I mean, I do my best not to kink shame!
Which makes me think ... if you're*, you know, really into getting shamed .... sucks to be you.
I suppose you could always just eat pineapple pizza in public?
*The universal you, not you, you.
Well ... That kinda depends on whether your kink is being shamed, or being kinkshamed, doesn't it?I mean, I do my best not to kink shame!
Which makes me think ... if you're*, you know, really into getting shamed .... sucks to be you.
I suppose you could always just eat pineapple pizza in public?
*The universal you, not you, you.
Apropos of nothing on EN except a review thread, genealogy searching just turned up that my GGGGG grandmother was a Sandman (Anna Catharina Sandman from Lohne, Vechta, Germany). I also didn't know that the name "Sandman" in regards to sleep was from German folklore.
Well ... That kinda depends on whether your kink is being shamed, or being kinkshamed, doesn't it?
little did prabe know that 83% of EnWorld totally got off to being pedant-shamed ... and that soon people would be making purposeful errors and at'ing prabe ....
"I don't agree that these people with different personalities, skills, language, and appearance actually have free will and are people, and I want to use them as always-killable mooks in my games. I don't think they're people, so they should be always killable. Also, it's just not the same when they get to choose to be evil (like bandits, cultists, or politicians) or are robots/undead/demons; them being alive people that are always evil makes it so much more satisfying to kill them."
How . . . how does someone not see the problem with that? Even if they're not intending to be malicious, seriously, how do they not see how uncomfortable that is? Even if it's justifiable in a fantasy setting . . . that doesn't mean it's a good solution, especially when there are other, just as good solutions to the Mook Problem™.