If you accuse someone (not me) of having a small penis (I don't) they (not me) don't have to show that they (not me) have a large penis (like me). Just the accusation they made (to you, not me) is slander enough. But I'd gladly drop-trousers in a court.
conartist6 18 minutes ago [-]
I'm sure South Park had no idea about any of this
33 minutes ago [-]
brookst 52 minutes ago [-]
Sigh. Reductionist thinking again. Yes, of course, if you literally say “small penis” the plaintiff would rightfully cite this history.
But it’s not meant to be taken literally, like those are magic words. You say “he failed upwards, funded by family wealth and connections, despite everyone thinking he was an idiot who could barely string a sentence together”
The point is to emphasize, even exaggerate, low-status negative qualities.
genxy 36 minutes ago [-]
It isn't the size of your tort, it is how you use it.
Also, are men this easily manipulated?
Yes.
PaulHoule 7 minutes ago [-]
Where's @Cindy when you need her?
cindyllm 4 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
zephen 17 minutes ago [-]
Yes, I see you have produced a very small (re)tort, but arguably have used it well.
> A jury in New Mexico awarded $412 million to a man who sued over what he said were unnecessary erectile dysfunction shots that decimated his penis
On the one hand, now you're famous for having a dick that doesn't work, on the other hand, $412 million.
https://amp.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article296...
But it’s not meant to be taken literally, like those are magic words. You say “he failed upwards, funded by family wealth and connections, despite everyone thinking he was an idiot who could barely string a sentence together”
The point is to emphasize, even exaggerate, low-status negative qualities.
Also, are men this easily manipulated?
Yes.