caca fani caca zucchini hoinges

when the chongo bongo farfa berfe caca pepor cola abuela fly fritos pepor boingy garngob

omg where patty fral

it “ caca fani caca zucchini hoinges ” ham

by karby paty June 22, 2021

Hunk your hoinks

A Slang term for rape

I'm going to Hunk your hoinks

by Telemations December 31, 2021

What’s hoeing on

When you want to make a hoe pun so you replace the “go” in “going” with “hoe”

Haha fnuuy pun

What’s hoeing on biatch

by Superjuliam December 20, 2022

I'd be hohnered

Da reply dat you'd give when asked if you'd like to be da one to play a musical selection on da harmonica.

Da local choirmaster asked me if I'd like to perform a Johnny Puleo selection for da community concert on Saturday, and I told him dat I'd be hohnered to so do!

by QuacksO February 25, 2023

Argument Ad Structura-Actione-Hominem

A hybrid fallacy common in political debates online where the focus shifts simultaneously to the argument's structure, the arguer's actions, and the arguer's person—all while avoiding the actual content. The classic form: "You're proving the point of this post by your very response!" The move claims that the way someone argues (structure), what they do (action), or who they are (person) actually demonstrates the truth of the opposing position. It's a triple evasion—structure, action, and person all serve as distractions from content. The fallacy is particularly insidious because it feels clever—as if you've caught someone in a performative contradiction—but it still doesn't engage what they actually said.

"I critiqued a political post. Response: 'Your angry response just proves the post right!' That's Argument Ad Structura-Actione-Hominem—using my tone (action), my style (structure), and me (person) to dismiss my points without addressing them. Maybe I was angry; maybe my style was messy; maybe I'm flawed. None of that addresses whether my critique was valid. The move is clever evasion, not engagement."

by Abzugal February 28, 2026

Argumentum Ad Structura-Actione-Hominem

A hybrid fallacy common in political debates online where the focus shifts simultaneously to the argument's structure, the arguer's actions, and the arguer's person—all while avoiding the actual content. The classic form: "You're proving the point of this post by your very response!" The move claims that the way someone argues (structure), what they do (action), or who they are (person) actually demonstrates the truth of the opposing position. It's a triple evasion—structure, action, and person all serve as distractions from content. The fallacy is particularly insidious because it feels clever—as if you've caught someone in a performative contradiction—but it still doesn't engage what they actually said.

"I critiqued a political post. Response: 'Your angry response just proves the post right!' That's Argumentum Ad Structura-Actione-Hominem—using my tone (action), my style (structure), and me (person) to dismiss my points without addressing them. Maybe I was angry; maybe my style was messy; maybe I'm flawed. None of that addresses whether my critique was valid. The move is clever evasion, not engagement."

by Abzugal February 28, 2026

if you need to ask someone to do you a favor today then come right out with it and don’t worry that they might refuse. Chances are they have been hoping you will call on them to assist you and will help out with no questions asked

if you need to ask someone to do you a favor today then come right out with it and don’t worry that they might refuse. Chances are they have been hoping you will call on them to assist you and will help out with no questions asked

if you need to ask someone to do you a favor today then come right out with it and don’t worry that they might refuse. Chances are they have been hoping you will call on them to assist you and will help out with no questions asked

by TheGeneralGenitalsPranksterian May 15, 2025