Most of us, at some point, accede to society's ever-changing vocabulary.
And, when did this become about denigrating *you* or anyone else?
LOL! There's moviePig, playing cute again, pretending he doesn't know how the Left wields its accusation of "--phobes" and "--ists" as weapons.
No, I *don't* know what "the Left" does. In this instance, I know only
that 'homophobic' has come to be understood as strongly 'anti-gay'
...which is how I used it. I trust no one was injured...
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)