0
4

[–] SeethingHatred 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

...and THAT is one of the thinner, more attractive ones. Just let that sink in for a minute.

0
5

[–] LottaBeetusJuice 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

AW: This is exactly what I'd expected.

0
6

[–] Boyakasha 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I initially thought she was working out and then I realized that's exhausted from simply existing as an obeast.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] EarthquakesAreScary 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I don't think I've ever seen anyone, man or woman, wearing one of those types of things who didn't look exactly like the stereotype. The lack of self awareness to not realize they're hurting their own cause by showing their inclusion in it is insane.

0
4

[–] Fatchilles 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I'm not a logician, I'm a mathematician. But they're close enough that I think I can help. There are a couple of ways to look at this, the easiest being the formal logical way and the set-theory way.

In formal logic, we are basically saying that it's not a biconditional (they don't always exist together, which is an if and only if statement). Let's call the statement p "is a 'feminist'", and call q "is a fat and ugly wxmyn". Then p implies q, meaning that if someone is a 'feminist', then that person is a fat and ugly wxmyn. However, it is not necessarily the case that q implies p; that is, there exists a fat and ugly wxmyn who is not a 'feminist'. Thus we have if p then q but not if q then p, so not p only if q. Thus we don't have p if and only if q. Much like water implies wet, but wet doesn't necessarily imply water.

In set theory, which I think is easier to understand, you have the set F of 'feminists', and the set W of fat and ugly wxmyns. Then for all f in F, f is also in W (because 'feminists' are fat, ugly wxmyn). However, if w is in W, then it is not necessarily in F, for the same reason that q implies p doesn't hold above. Thus we can say that F is a strict subset of W, i.e. F and W are not equal and W contains an element not in F.

EDIT: Realized that I didn't fully answer the question. The reason for the shirt is to mark the whale as a member of F rather than simply a member of W, which is a relevant distinction due to the relationship between F and W.

0
7

[–] Phillyshitlord 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

It looks like the kind of ham that's only single because of its "standards".

0
13

[–] DiabetoStinko 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago 

Because they demand the triple 666s

  • 6 feet tall
  • 6 figure income
  • 6 pack abs

Lol she looks like the night janitor at my office

0
2

[–] CognitiveDissident5 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

You made me laugh so much I swallowed some saliva down the wrong pipe and had a coughing fit.

0
8

[–] SeethingHatred 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

also 6+ inch dick.

It looks like something I left in the toilet bowl this morning.

0
9

[–] surprisecockfag 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

Like it needed that shirt to tell us it's a feminist.

0
11

[–] ScalarWhaler 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

TIL feminism is a cheap t-shirt stretched over fat!

0
2

[–] shitwink 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The sad thing (not for our eyes) is that it wasn't stretched. Hell, it was baggy. The sad thing is that clothing is made in sizes that look baggy on something as fat as this.

0
2

[–] ThisIsMyRealName 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Now you know!

0
3

[–] SummeGai 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

And knowing is half the battle.

0
11

[–] Deathstalker 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

Manufactured by women in sweat shops. Except they don't sweat like a pig sitting in an air conditioned airport.

0
14

[–] theepilepticferret 0 points 14 points (+14|-0) ago 

This is what a feminist looks like

Exactly what I expected

load more comments ▼ (1 remaining)