• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Offend me (and possibly others)

Status
Not open for further replies.
crazyrabbits said:
The worst/most offensive joke I can think of:

Q: What's funnier than a pile of dead babies?

A: The live one trying to crawl its way out from underneath them.
Click to expand...

That punchline wasn't very good.

How many babies does it take to paint a house?

Depends how hard you throw them.
 
I don't see how you can recognize something as being offensive without being offended by it. I almost feel like I'd have to be a little dead inside to dissociate the two things.
 
do9RLzO.gif
 
hipbabboom said:
I don't see how you can recognize something as being offensive without being offended by it. I almost feel like I'd have to be a little dead inside to dissociate the two things.
Click to expand...

Assuming this isn't one of your joke posts(it likely is), how is it so hard to get? Being aware someone might be offended by something, but not being offended yourself isn't that rare of a thing. The Sarah Silverman trans commercial comes to mind immediately.
 
GAF is one of the dumbest places on the internet to do a thread like this. Everyone's going to hold back from the hot button offensive things, and do tired dead baby jokes instead.
 
The only trap thread worse than this would be one entitled

"GAF, I'm sleeping with my teacher"


OT: I'm damned hard to offend, and I find sick twisted jokes funny as jokes. Where exactly is the limit supposed to be, I don't even know where the limit would be on jokes to share on GAF tbh, easier to just not go there.
 
mac said:
stephen-fry-on-being-offended.jpg
Click to expand...

I really can't help but laugh when people post this stupid image.

If I responded by calling Stephen Fry a fat faggot you would want me to be banned right?

Well why?

Nothing causes a ban faster than making stupid comments about transgendered or gay people and most gaffers - including myself - agree that this is generally a good thing.

Explain to me then the difference between being 'offended' by something and wanting a person to says says such a thing to be banished from your sphere of consumption.

It's super trendy to claim that people who dare take offence to horrible or ignorant shit are being ridiculous but a bit of introspection would reveal that we've all got limits when it comes to stuff that we'd rather not have to hear.

But please people, continue posting "jokes" about fucking dead children to prove how desensitised you are!
 
AShep said:
I really can't help but laugh when people post this stupid image.

If I responded by calling Stephen Fry a fat faggot you would want me to be banned right?

Well why?

Nothing causes a ban faster than making stupid comments about transgendered or gay people and most gaffers - including myself - agree that this is generally a good thing.

Explain to me then the difference between being 'offended' by something and wanting a person to says says such a thing to be banished from your sphere of consumption.

It's super trendy to claim that people who dare take offence to horrible or ignorant shit are being ridiculous but a bit of introspection would reveal that we've all got limits when it comes to stuff that we'd rather not have to hear.

But please people, continue posting "jokes" about fucking dead children to prove how desensitised you are!
Click to expand...
I remember that thread.
I wonder whatever happened to OttomanScribe.
 
White Man said:
I (no joke) have this fantasy/fixation on a scenario where I tie someone down and turn their elbow and knee joints into pulp using a hammer. Then I cut halfway into their femur (right about level with the groin) and see if I can't break through the rest of the femur just by using my body weight or with swings of the hammer. Sometimes I leave one leg intact because I like the idea of breaking the body's symmetry. The lower leg I typically leave alone, but I usually destroy the ankles in some way that does not use the hammer, like using clamps or a vice, or even going back to the saw.

Moving upward, I use the saw to cut in the spaces between the fingers on one hand. I saw down until I hit the carpals, then I use my hands to spread the fingers apart as far as possible. On the other hand I cut diagonally, leaving the thumb intact. I'm not quite sure why I do this because it's not particularly interesting. I forcefully press down on the ribs on one side of the chest to see if I can break them. In some less likely versions of the fantasy there are incisions made and the ribs are manipulated from there.

I leave the head alone for now and return to the lower body, except I turn the person over so I can work on the spine. I use the saw to expose the lower spine and then iteratively hit it with the hammer, between strikes checking the legs to see if there is still any response. Once there is no response, I do the same to the upper body. Once I'm sure that the rest of the body is completely paralyzed and incapable of further pain, I move onto the head. Doing the spine thing will ensure that all further pain felt by the head will be untainted by the pain going through the rest of the body. My plan with the head involves striking the jaw on one side of the head and dislocating it, and then doing the same with the other side. After that, I'd try kicking the now-loose jaw to see what happens, whether it will be removed entirely or just stretch or just send a bunch of teeth flying across the room. Then I'd pull the jaw down as far as I could, and put my foot in the mouth sideways, with my foot going horizontally into the mouth. I'd then press down as hard as I could to see what would happen. After this, I'd break the nose. Moving along, I'd shave the head and use a penknife to cut a pinhead-like grid into the skull, down to the bone. With an open palm, I'd rub over the squares to see if they'd rip off or what.

I'm not a killer, so after I got bored I'd dump the body in a deep drainage ditch along the side of the road, or maybe in the concrete island between two medians on the road.
Click to expand...
Disgusting post. I've reported it to the authorities.
 
Surface of Me said:
Assuming this isn't one of your joke posts(it likely is), how is it so hard to get? Being aware someone might be offended by something, but not being offended yourself isn't that rare of a thing. The Sarah Silverman trans commercial comes to mind immediately.
Click to expand...

I'm offended
because I don't make so many joke posts as to earn that reputation... just one or two post here and there to take the edge off
!

...but to address your points, I think the ability to disassociate understand something as being offensive without finding it offensive is more of a gradient than two discrete states and the two correlating ends are empathy and a lack thereof and its that lack of empathy that I find terribly wrong.

I remember being on GAF for the Silverman commercial. The way you present this example however makes me think you're implying that Silverman found the message she was trying to send offensive.

To be clear, presenting an offensive idea for examination which comedy does is not the same as a person expressly using offensive communication. With that distinction, going back to your example, I remember many posters saying "I understand how that could be offensive" even though they felt it was not. I'm not trying to dodge around semantics here in saying I feel that that's slightly different then what I'm trying to say. I think in that case, people believed the context was not offensive and you had to take it out of context for it to become offensive. What I'm saying however is that people who recognize something as offensive within context and are not offended by it lack empathy and is a sign of something very wrong.
 
hipbabboom said:
I'm offended
because I don't make so many joke posts as to earn that reputation... just one or two post here and there to take the edge off
!

...but to address your points, I think the ability to disassociate understand something as being offensive without finding it offensive is more of a gradient than two discrete states and the two correlating ends are empathy and a lack thereof and its that lack of empathy that I find terribly wrong.

I remember being on GAF for the Silverman commercial. The way you present this example however makes me think you're implying that Silverman found the message she was trying to send offensive.

To be clear, presenting an offensive idea for examination which comedy does is not the same as a person expressly using offensive communication. With that distinction, going back to your example, I remember many posters saying "I understand how that could be offensive" even though they felt it was not. I'm not trying to dodge around semantics here in saying I feel that that's slightly different then what I'm trying to say. I think in that case, people believed the context was not offensive and you had to take it out of context for it to become offensive. What I'm saying however is that people who recognize something as offensive within context and are not offended by it lack empathy and is a sign of something very wrong.
Click to expand...

I disagree, there is context within the presentation and there is context within the person viewing the presentation. No, I dont think Silverman thought she was being offensive, but I can still see how a trans person would. Empathy is taking the context of your life away and replacing it with the context of another. So I can agree it's offensive through one lens, but not through another. Also, I'm fairly thick skinned, however I do not expect the world and people around me to be as thick skinned. As others have said in here, I am numb to a lot of things. I can still realize others are not numb to those things.


I agree with you lack of empathy is very wrong, but empathy comes in a lot of forms and not all are as emotionally charged as others. Empathy should be taught in schools in America, would likely fix a lot of problems.
 
hipbabboom said:
I think the ability to disassociate understand something as being offensive without finding it offensive is more of a gradient than two discrete states and the two correlating ends are empathy and a lack thereof and its that lack of empathy that I find terribly wrong.

What I'm saying however is that people who recognize something as offensive within context and are not offended by it lack empathy and is a sign of something very wrong.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you got the idea that taking offense to something is more of a gradient than two discrete states.

If you are offended a teeny, tiny bit, you are offended.

If you are extremely offended to the point of rage, you are offended.

While there are degrees of being offended, they are all part of the state of "being offended".

If you are not in any way offended, you are in the state of "not being offended".

These are two discrete states, like nothing or something. You can have a little something or a lot of something, but they're both completely different from nothing.

So if somebody says they are not personally offended, then they are not offended.
Why would I be offended by something that has nothing to do with me? Am I just supposed to be offended as a person that one person would say something rude to another?

That seems like an extremely silly and unrealistic thing to get upset over - something that in no way affects me or anybody I care about. In that case I'd be in constant tears because tons of offensive things are said daily.

So, if I don't take any personal offense to something, there is really nothing weird about me being able to see that it could offend somebody it was directed to.

For instance "I hate you Jack Black - you are a shitty guitar player!" would probably be offensive to Jack Black, and maybe to people who like Jack Black, but I literally have no reason to be offended by this. I see how it could offend somebody (most likely Jack Black), but I'm not offended by it, and you'd have to be silly to call me a sociopath with no empathy because I'm not offended for Jack Black.
 
I'm only offended by the big bang theory (tv show)

oh and reddit and any website birthed from reddit's stupidity

nothing else
 
I have tons I could post, but I'm far too fucking scared to post it.

It appears my GAF assimilation process is complete.
 
Foaloal said:
I don't know where you got the idea that taking offense to something is more of a gradient than two discrete states.

If you are offended a teeny, tiny bit, you are offended.

If you are extremely offended to the point of rage, you are offended.

While there are degrees of being offended, they are all part of the state of "being offended".

If you are not in any way offended, you are in the state of "not being offended".

These are two discrete states, like nothing or something. You can have a little something or a lot of something, but they're both completely different from nothing.

So if somebody says they are not personally offended, then they are not offended.
Why would I be offended by something that has nothing to do with me? Am I just supposed to be offended as a person that one person would say something rude to another?

That seems like an extremely silly and unrealistic thing to get upset over - something that in no way affects me or anybody I care about. In that case I'd be in constant tears because tons of offensive things are said daily.

So, if I don't take any personal offense to something, there is really nothing weird about me being able to see that it could offend somebody it was directed to.

For instance "I hate you Jack Black - you are a shitty guitar player!" would probably be offensive to Jack Black, and maybe to people who like Jack Black, but I literally have no reason to be offended by this. I see how it could offend somebody (most likely Jack Black), but I'm not offended by it, and you'd have to be silly to call me a sociopath with no empathy because I'm not offended for Jack Black.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand me I believe. I'm saying the gradient exists between finding something offensive and understanding why its offensive. But when I type it out, I realize how that description is confusing. Let me express it a different way:

I Think being offended by something and understanding why something is offensive should align; I feel like once you understand why something is offensive then you have an ethical imperative to find that thing offensive. The further apart those two things are, I feel, correlates to an increasing lack of empathy.

It's hard to talk about the word "offensive" without it getting mired in its various use within an English language. To find the smell of an onion offensive and to find an idea offensive is ambiguous because everyone can agree that the smell of an onion is incidental but the value of an idea varies with its complexity and impact. I have a hard time describing what I mean by ideas but things like equality and human rights are some that are near and dear to my heart but once I gain more awareness about, environmental impact, I began to understand how dangerous some ideas were and now I have an understanding of those are offensive ideas.

As far as the idea of context, I totally understand Surface of Me's point on how there are multiple perspectives to context. Ultimately offense is relative because of this. I hope my clarification makes my reasoning more understandable even if we disagree.
 
I came up with an idea for a new take on Rock em Sock em Robots, instead of Robots they would be the Twin Towers from the World Trade Center. They would beat the shit out of each other with Airplanes instead of Boxing Gloves.

Probably get taken out of Toys R Us stores faster than Heisenberg's meth baggies.
 
White Man said:
I (no joke) have this fantasy/fixation on a scenario where I tie someone down and turn their elbow and knee joints into pulp using a hammer. Then I cut halfway into their femur (right about level with the groin) and see if I can't break through the rest of the femur just by using my body weight or with swings of the hammer. Sometimes I leave one leg intact because I like the idea of breaking the body's symmetry. The lower leg I typically leave alone, but I usually destroy the ankles in some way that does not use the hammer, like using clamps or a vice, or even going back to the saw.

Moving upward, I use the saw to cut in the spaces between the fingers on one hand. I saw down until I hit the carpals, then I use my hands to spread the fingers apart as far as possible. On the other hand I cut diagonally, leaving the thumb intact. I'm not quite sure why I do this because it's not particularly interesting. I forcefully press down on the ribs on one side of the chest to see if I can break them. In some less likely versions of the fantasy there are incisions made and the ribs are manipulated from there.

I leave the head alone for now and return to the lower body, except I turn the person over so I can work on the spine. I use the saw to expose the lower spine and then iteratively hit it with the hammer, between strikes checking the legs to see if there is still any response. Once there is no response, I do the same to the upper body. Once I'm sure that the rest of the body is completely paralyzed and incapable of further pain, I move onto the head. Doing the spine thing will ensure that all further pain felt by the head will be untainted by the pain going through the rest of the body. My plan with the head involves striking the jaw on one side of the head and dislocating it, and then doing the same with the other side. After that, I'd try kicking the now-loose jaw to see what happens, whether it will be removed entirely or just stretch or just send a bunch of teeth flying across the room. Then I'd pull the jaw down as far as I could, and put my foot in the mouth sideways, with my foot going horizontally into the mouth. I'd then press down as hard as I could to see what would happen. After this, I'd break the nose. Moving along, I'd shave the head and use a penknife to cut a pinhead-like grid into the skull, down to the bone. With an open palm, I'd rub over the squares to see if they'd rip off or what.

I'm not a killer, so after I got bored I'd dump the body in a deep drainage ditch along the side of the road, or maybe in the concrete island between two medians on the road.
Click to expand...


I'm more concerned than offended.
 
White Man said:
I (no joke) have this fantasy/fixation on a scenario where I tie someone down and turn their elbow and knee joints into pulp using a hammer. Then I cut halfway into their femur (right about level with the groin) and see if I can't break through the rest of the femur just by using my body weight or with swings of the hammer. Sometimes I leave one leg intact because I like the idea of breaking the body's symmetry. The lower leg I typically leave alone, but I usually destroy the ankles in some way that does not use the hammer, like using clamps or a vice, or even going back to the saw.

Moving upward, I use the saw to cut in the spaces between the fingers on one hand. I saw down until I hit the carpals, then I use my hands to spread the fingers apart as far as possible. On the other hand I cut diagonally, leaving the thumb intact. I'm not quite sure why I do this because it's not particularly interesting. I forcefully press down on the ribs on one side of the chest to see if I can break them. In some less likely versions of the fantasy there are incisions made and the ribs are manipulated from there.

I leave the head alone for now and return to the lower body, except I turn the person over so I can work on the spine. I use the saw to expose the lower spine and then iteratively hit it with the hammer, between strikes checking the legs to see if there is still any response. Once there is no response, I do the same to the upper body. Once I'm sure that the rest of the body is completely paralyzed and incapable of further pain, I move onto the head. Doing the spine thing will ensure that all further pain felt by the head will be untainted by the pain going through the rest of the body. My plan with the head involves striking the jaw on one side of the head and dislocating it, and then doing the same with the other side. After that, I'd try kicking the now-loose jaw to see what happens, whether it will be removed entirely or just stretch or just send a bunch of teeth flying across the room. Then I'd pull the jaw down as far as I could, and put my foot in the mouth sideways, with my foot going horizontally into the mouth. I'd then press down as hard as I could to see what would happen. After this, I'd break the nose. Moving along, I'd shave the head and use a penknife to cut a pinhead-like grid into the skull, down to the bone. With an open palm, I'd rub over the squares to see if they'd rip off or what.

I'm not a killer, so after I got bored I'd dump the body in a deep drainage ditch along the side of the road, or maybe in the concrete island between two medians on the road.
Click to expand...

Fuck you man!

Now I'm hungry for ribs and aroused!
 
Foaloal said:
I was going to say MillionDollarExtreme, but looks like their youtube account got banned somehow (given the nature of their material, not too surprising).
Click to expand...

Sam Hyde is hilarious. Their channel got deleted for a really dumb reason, but I can definitely link to some more offensive stuff of theirs.

For a video with some production, I'd try Officer Maggot

For one of Sam Hyde's ramblings, go with Tumbl this. That one definitely has some distasteful stuff in it, lol
 
Okay, I will now tell you the most horrible joke I have ever heard in my life...

A woman in the delivery room, surrounded by medical staff and the doctor in charge, is in heavy labour pain. It's her first child, so she didn't know exactly what to expect - this is definitely more than she anticipated, though. Her husband couldn't make it, which adds to the feeling of helplesness.

The doctor keeps telling her to push, push, push, yes I can see the head, just a bit more, we're already there, hang in there! One last time and.... there he is!

He delivers the baby and proceeds to cradle it like the father who couldn't be there that day. Then he grabs one of the little guy's legs, and... smashes him against the wall of the delivery room. Her mouth trembling, the mother looks at the doctor, her baby lying on the floor in a puddle of blood and back at the doctor, who leans over the little body and starts kicking it through the room. The mother, powerless, can't do anything but watch the tragedy unfold before her eyes.

Finally, the doctor picks the boy up, now little more than a red saggy lump of flesh. He looks at the mother, smiles and says:
Don't worry, he was already dead to begin with.
 
hipbabboom said:
I Think being offended by something and understanding why something is offensive should align; I feel like once you understand why something is offensive then you have an ethical imperative to find that thing offensive. The further apart those two things are, I feel, correlates to an increasing lack of empathy.
Click to expand...

I think I now understand your point, and how you could arrive at it, but I don't agree with it.

First of all, where does this "ethical imperative" come from? Does my act of getting offended about something that happened to somebody else make a positive difference in the world, or does it just make it so that one more person is less happy than they were earlier? I can't see how getting offended over something is in any way ethically right. By definition: offended-resentful or annoyed, typically as a result of a perceived insult. How could me getting resentful or annoyed in any way be a good thing? I think what would be a lot better for the world is if, instead of wasting time and energy on being offended, I instead stayed calm and simply took some sort of action to help the repressed group. Perhaps that could be donating, perhaps that could be writing a supportive comment, perhaps I take part in a protest, etc.
But being resentful or annoyed? Isn't that more likely to just lead to me saying something offensive back?

So, if we take this idea of an "ethical imperative" out, why should I find something offensive just because I understand why someone else would? Some people are uneducated, some people are ignorant, some people are crazy, some people are misguided, some people are easily offended, some people are faking offense for attention.

I understand why extremely religious parents took offense to the Harry Potter books. They are extremely devout in their beliefs, and take offense to anything that in any way contradicts or contrasts them.

But should I get offended at the Harry Potter books? No. In fact, I enjoyed reading them.

So you can see now that there has to be a subjective line on what we should get offended at, doesn't there?

Otherwise I would both simultaneously have to be offended at the Harry Potter books, and the people who were offended by the books, and the people who were offended that people were offended by those books, which now includes me, which means I'm offending myself.

So in the end it seems like it just comes back to what you personally find offensive. Perhaps you still disagree, in which case I guess I'll have to agree to disagree in advance.
 
injurai said:
Carr has never come close to offending me, I think it's because he sets it up. There is no risk in the offense that he attempts to make. I would be more offended at someone genuinely being mad at him.
Click to expand...

Well in one i saw he said to a kid that was with his parents "Would you fuck your dad to save your mum?" - i guess it would offend you if you were next to your mum and dad.
 
That Calvin and Hobbes tribute parody on clickhole earlier this year was fantastic...and also incredibly hard to watch. One should really be amused and offended simultaneously or the attempt wasn't successful. Plenty of people getting too pissed to catch the joke is a good sign, too, and that one definitely qualified.
 
White Man said:
I (no joke) have this fantasy/fixation on a scenario where I tie someone down and turn their elbow and knee joints into pulp using a hammer. Then I cut halfway into their femur (right about level with the groin) and see if I can't break through the rest of the femur just by using my body weight or with swings of the hammer. Sometimes I leave one leg intact because I like the idea of breaking the body's symmetry. The lower leg I typically leave alone, but I usually destroy the ankles in some way that does not use the hammer, like using clamps or a vice, or even going back to the saw.

Moving upward, I use the saw to cut in the spaces between the fingers on one hand. I saw down until I hit the carpals, then I use my hands to spread the fingers apart as far as possible. On the other hand I cut diagonally, leaving the thumb intact. I'm not quite sure why I do this because it's not particularly interesting. I forcefully press down on the ribs on one side of the chest to see if I can break them. In some less likely versions of the fantasy there are incisions made and the ribs are manipulated from there.

I leave the head alone for now and return to the lower body, except I turn the person over so I can work on the spine. I use the saw to expose the lower spine and then iteratively hit it with the hammer, between strikes checking the legs to see if there is still any response. Once there is no response, I do the same to the upper body. Once I'm sure that the rest of the body is completely paralyzed and incapable of further pain, I move onto the head. Doing the spine thing will ensure that all further pain felt by the head will be untainted by the pain going through the rest of the body. My plan with the head involves striking the jaw on one side of the head and dislocating it, and then doing the same with the other side. After that, I'd try kicking the now-loose jaw to see what happens, whether it will be removed entirely or just stretch or just send a bunch of teeth flying across the room. Then I'd pull the jaw down as far as I could, and put my foot in the mouth sideways, with my foot going horizontally into the mouth. I'd then press down as hard as I could to see what would happen. After this, I'd break the nose. Moving along, I'd shave the head and use a penknife to cut a pinhead-like grid into the skull, down to the bone. With an open palm, I'd rub over the squares to see if they'd rip off or what.

I'm not a killer, so after I got bored I'd dump the body in a deep drainage ditch along the side of the road, or maybe in the concrete island between two medians on the road.
Click to expand...

Keep going, I'm about to cum.
 
AShep said:
I really can't help but laugh when people post this stupid image.

If I responded by calling Stephen Fry a fat faggot you would want me to be banned right?

Well why?

Nothing causes a ban faster than making stupid comments about transgendered or gay people and most gaffers - including myself - agree that this is generally a good thing.

Explain to me then the difference between being 'offended' by something and wanting a person to says says such a thing to be banished from your sphere of consumption.

It's super trendy to claim that people who dare take offence to horrible or ignorant shit are being ridiculous but a bit of introspection would reveal that we've all got limits when it comes to stuff that we'd rather not have to hear.

But please people, continue posting "jokes" about fucking dead children to prove how desensitised you are!
Click to expand...

The point is the "you're being offended" is not a claim to not further be offended, nor is it a claim against the thing that is offending you. You have to pose actual arguments for your case. Being offended can certainly drive you're efforts.

But yeah the pissing contest of being more desensitized and edgy is unbecoming and a bit of cognitive dissonance.
 
White Man said:
I (no joke) have this fantasy/fixation on a scenario where I tie someone down and turn their elbow and knee joints into pulp using a hammer. Then I cut halfway into their femur (right about level with the groin) and see if I can't break through the rest of the femur just by using my body weight or with swings of the hammer. Sometimes I leave one leg intact because I like the idea of breaking the body's symmetry. The lower leg I typically leave alone, but I usually destroy the ankles in some way that does not use the hammer, like using clamps or a vice, or even going back to the saw.

Moving upward, I use the saw to cut in the spaces between the fingers on one hand. I saw down until I hit the carpals, then I use my hands to spread the fingers apart as far as possible. On the other hand I cut diagonally, leaving the thumb intact. I'm not quite sure why I do this because it's not particularly interesting. I forcefully press down on the ribs on one side of the chest to see if I can break them. In some less likely versions of the fantasy there are incisions made and the ribs are manipulated from there.

I leave the head alone for now and return to the lower body, except I turn the person over so I can work on the spine. I use the saw to expose the lower spine and then iteratively hit it with the hammer, between strikes checking the legs to see if there is still any response. Once there is no response, I do the same to the upper body. Once I'm sure that the rest of the body is completely paralyzed and incapable of further pain, I move onto the head. Doing the spine thing will ensure that all further pain felt by the head will be untainted by the pain going through the rest of the body. My plan with the head involves striking the jaw on one side of the head and dislocating it, and then doing the same with the other side. After that, I'd try kicking the now-loose jaw to see what happens, whether it will be removed entirely or just stretch or just send a bunch of teeth flying across the room. Then I'd pull the jaw down as far as I could, and put my foot in the mouth sideways, with my foot going horizontally into the mouth. I'd then press down as hard as I could to see what would happen. After this, I'd break the nose. Moving along, I'd shave the head and use a penknife to cut a pinhead-like grid into the skull, down to the bone. With an open palm, I'd rub over the squares to see if they'd rip off or what.

I'm not a killer, so after I got bored I'd dump the body in a deep drainage ditch along the side of the road, or maybe in the concrete island between two medians on the road.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to find something funny in this post but am failing to see it. This is really fucked up and not the kind of fantasy anyone should be putting out there joking or not. I'm not so much offended as I am bewildered why anyone would post something like this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A second Sphinx and a massive underground complex has possibly been located in Egypt
38
607
Brigandier replied
Give me your best Acid and Jungle
36
672
666 replied
GAF keeps asking me for security verification
5
193
Trilobit replied
4K Blu Ray Collectors Help Me
13
457
JimmyRustler replied
Other than gaming, what’s your other big hobby?
2
92
1K
xrnzaaas replied
Top Bottom