Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Are -blam!- people too flamboyant?
  • Subject: Are -blam!- people too flamboyant?
Subject: Are -blam!- people too flamboyant?

Posted by: Great_Pretender
Case and point: don't worry about it. Girls start getting boobies pretty soon, and then you'll have plenty of other things to think about. Being an Inheritor is not a life goal.
-TGP-

Posted by: Seggi31
The chances that he was raised in a heteronormative culture are about the same as the chances that he was raised by people.
But I don't see where the evidence is coming from that shows where his annoyances originate from. I'm thoroughly confused at how y'all can be certain in your thinking.

  • 01.06.2013 3:47 AM PDT

Artes, Scientia, Veritas

Sapere Aude

"But I do not think we're invincible"


Posted by: Fleshjack

Posted by: NewRadical12
Secondly, in no way did I say or imply that flamboyancy was exclusive to one gender. When I state that the concept of flamboyancy and its negative connotations are sexist, it is because the concept calls certain actions by members of one sex normal while calling the same act in other sexes "famboyant." That is sexism.
When did I say that? ANYONE (do you know what anyone means?) that acts flamboyant would bother me. I am not implying that women can't be flamboyant which you are assuming so it seems you have some sexist assumption about who can and can't be flamboyant.
FJ, it's not sexist because I am the one explicitly rejecting the concept of flamboyancy. Believe it or not, I can talk about a concept that you are using without ascribing to it.

Secondly, I never implied that under your construct of flamboyancy women could not be "flamboyant." If you read closely, you will find that neither "man" nor "woman" appears in the post you quoted. Who's the one needlessly introducing sex specifics into his own constructs now? (Hint: it's you).

Thirdly, are you really going to say that you find this and this equally flamboyant? 'Cause I don't believe that for a second.

The whole point of your concept of flamboyancy, whether you want to admit it or not, is that good, God-fearing straight men should dress and act in a certain way, and that good, pure women should dress and act in other ways, and that breaking from these norms in certain ways can be considered flamboyant. In other words, I find it to be almost certain that in your concept of flamboyancy, certain actions done by a men, like wearing a dress, would be considered more flamboyant than if done by a woman. That is sexist.

Also, to be 100% clear (since this blatantly obvious fact has apparently eluded your otherwise impeccable powers of perception and reasoning), I am referring to how I understand your concept of flamboyancy to work. I in no way endorse or accept it.

  • 01.06.2013 3:53 AM PDT

Posted by: Baph117
This is an incredible step forward to being able to cure Downss sybndonre mn humans bineg.s

Posted by: Fleshjack
WHAT THE FRAK DOES FLAMBOYANCY HAVE TO DO WITH HOW I WAS RAISED? EXPLAIN THAT RIGHT NOW.

HINT: Saying that I was raised in a heteronormative environment doens't explain -blam!-


I wouldn't say that how you were raised is the critical thing (I was just addressing the other post), but that your idea of 'flamboyancy' and your rejection of it is rooted in a society that values traditional gender roles and behaviours, where deviation from those is considered wrong. If you need evidence of this, maybe you should consider why your example of flamboyancy (on the second page) is called 'Sassy -blam!- friend', where 'flamboyancy' redirects to on Wikipedia, or the implications of the fact that the term literally means 'flaming'. The rejection of flamboyancy in general, not just in your particular case, comes from heteronormativity.

  • 01.06.2013 4:14 AM PDT

If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friends.

The Flood Theory of Deterioration: q(p)=(qi)e^(-p/r)

Where q(p) is the quality of the thread as a function of p posts, (qi) is the inital quality of the first post, p is the amount of posts and r is the e-peen of the original poster.

Posted by: Fleshjack
Fun fact: flamboyancy can mean different things to different people. My interpretation of flamboyant knows no gender, sex, or orientation. If there is a different definition, well that isn't my fault because I have clearly explained that that isn't the one that I am using since I have said ad infinitum that flamboyancy (my concept of it) does not depend on gender/sex/orientation preconceptions so stop associating them.

Look none of the definitions have anything to do with -blam!-ity

So you dislike bright, dashing and boldly coloured things, elaborate style and things you consider to be striking or showy? Wow, do you ever sound boring.

  • 01.06.2013 4:34 AM PDT

Posted by: Baph117
This is an incredible step forward to being able to cure Downss sybndonre mn humans bineg.s

Posted by: Fleshjack
Fun fact: flamboyancy can mean different things to different people. My interpretation of flamboyant knows no gender, sex, or orientation. If there is a different definition, well that isn't my fault because I have clearly explained that that isn't the one that I am using since I have said ad infinitum that flamboyancy (my concept of it) does not depend on gender/sex/orientation preconceptions so stop associating them.


I didn't say that there was a different definition. The term, when applied to people's lifestyles and behaviours, is about deviancy of gender and -blam!-ity.

Posted by: Fleshjack
Look none of the definitions have anything to do with -blam!-ity


You should also note that none of them actually match any description or example of flamboyancy that you've given in this thread.

  • 01.06.2013 4:35 AM PDT

william

What about really butch -blam!- guys

  • 01.06.2013 4:37 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Fabled Mythic Member
  • gamertag: JFKES
  • user homepage:

"It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me"

- Batman

In answer to your question:

Some are, most aren't.

  • 01.06.2013 4:45 AM PDT

If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friends.

The Flood Theory of Deterioration: q(p)=(qi)e^(-p/r)

Where q(p) is the quality of the thread as a function of p posts, (qi) is the inital quality of the first post, p is the amount of posts and r is the e-peen of the original poster.

Posted by: Fleshjack
Look none of the definitions have anything to do with -blam!-ity

I would like to point out that though none of the definitions have anything to do with -blam!-ity, you have associated it with -blam!-ity in your title. So the definitions are pretty moot on that point.

[Edited on 01.06.2013 4:46 AM PST]

  • 01.06.2013 4:45 AM PDT

If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friends.

The Flood Theory of Deterioration: q(p)=(qi)e^(-p/r)

Where q(p) is the quality of the thread as a function of p posts, (qi) is the inital quality of the first post, p is the amount of posts and r is the e-peen of the original poster.

Posted by: Fleshjack
Posted by: Marinade
Posted by: Fleshjack
Look none of the definitions have anything to do with -blam!-ity

I would like to point out that though none of the definitions have anything to do with -blam!-ity, you have associated it with -blam!-ity in your title. So the definitions are pretty moot on that point.
I only made an observation that most tend to be however my definition does not necessitate it.

Actually most aren't. You just happen to notice the ones that are because, well, they're more noticeable. You don't notice the ones that aren't. In fact, you probably have no idea they even are.

Also, you dislike bright, dashing and boldly coloured things, elaborate style and things you consider to be striking or showy? Wow, do you ever sound boring.

  • 01.06.2013 4:53 AM PDT

Posted by: Baph117
This is an incredible step forward to being able to cure Downss sybndonre mn humans bineg.s

Posted by: Fleshjack
Not my interpretion which I have -blam!- have said ad infinitum.


I believe you've also said 'ad infinitum' that simply repeating something 'ad infinitum' doesn't make it true. You have a history of opposing LGBT rights issues and making comments that border on explicit homophobia, and now you're telling me that the word that is used almost exclusively in reference to -blam!- and gender deviancy when describing people's lifestyles does not contain any -blam!- or gender related connotations under 'your interpretation'. I'm sorry, but that is just too much.

No but it related. Some example of flamboyant clothing would be ornate and super colorful but that isn't the only attribute of flamboyancy.

Uhuh. What about the 'sassy -blam!- friend' is flamboyant?

[Edited on 01.06.2013 5:00 AM PST]

  • 01.06.2013 4:57 AM PDT

In memory of those fallen in the defense of Earth and her colonies.

March 3, 2553

Mkay.

  • 01.06.2013 5:22 AM PDT