I made a post on Reddit a couple of years ago regarding this, and I got nasty backlash. "Why would you want to kill your husband, you f***ing freak?!" I got trolled by the same people who called me names when all I was doing was keeping the comeback train going.
Another person angrily replied "there was no sexual harassment involved, the woman was just starting an insult fight and you just quoted from Winston Churchill so she got what she deserved, learn to get some sense into you lol".
I asked for a comeback for "if you were my wife I'd drink your coffee" and I made into a justification of sexual harassment, a person who can't take no for an answer.
Now that I've got the description out of the way, here are the lines that I'd like for you to think of a good comeback for:
Woman: "if you were my husband, I'd poison your coffee"
Winston: "and if you were my wife, I'd drink it"
Your comeback: (insert here)
Here's another example:
Woman: "Winston, you're drunk"
Winston: "Thank you, Bessie, and you're ugly. At least I'll be sober, but you'll always be ugly"
Your comeback: (insert here)
No comments saying that you'll shut up or leave the conversation, those are weak moves and don't count. If you can't think of a good comeback, don't reply here.
Quote from: Nopejustnotinterested on January 02, 2024, 05:59:42 PMIf you can't think of a good comeback, don't reply here.
But you posted here.
Quote from: the_antithesis on January 02, 2024, 09:22:38 PMBut you posted here.
That doesn't change anything. You can't force anyone to not post what they like. No one is making you say something if you don't feel like it.
Which is funny because you chose to reply to me. If you can't handle my disclaimer, then that's on you.
Frankly I see no reason to "look" for a comeback. If one wanted to troll WC better expect a comeback. Those are all classic retorts. I love em.
Quote from: aitm on January 03, 2024, 08:18:44 AMFrankly I see no reason to "look" for a comeback. If one wanted to troll WC better expect a comeback. Those are all classic retorts. I love em.
Right... Because every woman and person of color who called out his bigotry are apparently the "trolls" and no one should DARE question his authority because of friggin course he HAS to be the king of comebacks despite how ignorant a lot of his quips are, lmao
If WC is the king of comebacks, then Elliott Rodger must be the prince of savagery.
Quote from: Nopejustnotinterested on January 02, 2024, 05:59:42 PMIf you can't think of a good comeback, don't reply here.
But you keep posting here.
Quote from: Nopejustnotinterested on January 03, 2024, 10:05:15 AMRight... Because every woman and person of color who called out his bigotry are apparently the "trolls" and no one should DARE question his authority because of friggin course he HAS to be the king of comebacks despite how ignorant a lot of his quips are, lmao
If WC is the king of comebacks, then Elliott Rodger must be the prince of savagery.
His retorts to being insulted do not seem to rise to the level of bigotry you wish to imply. Perhaps you have something with him walking into a room and insulting someone first?
Don Rickles was the king of insults! 🤣
Quote from: aitm on January 03, 2024, 03:00:40 PMHis retorts to being insulted do not seem to rise to the level of bigotry you wish to imply. Perhaps you have something with him walking into a room and insulting someone first?
Or perhaps you're only seeing HIS side of the story, and the people who worship, because history has been written favorably towards him? You can argue all you want that people in his time actually hate him but I would say that perhaps he's more being questioned rather than loathed.
If you somehow don't see the bigotry that WC has caused, it's best if you look up his history on white nationalism in sites such as the Guardian and the Independent.
The bigotry I see with these retorts are that the so-called people who are insulting first are WOMEN, never the men. It sounds like you and many others just tend to favor bias that places women as con manipulators and vipers.
You only assume the women are always wanting to get the first insult in because that's supposedly the nature of women, they apparently ALWAYS want to start fights just to toy with men, especially those in power.
You assume that the women are ALWAYS the ones wanting the start the fights because you believe that history was written in WC's favor. Which in itself fails to explain the perspective of the women in question.
In fact, there is little to no biography about these women therefore people assume these women are just manipulators and nothing but trolls and passive aggressive bullies because apparently that's how ALL women are.
With that history acknowledged, of course you're going to make biased assumptions because these scenarios are going to be edited out and reworded in WC's favor because back in the days, history was only strongly focused on and glorifying rich white men.
History in general has barely talked about its women and even lesser so about people of color because the media back then tends to believe that rich white men are superior to everyone else, and any persecution towards men is everyone else's fault but their own.
Speaking of the women in question, you tend to be biased towards figures you're familiar with so they are completely irrelevant to you and just mark them off as worthless and useless. But I will state that these women have a different story to tell and of course you won't believe them because how dare they question the authority of their time?!
But I will argue that WC is not a perfect man, far from it. I'm extremely skeptical of history in itself because it's been changed far too many times to be certain of it. And many, MANY voices of the time have been erased and discarded. So that's why you think these women are just trolls and make assumptions about them.
They are just a few of the MANY people in history that have been omitted out from discussion, and because you see them as useless you view them negatively. WC is not what you think of him to be.
And if you assume I'm just biased towards women, wrong, I'm also very skeptical towards Mother Teresa of all people because she is far from innocent as well.
You can get mad all you like at my point but you cannot keep me from remaining skeptical. I deeply respect the unheard, the people brushed under the rug, the people who have been harshly judged by icon worshippers.
You can think of these women as trolls all you like but I will argue that they have suffered from systemic misogyny and WC is secretly supporting it. So clearly you sound like you have a problem with women having their voice and expressing their concerns and because of the historians hatred of women who rebel against authority, they mark them as nothing but trolls and passive aggressive bullies because to them, that's the nature of all women.
Truth hurts.
So...in others words...you got squat. Got it. You might want to go play elsewhere. In this house you either back up your claims or sit down and shut the fuck up.
Re: the OP. They were sparing partners. Playing the dozens, neither too umbridge (sp?) or wanted to kill the other.
What the hell is wrong wid dis guy?
He is shit at comebacks, too. I gave him two and he didn't even recognize it.
This is his private rant board. We need more members like him.
"If Churchill was around today, imagine how good his tweets would have been."
Philomena Cunk