Topic: CLICK HERE IF YOU ARE A HIPSTER OLDBIE (Read 37840 times)

  • Avatar of Barack Obama
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 16, 2008
  • Posts: 5244
I'd like to imagine a giant red TRIGGER WARNING stamp on Nabokov's Lolita
  • Avatar of Vellfire
  • TV people want to leave
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Feb 13, 2004
  • Posts: 9602
lol like you know anything about me

I don't have to???  I never said you've never had traumatic experiences, but you saying "I'm not a fan of trigger warnings" pretty much means you don't need them because you'd probably like them if you did.
I love this hobby - stealing your mother's diary
BRRING! BRRING!
Hello!  It's me, Vellfire!  FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER! ... Bye!  CLICK!  @gidgetnomates
  • Avatar of Vellfire
  • TV people want to leave
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Feb 13, 2004
  • Posts: 9602
Let me just say that the people I know who do have rape-specific PTSD appreciate the hell out of trigger warnings, it can seriously help them get through the day sometimes when they don't have to worry that they're going to click on some link and suddenly have a graphic depiction of rape trigger them.  So just having you go "I don't like em!!!!" was incredibly shitty from that perspective.


e: like you didn't say anything similar to what fucked up wasteoid said you just basically went I DON'T LIKE TRIGGER WARNINGS THAT'S FOR TUMBLR without clarifying a single thing, how would you not expect someone to find that really stupid


e2: ughh i hate editin a post so many times but i rarely ever see anyone get furious over a lack of trigger warnings even, the only time i see anything like that is if someone goes "hey would you mind putting trigger warnings on stuff like this" and then the party in question says that's ridiculous and then there's a legit reason to be upset b/c the person who raised the complaint is basically having their experiences devalued over something that's SO damn easy to do, it takes no effort to just fuckin write "tw rape" on something
I love this hobby - stealing your mother's diary
BRRING! BRRING!
Hello!  It's me, Vellfire!  FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER! ... Bye!  CLICK!  @gidgetnomates
  • Avatar of Barack Obama
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 16, 2008
  • Posts: 5244
Yeah sometimes I'm pretty flippantly dismissive on the netz. Its a lighthearted jab I'm a nice people tho I promise, I'm not being mean Mr Un-PC. I wouldn't say this stuff if I wasn't pretty familiar with it and sometimes I'll give this stuff a lil mocking.

  • Avatar of Hundley
  • professional disappointment
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 24, 2002
  • Posts: 2426
Well, I think intent matters. But it's not an inexhaustible source. There are things that need to be taken into account—for example, if you're driving at 100 mph through the inner city and you end up killing someone who's crossing the street, you certainly did not intend to kill that person, but you did accept that such a thing could realistically be a consequence of your actions. Essentially, you cannot reasonably make the case that the possibility of such a thing happening never occurred to you. I think it's the same with comedians crossing into dark topics like rape, slurs, et cetera: you can drive at 100 mph through the inner city, and you might even reach your destination without any entrails getting stuck in your window washer, but it's a pretty big risk that you're taking, at the potential cost of people other than yourself, even if your intention is simply to be a wonderful person.
This, again, raises a lot of questions. At this point we're not even talking about works that are deliberately incendiary, but works that do so unintentionally. In such a scenario, how accountable is the artist for the END USER'S RESPONSE, when it was very clearly NOT the artist's intention to cause the response that the user had.

An outstanding example is the Werner Herzog film Stroszek. Most people agree that this is one of the best films of the 1970s, a really heart-wrenching piece about alienation, and how people just can't find a place in society. That's all nice, but it's a well-known fact that singer Ian Curtis from the band Joy Division watched this movie shortly before committing suicide. Considering Stroszek ends with the main character committing suicide, it doesn't take much consideration to identify a connection here.

NOTE: I should mention, for the sake of clarity, that, while Stroszek does feature a prominent suicide, it does so very impartially and without anything that I would consider a glamorization of it. It doesn't actually show the suicide itself, merely showing the title character hopping on a ski lift with a rifle in his hands, the suggestion of it coming afterward.

This is an extremely literal example of what you just said, and I would have a difficult time saying that this movie never should have happened because it potentially prompted a person to commit suicide, who in all likelihood may have committed suicide anyway. The analogy you make here is pretty good, but as it is rather far reaching, it does blame, rather directly, Werner Herzog of murder. I simply disagree with this. To me, intent and the maturity of the presentation play an immeasurable role in how much you can truly blame the artist for the real-life consequences of the work.

While I do not completely disagree with what you're trying to say here, and feel that an artist ought to be careful and considerate with their works, and invest due consideration in what may come from their creation, I have difficulty being completely sympathetic with people who misinterpret works that far beyond the intent and presentation of the creator.

Quote
You can make a pretty good case that this risk is unacceptable, and that any reasonable person should make the personal decision to avoid it for that reason.
Sure, you can make a good case, but not everyone is going to agree with this relative to their perception of the function of art. I would rather see a world filled with mildly-offended people than one with saccharine, offense-free art. Sometimes creative expression needs to be upsetting or offensive, and while I wholeheartedly agree with someone wishing to be cautious on these grounds, I simply do not have respect for a creative person who would avoid these risks on principle, when their works would call for them to otherwise take them there. Not to say I think they shouldn't be careful when they get there, but avoiding it all together is not a solution I would ever personally advocate.

Quote
Even then it could be a bad thing to do because it might trigger an episode for someone who's suffering from post-traumatic stress from having been raped or sexually abused in some fashion. And a pretty decent amount of women have been. The question then becomes if it's worth going out of your way to take that into account.
No. There are a wide variety of subjects that could provoke post-traumatic stress reactions in the audience. It's nearly impossible to make a mature work of creativity that accounts for every potential concept that could trigger such a negative reaction. The suggestion of cancer, just to name an example, is a subject that could be devastating to the wrong viewer at the wrong time. Akira Kurosawa was likely aware of this when he made Ikiru, but he elected to make it anyway, and it's as beautiful a film as could ever possibly exist. One oughtn't seek the life of a creative person if these obstacles are of concern to them.

I should mention, however, that I'm answering this question independent of RAPE, on the broad level as to whether or not an individual ought to take into account the possibility a viewer has a preexisting condition going into the work. On a literal level, I do do believe that rape is one of those areas where individuals need to be extraordinarily careful, to the point where I think most people probably aren't serious enough with creative expression to even go into it. So, in essence, my answer actually is YES, mainly because I think it is extraordinarily difficult to present rape tastefully and informatively, though I say this also for the reasons of artistic integrity and basic human decency, not specifically because of the impact it could have on people with painful experience in this area.

I could hold this to a couple other concepts as well, ones violent and prevalent enough for it to be common, but for the most part I do not think this is an issue that should truly weigh down any creative person. It's simply not practical.

Quote
You certainly would never intend for anyone to be taken out of their escapist entertainment and back into a deeply anxious and stressful situation, but if that is the result of your actions, the fact that you did not intend for it to happen makes little difference.
You're possibly talking to the wrong person here, as I personally see art less as an escape and more of a method of seeing the world through different eyes and better understanding it. For the most part, I think it's the responsibility of the individual to intelligently examine what it is they're about to use as their escape, and try to understand if this is something that would confront issues that they themselves are not prepared to confront. There's A LOT of really mindless, inoffensive stuff out there, and many easy methods to identify the content of works in question. I don't have a great deal of sympathy for people who wander in the wrong direction, find themselves upset by something a little bit more frank. If it is a personal necessity for someone to avoid anxious and stressful creative performances, and to use creative entertainments as an escape, it is medically negligent on their part to not do research beforehand.

I do want to stress here that this is most definitely my opinion, and not something I necessarily hold the rest of the world to. I've given up trying to decide whether or not my perception of the integrity of art is unhealthy, or simply just very strict, but it's where I've found myself, and I feel it's unrecognized enough of an opinion that I ought to share it. It's a little cold, sure, but I place a substantially higher value on free artistic expression, and what can ultimately be gained from that freedom, than I do protecting people from emotionally jarring experiences.



You will notice that I did not respond to the entirety of your message, and this is because I really do not fundamentally disagree with your concern, and these issues. This is something that must be considered in the process of developing a worthwhile creative presentation, that hopes to have some worth or function to the audience, be it in comedy or drama. The problem I see here, and I think it should be obvious by now, is that I don't see a radical distinction between this concept and some reasonably intrusive degree of censorship. The lines drawn here are too ambiguous, too subjective, to have any personal worth to me. Good taste and appropriate context is what this issue is fundamentally about, and this is not something that I feel two people could realistically agree wholly on, or even endeavor to define in some firm, clear way. It depends on a lot of chaotic factors, and as far as I'm concerned, that's really where this debate ends for me.

Lastly, I suppose it is worth mentioning that I do not distinguish these basic rules of creative expression between comedy and any other creative venture. While some of the foundations are somewhat different, comedy is just as much a form of artistic expression as anything else, and it otherwise seems disrespectful to the essential human function of humor to treat it otherwise. As I've said before, I do not expect anyone to agree with me, or particularly care if anyone agrees or disagrees with me, but as questions keep getting addressed to me, I feel I should respond with what I think is a valid viewpoint not being seriously articulated. It helps me come to more cohesive terms with how strongly I feel on these issues anyway.
  • Avatar of dada
  • VILLAIN
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrator
  • Joined: Dec 27, 2002
  • Posts: 5531
This, again, raises a lot of questions. At this point we're not even talking about works that are deliberately incendiary, but works that do so unintentionally. In such a scenario, how accountable is the artist for the END USER'S RESPONSE, when it was very clearly NOT the artist's intention to cause the response that the user had.
Just to keep us on the right track here right from the onset: someone driving through the inner city at 100mph clearly bears responsibility for any deaths he causes even if he does not intend them. It would certainly make a difference in his court case if he claimed that he fully intended to kill people, but even without that intention he'll still be held responsible. It's the same with a subject such as rape. If you're gonna go there, you can be the most wonderful guy in the world, and you're still going to end up most likely having an undesirable effect. At that point you can shrug your shoulders and say "well, whatever, I didn't mean it to come across that bad", but you certainly would have been aware of how loaded a subject is. You chose to enter that subject regardless of the obvious risks.

An outstanding example is the Werner Herzog film Stroszek. Most people agree that this is one of the best films of the 1970s, a really heart-wrenching piece about alienation, and how people just can't find a place in society. That's all nice, but it's a well-known fact that singer Ian Curtis from the band Joy Division watched this movie shortly before committing suicide. Considering Stroszek ends with the main character committing suicide, it doesn't take much consideration to identify a connection here.
Here we're sort of losing the point, and this is far from a literal example of what I said because this is outside of my intended scope. I am not arguing that literally everything that could be considered negative in any fashion should be off-limits. That's actually one of the most common misconceptions whenever an issue like this is raised, so when the Penny Arcade comic made a pretty distasteful rape joke and they were called out over it, they shot back by saying "but we also did comics about murder!"

But that's a false equivalence. Rape is a life-altering experience that more often than not causes PTSD or pathological depression. To get back to the more common point about cancer, let's say someone close to you died of the disease (and virtually everyone does). Does being told about cancer entail the chance of triggering an anxiety attack?
More importantly, cancer is not a disease that targets virtually only women, and cancer is not a disease that has the tacit support of a good part of society. Part of the problem is the fact that rape is virtually accepted, so when someone comes forward about her experiences she's usually denounced, told to stop dressing like a slut, told she's just trying to get money or attention, et cetera et cetera. Cancer is none of those things.

So when you decide to take on the topic of rape, you're doing it with the knowledge that it's not just some other unfortunate fact of life like cancer, but a deeply sexist problem that is perpetrated chiefly by men against women and carries a good deal of support from society. You may end up contributing to that very problem by its trivialization. And again, I don't think anyone can claim ignorance about that, much like how a driver can't claim ignorance about the risks of speeding through the inner city.

While I do not completely disagree with what you're trying to say here, and feel that an artist ought to be careful and considerate with their works, and invest due consideration in what may come from their creation, I have difficulty being completely sympathetic with people who misinterpret works that far beyond the intent and presentation of the creator.
If your joke ends up trivializing rape against your intentions, I don't think you can simply blame the audience and be done with it, particularly if you're a man, because this problem mostly affects women. So essentially even if you screw up, you won't live the consequences. And it's obvious that these kinds of jokes are virtually always destructive, because literally everywhere you look you find bad examples. You really have to dig very deep to find examples of them being done correctly and then also interpreted correctly, and I don't even think the Wanda Sykes bit is a particularly good example. Again, these are things you know before you start.

Sure, you can make a good case, but not everyone is going to agree with this relative to their perception of the function of art. I would rather see a world filled with mildly-offended people than one with saccharine, offense-free art.
Do you still believe that even given the knowledge that I wasn't talking about literally every mildly negative fact of life, but about specific and deeply unjust forms of oppression that are perpetrated by society?

No. There are a wide variety of subjects that could provoke post-traumatic stress reactions in the audience. It's nearly impossible to make a mature work of creativity that accounts for every potential concept that could trigger such a negative reaction. The suggestion of cancer, just to name an example, is a subject that could be devastating to the wrong viewer at the wrong time.
I think this is again a false equivalence. Cancer doesn't cause PTSD except maybe in the rarest case. Even if we take something that does, like serving in Vietnam, that's still not a form of condoned societal oppression like racism or misogyny that has the capability to get worse based on how people deal with it.

I should mention, however, that I'm answering this question independent of RAPE, on the broad level as to whether or not an individual ought to take into account the possibility a viewer has a preexisting condition going into the work. On a literal level, I do do believe that rape is one of those areas where individuals need to be extraordinarily careful, to the point where I think most people probably aren't serious enough with creative expression to even go into it. So, in essence, my answer actually is YES, mainly because I think it is extraordinarily difficult to present rape tastefully and informatively, though I say this also for the reasons of artistic integrity and basic human decency, not specifically because of the impact it could have on people with painful experience in this area.
Yeah, I don't think I was being entirely obvious when I wrote my last post. I was talking very specifically about rape and slurs. Not about cancer, or war, or murder, or violence, or suicide, or anything like any of those things. Those are inherently different things, and you're right that if we start making those off-limits, there's no end in sight. But that's not what I was talking about, or what anyone in society requests of their writers and comedians.

I can't respond to everything you wrote because I gotta run, but I think you've sort of gone off in the wrong direction here. Just to get back to where I began earlier in this topic, this is inherently about being nice. There are people out there who very specifically ask for us not to trivialize a deeply unjust phenomenon that society perpetrates on them, and you can either answer that call or ignore it. That doesn't happen for cancer or Vietnam or murder or violence or suicide or anything like that, aside from very rare exceptions. To equate rape with any of those things is to ignore the specificities that make it so deeply unjust.
  • Avatar of Hundley
  • professional disappointment
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 24, 2002
  • Posts: 2426
I'm not really sure what you're still reaching for in this subject, but I've more or less exhausted my interest in exploring it any further here, considering I've explained my stance that I believe these lines of acceptability in expression are too vague and subjective to be meaningful outside of a case-by-case examination. Certainly it is the duty of every creative person to not contribute negatively to existing societal problems, but I do not personally believe that specific fears ought to act as some larger deterrent in their work, outside of being a motivating factor to create something something generally productive and meaningful. I feel this way about rape, just as I do about murder, or racism, or suicide, or really any sort of relevant social issue. This is more or less what I have endeavored to convey here, and all I truly have interest in conveying at this point.
  • Avatar of dada
  • VILLAIN
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Administrator
  • Joined: Dec 27, 2002
  • Posts: 5531
I'm not really sure what you're still reaching for in this subject, but I've more or less exhausted my interest in exploring it any further here, considering I've explained my stance that I believe these lines of acceptability in expression are too vague and subjective to be meaningful outside of a case-by-case examination.
[...]
I feel this way about rape, just as I do about murder, or racism, or suicide, or really any sort of relevant social issue.

Well, I was talking very specifically about things that have some oppressive element, such as rape or slurs. Then you started talking about other things such as cancer, suicide. Those have nothing to do with what I or anyone else was talking about from the start, and there's a very fundamental and inherent difference between those things. As I explained, nobody is expecting you to never mention cancer, or never mention suicide, just in case someone in the audience had a bad experience with those things. Nor does anyone ever request that those sorts of subjects be off the table. These things are false equivalencies. No reasonable person would ever complain about Herzog's Stroszek, and the fact you brought it up says to me that you missed what I was trying to convey. So with that in mind, I find it a little weird that you'd say "I'm not sure what you're still reaching for" when I've just tried to explain exactly this in my previous post and am waiting for you to respond to it.

What I'm talking about, specifically, is things that have an inherently unjust and oppressive element such as rape culture, homophobia, racism, et cetera. If you want to ignore the pleas of people asking you to please not contribute to those things by way of improperly using them in entertainment, fine. But you should be honest about it, and not try to pass them off as "mildly offended people", as if it's a minor inconvenience of the easily offended people and they'll forget about in 10 minutes. These problems are very real, they run very deep, and they're kept alive in part by apathy on the part of the entertainment media which constantly reinforces them. To not make jokes that trivialize and perpetuate a deep societal form of oppression is not to create a "saccharine, offense-free" world. It's a minor inconvenience for you versus a serious aid to them. And again, this has nothing to do with mentioning cancer or suicide or Vietnam or anything of the sort—after all, there's no "murder culture", and the things I mentioned are fundamentally different. When a socially advantaged group flippantly mocks or trivializes the real life struggles of a disadvantaged group, it's not just a little gallows humor about a subject that affects everyone.

If you do choose to enter the subject of rape, you ought to fully realize how loaded the subject is, how people might react to it, and—crucially—that you're likely to do it in a counterproductive manner. Not that I consider you on par with Penny Arcade, but humor about rape that doesn't trivialize the matter is almost nonexistent. And another thing to realize is that you're not among the people who have to live with the consequences. That makes it a serious moral consideration, even if you believe you can go into these subjects in a purely productive way.
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Oct 29, 2012
  • Posts: 33
i just don't get how people can spend time defending jokes about rape/racist matters/sexist matters without feeling like horrible pieces of shit.
maybe i am Just Too Politically Correct.
  • Avatar of Hundley
  • professional disappointment
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 24, 2002
  • Posts: 2426
If you do choose to enter the subject of rape, you ought to fully realize how loaded the subject is, how people might react to it, and—crucially—that you're likely to do it in a counterproductive manner.
Thanks for the tip. This was totally not what I said in my completely irrelevant post:

Quote
On a literal level, I do do believe that rape is one of those areas where individuals need to be extraordinarily careful, to the point where I think most people probably aren't serious enough with creative expression to even go into it. So, in essence, my answer actually is YES, mainly because I think it is extraordinarily difficult to present rape tastefully and informatively, though I say this also for the reasons of artistic integrity and basic human decency, not specifically because of the impact it could have on people with painful experience in this area.
Apologies if I've reached a similar conclusion for slightly different reasons, but I don't specifically feel weighed down by the mild distinctions here.

The problem here seems to be that you simply care more about the issue than I do, and you find this unacceptable. I lump rape, and racism, and sexuality, and murder, and suicide, and capitalism, and corruption of identity, and loss of self, and the value of the individual, and an assortment of other concepts into this one giant mess of painful, counterproductive concepts that plague the world. These issues bother me to some degree, certainly, but not to the point where I find myself needing to bother people with some sort of inconsequential armchair activism over any of them. I could very easily take any one of these concepts and detail an extensive examination of how their depiction in the media is profoundly counter-productive, and directly damaging to the world. To me, one is no more important than the next, is harmful and socially degenerate in their own ways. I'm not afraid to admit that I feel this way, even if you disagree vehemently with it. I feel no shame because particular issues do not fill me with anger and disgust. I don't feel this way about the world anymore, and your suggestions have done absolutely nothing to make me miss these feelings.

You want an answer here, some conclusion, so here it is: I just don't really care anymore. Sure, I'd like to see the world fix itself right up, start behaving maturely, start actually including people rather than excluding them, try embracing what it is rather than to constantly try remaking itself into something it never could be. But I know this really isn't going to happen, that life will stay tough and oppressive, that the problems aren't really going to get better. It'd be nice if it would, nice to see people actually put some effort into behaving sensitively, nice to see a media that reflects the heart and soul of humanity. But I'm not convinced it will, and I'm lacking the energy necessary to keep that dream alive. So forgive me if I cannot muster your level of excitement over something like political correctness. Frankness, MATURE frankness, is the only thing that has any value to me anymore, and these two concepts aren't always on the best of terms.

If it helps justify your narrative on the matter, you can keep plastering the PRIVILEGED WHITE MALE label on me as explanation for this disconnect. That's perfectly fine. I'd hate to disrupt the curtain too much. But you're looking in the wrong place if you'd like an ally in your particular activism. I simply, purely, do not really care all that much.
  • Avatar of Hundley
  • professional disappointment
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 24, 2002
  • Posts: 2426
hey, what do you know? i actually said this at the outset:

Quote
the world is too irredeemable for me to muster up a whole lot of enthusiasm on these sorts of minor subjects.
should have just left it at that, as i didn't seriously expect to, or even really WANT TO persuade anyone to this way of thinking.
  • aye ess dee eff el cay jay ache
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 24, 2005
  • Posts: 5149
Gosh, reading through this was fun!

If you weren't embarrassed by your HUMAN STATUS 5 years ago you haven't grown enough. This goes for any field.

Also now I've lost what I tried to quote about Chef and his minecraft antics. That was cool. He built McDonalds signs everywhere and giant donald ducks iirc - but I wouldn't really consider the characters chef made to be trolling. Like BarneyRubble95 or the dude with the fursona of a turkey. It's just interesting characters and there wasn't really any level of malicious intent?
I USE Q'S INSTEQD OF Q'S
  • aye ess dee eff el cay jay ache
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Jun 24, 2005
  • Posts: 5149
IT WASN'T FUN TO READ THROUGH THIS.
I USE Q'S INSTEQD OF Q'S
  • Avatar of goldenratio
  • now das fresh
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Jun 27, 2002
  • Posts: 4550
Also now I've lost what I tried to quote about Chef and his minecraft antics. That was cool. He built McDonalds signs everywhere and giant donald ducks iirc - but I wouldn't really consider the characters chef made to be trolling. Like BarneyRubble95 or the dude with the fursona of a turkey. It's just interesting characters and there wasn't really any level of malicious intent?

Yeah I know what he did wasn't trolling, more like just roleplaying comically. But the term trolling nowadays has strayed so far from it's meaning, I always liked to imagine real trolling as just a form of roleplaying. Chef is just a roleplaying prankster, there's not really a better way to describe it, also I fully realize that using the term "troll" for what he does is actually insulting and I didn't mean it that way. Chef is a genius and masterprankster.
yes coulombs are "germaine", did you learn that word at talk like a dick school?
  • Avatar of crone_lover720
  • PEW PEW PEW
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2002
  • Posts: 5554
some of his stuff was kind of mean, yeah, he's said so himself. but stuff like barneyrubble, which I wasn't around for, and the minecraft guy were just funny/interesting characters and pranks
  • Avatar of goldenratio
  • now das fresh
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Jun 27, 2002
  • Posts: 4550
where is freddie wallacs
yes coulombs are "germaine", did you learn that word at talk like a dick school?
  • Avatar of Safari
  • "Member," lol
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: May 30, 2002
  • Posts: 43
Is it the happy mormon future yet?
Laugh it up, Fuzzball
  • Avatar of Belross
  • Dreamer
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Feb 10, 2002
  • Posts: 781
Man why is it that literally every topic ends up here?
0-------0
|Belross|
0-------0
  • Group: Member
  • Joined: Jan 22, 2013
  • Posts: 2
I just thought about this place tonight for the first time in quite a few years. I registered under the name Dylan about 10 years ago. I was having some nostalgia over it so I decided to come by again. I doubt anyone remembers me, but gamingw and RM2K was an awesome part of my early adolescence. I wish I could remember my old password or emal (no way in hell), but I wanted to do some browsing to job my memory. Does 'ramirez' or 'chocobo' (I think) still post here? My last avatar was a crazy rainbow plush dinosaur. I wish I could read over my old posts, I bet they're cringeworthy.
  • Avatar of crone_lover720
  • PEW PEW PEW
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Premium Member
  • Joined: Mar 25, 2002
  • Posts: 5554
while browsing, found
 
 
http://customize.org/foobar/skins/56622
 
Quote
Basically I used the Foobear skin....thanks to lassekongo83 :-) for this awesome skin.
 
dunno if they're still around at all but found it a lil surreal. like finding MisterBigT on every hentai board ever
Locked