Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Pro Football Mock)   Johnny Manziel reacts via text to his loss of the Browns starting QB job   (profootballmock.com) divider line 65
    More: Amusing, Johnny Manziel, Browns, Brian Hoyer, Teddy Bridgewater  
•       •       •

5402 clicks; posted to Sports » on 21 Aug 2014 at 10:14 AM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



65 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-21 09:09:04 AM  
That actually was amusing.
 
2014-08-21 10:19:50 AM  
need one of a crying baby
 
2014-08-21 10:24:48 AM  
I can't believe we passed on Teddy Bridgewater for you.

TRU DAT.

dfwprosports.files.wordpress.com

/ sad Browns fan is sad
 
2014-08-21 10:35:33 AM  

kkinnison: need one of a crying baby


Glenn Beck?
 
2014-08-21 10:38:00 AM  
This reminds me, during the first NFL Fark thread, will Earguy get himself banned by posting pics of women that break the new Fark anti-misogony rules? No more women in bondage pics for a tied game?
 
2014-08-21 10:40:19 AM  
What's the story behind the Spiderman and Mr. Rodgers fingers? They both look real, but I can't imagine either one taking place. Are they just created by highly skilled designers/producers?

Also what is the one with the midget dwarf shorty guy with the eye patch in the prison from?

John Buck 41: That actually was amusing.


Man, I read your comment and looked at the article. Now I hold out hope that they'll have another funny post/article this year. Damn.
 
2014-08-21 10:43:18 AM  

skinink: This reminds me, during the first NFL Fark thread, will Earguy get himself banned by posting pics of women that break the new Fark anti-misogony rules? No more women in bondage pics for a tied game?


We asked for a grandfather clause for Earguy and Tied/commercial "distractions".  Not sure if it was granted.
 
2014-08-21 10:43:44 AM  

skrame: and Mr. Rodgers Rogers fingers?


Fixed for me, dangit. That was one of my favorite shows as a youth, but I've been corrupted by the NFL. Damn you, Packers!

skinink: This reminds me, during the first NFL Fark thread, will Earguy get himself banned by posting pics of women that break the new Fark anti-misogony rules? No more women in bondage pics for a tied game?


Maybe links are still kosher? Also, I don't think bondage is necessarily misogynous. A fetish doesn't imply hatred. Also, farkettes or guys preferring guys can offset those lady pics.
 
2014-08-21 10:44:27 AM  

skrame: What's the story behind the Spiderman and Mr. Rodgers fingers? They both look real, but I can't imagine either one taking place. Are they just created by highly skilled designers/producers?


The Mr. Rogers one is legit ... kinda. He was doing a "where is thumbkin" type song, and its just a gif of them doing the "here is tall-man" section of the song. The expressions are a little more goofy than the others throughout the song, I'd guess because he knew what it looked like and couldn't suppress a giggle.

http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/mrrogers.asp  (towards the bottom of the various Mr. Rogers was a _____ myths)
 
2014-08-21 10:48:51 AM  

skrame: What's the story behind the Spiderman and Mr. Rodgers fingers? They both look real, but I can't imagine either one taking place. Are they just created by highly skilled designers/producers?

Also what is the one with the midget dwarf shorty guy with the eye patch in the prison from?

John Buck 41: That actually was amusing.

Man, I read your comment and looked at the article. Now I hold out hope that they'll have another funny post/article this year. Damn.


Mister Rogers
 
2014-08-21 10:55:30 AM  
1) I'm glad they included Kenny Powers.

2) It needed Stone Cold Steve Austin flipping the bird.
 
2014-08-21 10:55:56 AM  

kkinnison: need one of a crying baby


The crying baby is implied in the first one.
 
2014-08-21 10:57:08 AM  

Victoly: skrame: What's the story behind the Spiderman and Mr. Rodgers fingers? They both look real, but I can't imagine either one taking place. Are they just created by highly skilled designers/producers?

Also what is the one with the midget dwarf shorty guy with the eye patch in the prison from?

John Buck 41: That actually was amusing.

Man, I read your comment and looked at the article. Now I hold out hope that they'll have another funny post/article this year. Damn.

Mister Rogers


I just spit Diet Mt. Dew all over my monitor.
 
2014-08-21 10:59:23 AM  
The amusing tag needs to be recalibrated
 
2014-08-21 11:03:46 AM  
As a rabid PFM hater, I gotta say that one was damn near amusing.

/ Lower standards.
 
2014-08-21 11:13:33 AM  

Victoly: skrame: What's the story behind the Spiderman and Mr. Rodgers fingers? They both look real, but I can't imagine either one taking place. Are they just created by highly skilled designers/producers?

Also what is the one with the midget dwarf shorty guy with the eye patch in the prison from?

John Buck 41: That actually was amusing.

Man, I read your comment and looked at the article. Now I hold out hope that they'll have another funny post/article this year. Damn.

Mister Rogers


That video needs to be preserved in the Library of Congress.
 
2014-08-21 11:21:15 AM  
That was pretty lame, IMO.  People get paid for this stuff?
 
2014-08-21 11:34:30 AM  
Oh, I get it.

That went on longer than a Family Guy bit.
 
2014-08-21 11:35:13 AM  

skinink: This reminds me, during the first NFL Fark thread, will Earguy get himself banned by posting pics of women that break the new Fark anti-misogony rules? No more women in bondage pics for a tied game?


Last time I checked, bondage is consentual between adults and by definition NOT misogenistic. However the hell it's spelled.
 
2014-08-21 11:43:26 AM  
skinink:   the new Fark anti-misogony rules

Are these posted somewhere?
 
2014-08-21 11:47:11 AM  

This Looks Fun: skinink:   the new Fark anti-misogony rules

Are these posted somewhere?


NM Found it.

http://www.fark.com/farq/posting/#Aside_from_.22not_safe_for_work.22 _p osts.2C_the_following_are_also_unacceptable:
 
2014-08-21 11:48:24 AM  

xaks: skinink: This reminds me, during the first NFL Fark thread, will Earguy get himself banned by posting pics of women that break the new Fark anti-misogony rules? No more women in bondage pics for a tied game?

Last time I checked, bondage is consentual between adults and by definition NOT misogenistic. However the hell it's spelled.


Seems like it would fall under "sexual objectification":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny
 
2014-08-21 11:53:20 AM  

skinink: This reminds me, during the first NFL Fark thread, will Earguy get himself banned by posting pics of women that break the new Fark anti-misogony rules? No more women in bondage pics for a tied game?


I -and this is just my own opinion- think he ought to link those, instead of posting them inline.

I appreciate the fact that he's doing the Lord's work, and the images he finds are amazing. At the same time, the NFL crowd here isn't 100% male, and I think everybody should feel welcome. I mean, let's put the shoe on the other foot- if there was a picture of some beefcake dude in a leather Speedo and ropes posted every time there was a tie game, what would the crowd's reaction be?

Sorry to threadjack, but I think it's a conversation that should be had prior to the season starting for real.
 
2014-08-21 11:59:18 AM  

abmoraz: skinink: This reminds me, during the first NFL Fark thread, will Earguy get himself banned by posting pics of women that break the new Fark anti-misogony rules? No more women in bondage pics for a tied game?

We asked for a grandfather clause for Earguy and Tied/commercial "distractions".  Not sure if it was granted.


as long as it is consensual there is not hing misogynistic about bondage
 
2014-08-21 12:00:05 PM  

abmoraz: skinink: This reminds me, during the first NFL Fark thread, will Earguy get himself banned by posting pics of women that break the new Fark anti-misogony rules? No more women in bondage pics for a tied game?

We asked for a grandfather clause for Earguy and Tied/commercial "distractions".  Not sure if it was granted.


As long as the nsfw ones are linked outside of fark we should be okay. And as long as no one refers to them as sluts and whores.
 
2014-08-21 12:07:19 PM  
skinink This reminds me, during the first NFL Fark thread, will Earguy get himself banned by posting pics of women that break the new Fark anti-misogony rules? No more women in bondage pics for a tied game?

Maybe they'll title IX it and demand equal pictures of half naked men. Knowing this place, we'd be getting pictures of every disgustingly obese porker on GIs.
 
2014-08-21 12:07:44 PM  
Surprised there wasn't one of Denis Leary doing the 'F*ck You' dance.
 
2014-08-21 12:09:38 PM  

Gonz: skinink: ...women in bondage pics for a tied game?

I -and this is just my own opinion- think he ought to link those, instead of posting them inline...


Second.
 
2014-08-21 12:18:11 PM  

skinink: This reminds me, during the first NFL Fark thread, will Earguy get himself banned by posting pics of women that break the new Fark anti-misogony rules? No more women in bondage pics for a tied game?


Is that misogyny or deep praise?
 
2014-08-21 12:23:46 PM  
What I think should be done is there should be one or more accounts used exclusively for posting pictures of women in NFL threads. The vast majority of the audience who approves can continue to approve. The rest can add said account to the ignore list and never be bothered.
 
2014-08-21 12:34:44 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: What I think should be done is there should be one or more accounts used exclusively for posting pictures of women in NFL threads. The vast majority of the audience who approves can continue to approve. The rest can add said account to the ignore list and never be bothered.


So have misogyny be the default setting and if people want respect for women make them work for it. Interesting.
 
2014-08-21 12:37:22 PM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: That was pretty lame, IMO.  People get paid for this stuff?


Yep! Every time someone clicks. You just got that guy paid.
 
2014-08-21 12:41:39 PM  

veedeevadeevoodee: I can't believe we passed on Teddy Bridgewater for you.

TRU DAT.

[dfwprosports.files.wordpress.com image 850x577]

/ sad Browns fan is sad


Manziel has looked a lot better than Teddy so far....   Does his middle finger really bother you that much that you are unable to fairly compare 2 men?
 
2014-08-21 12:51:24 PM  

This Looks Fun: xaks: skinink: This reminds me, during the first NFL Fark thread, will Earguy get himself banned by posting pics of women that break the new Fark anti-misogony rules? No more women in bondage pics for a tied game?

Last time I checked, bondage is consentual between adults and by definition NOT misogenistic. However the hell it's spelled.

Seems like it would fall under "sexual objectification":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny


I would disagree with that definition, personally. But an interesting read nonetheless, thanks.

Back on topic...fark Manziel. I hope Hoyer gets them to 10-6 and takes the division. Their defense is stout and the others are vulnerable. They'll have their hands full with Cinci though, who has a stud pass rush of their own.

The fans of Cleveland deserve another bout of success, it's been too long. Lets let schittsburgh suck for a while now.
 
2014-08-21 12:55:59 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Oh, I get it.

That went on longer than a Family Guy bit.


But not as long as a Dane Cook joke.
 
2014-08-21 01:00:03 PM  

This Looks Fun: HaywoodJablonski: What I think should be done is there should be one or more accounts used exclusively for posting pictures of women in NFL threads. The vast majority of the audience who approves can continue to approve. The rest can add said account to the ignore list and never be bothered.

So have misogyny be the default setting and if people want respect for women make them work for it. Interesting.


Really?

A) Fark doesn't have an opt-in setting, so your idea is ludicrous.

B) How does posting pictures of models performing their craft necessitate misogyny?

What is your position on censorship of the arts? Do you also think "adult" material should be kept off of broadcast TV? Burn books that have naughty words?
 
2014-08-21 01:15:25 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: B) How does posting pictures of models performing their craft necessitate misogyny?


Let me just answer this one, and perhaps it'll make more sense to you. It doesn't, in a vacuum. However, Fark threads don't exist in a vacuum.

You're here, and you participate in NFL threads. I've seen you. If, in every NFL thread, there were pictures of buff, oiled-up dudes in leather thongs, how would that make you feel? Nothing hardcore, nothing overtly sexual. Just good looking men, in various states of undress, occasionally kissing or rubbing up on other men?

I'm going to go ahead and guess that you probably wouldn't care for that. Now, the pictures in and of themselves are fine. Nothing discriminatory about them. They're just artistic shots of a human being in good physical condition. But, in the context of what else is going on, that sort of thing is out of place.

Now, some of my favorite NFL watchin' Farkers are women. Put yourself in their place. Just flip the genders of what I described above, and that is what they put up with in NFL threads.

If I wanted to see people in various states of undress, there are plenty of places on the internet where I could find that. When I'm here on a Sunday night, that's not what I'm looking for. I want to talk about the game, with other like-minded people. I want to make fun of bad quarterback play. I want to talk offensive philosophy. And I want the people I'm talking to to be as comfortable as I am.

If you need porn to watch football, pull it up in another tab. At best, it's got nothing to do with what's going on, and at worst, it's driving away people whose opinions I may find interesting. I should not have my conversation limited because you want to see tits.
 
2014-08-21 01:22:05 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: A) Fark doesn't have an opt-in setting, so your idea is ludicrous.


What idea?

How does posting pictures of models performing their craft necessitate misogyny?

As this topic is already quite the derailment, I'll try to be brief. Posting/looking at attractive models posing isn't in the general sense misogyny. However, using an unrelated topic (football) to justify posting them is very much like saying "hey we're all manly guys in here, look at this near-naked chick." If the topic was "bondage models" and not "football" I'd say that was a relevant and welcome addition. It's just like hanging a bikini calendar in your office. Unless your office is one to which bikinis are relevant to business, that's considered sexual harassment. Bikinis have nothing to do with cubicles and bondage has nothing to do with football. It creates an unwelcome atmosphere for people that like football but not bondage. <my $0.02/>

What is your position on censorship of the arts?

Not for it generally, but I also don't think everything people publish as art is actually artistic. Maybe I just don't "get" it.

Do you also think "adult" material should be kept off of broadcast TV?

It should be off the TV between 5am and 9pm.  While it isn't the FCCs job to parent my child, I don't want her to see a rape scene if she happens to be flipping from Disney to Nick. Jr.

Burn books that have naughty words?

No. That's a parenting issue.
 
2014-08-21 01:23:02 PM  

Gonz: HaywoodJablonski: B) How does posting pictures of models performing their craft necessitate misogyny?

Let me just answer this one, and perhaps it'll make more sense to you. It doesn't, in a vacuum. However, Fark threads don't exist in a vacuum.

You're here, and you participate in NFL threads. I've seen you. If, in every NFL thread, there were pictures of buff, oiled-up dudes in leather thongs, how would that make you feel? Nothing hardcore, nothing overtly sexual. Just good looking men, in various states of undress, occasionally kissing or rubbing up on other men?

I'm going to go ahead and guess that you probably wouldn't care for that. Now, the pictures in and of themselves are fine. Nothing discriminatory about them. They're just artistic shots of a human being in good physical condition. But, in the context of what else is going on, that sort of thing is out of place.

Now, some of my favorite NFL watchin' Farkers are women. Put yourself in their place. Just flip the genders of what I described above, and that is what they put up with in NFL threads.

If I wanted to see people in various states of undress, there are plenty of places on the internet where I could find that. When I'm here on a Sunday night, that's not what I'm looking for. I want to talk about the game, with other like-minded people. I want to make fun of bad quarterback play. I want to talk offensive philosophy. And I want the people I'm talking to to be as comfortable as I am.

If you need porn to watch football, pull it up in another tab. At best, it's got nothing to do with what's going on, and at worst, it's driving away people whose opinions I may find interesting. I should not have my conversation limited because you want to see tits.


What's your thoughts on brony pics in NFL threads and those who post them?

I'm capable of averting my eyes if those inclined to do so post pictures of men in the thread. And (I think) every brony is on my ignore list. There's lots of stuff I think is idiotic in the NFL threads but still I participate since it's a good way to keep tabs on all the action and have a few laughs (and other distractions).
 
2014-08-21 01:29:45 PM  
Man Fark is headed in a great direction.

/please, they're womyn because they don't need a man to define them, if you refuse to refer to them by the proper term I hope you get banned
 
2014-08-21 01:38:53 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: I'm capable of averting my eyes if those inclined to do so post pictures of men in the thread.


If your buddy invites you over to watch and discuss a football game and then you're at a buddy's house and he takes all of his clothes off to watch the game, you're most certainly capable of averting your eyes to avoid staring at his junk, but is it really the most comfortable way of watching the game? Everyone is capable of averting eyes/blocking/ignoring/disabling images, but all of that presupposes that the onus of avoiding that sort of thing is on the person who wants no part of it. Doesn't it just make more sense to have a football thread be football and be inclusive to everyone who just wants to be there for football?
 
2014-08-21 01:48:33 PM  

HaywoodJablonski: What's your thoughts on brony pics in NFL threads and those who post them?


I don't really get the appeal of that particular meme. I also think that's an apples-to-... not even oranges. It's an apples-to-coffee mug comparison. It's cartoon ponies, generally posted by Broncos fans. If Panthers fans started posting LOLcats en masse, I'd think it was a little strange, but whatever. Same idea.

Here's the difference, though. The Bronies aren't saying anything other than "here are some cartoons". To the best of my knowledge, no one's ever developed an eating disorder by trying to achieve the ideal body of a My Little Pony.

Maybe I just have a different perspective. Maybe it's because I've got a daughter, and I wouldn't want her to deal with that sort of crap. I just see it in the same vein as someone saying "tits or GTFO"- at a bare minimum, it's gotten old.
 
2014-08-21 01:51:32 PM  
This Looks Fun:

It should be off the TV between 5am and 9pm.  While it isn't the FCCs job to parent my child, I don't want her to see a rape scene if she happens to be flipping from Disney to Nick. Jr.

But that's what you are doing because you want TV censored during certain times because you are too lazy to use the parental controls on your TV or set top box.
 
2014-08-21 02:06:43 PM  

Bootysama: This Looks Fun: While it isn't the FCCs job to parent my child...

that's what you are doing ... because you are too lazy to use the parental controls


Yes. I am relying on the FCC to parent my child. I am most certainly not advocating to members of my preferred community that perhaps we could all be better people to more people and thus possibly make the world a better and safer place for her to grow up in. I suppose I'd be some sort of crazy helicopter parent if I also didn't want people having sex in the park that she plays at. You know, because a real parent would drive to the park first and make sure no one is having sex there and if she was playing there and they started having sex he would take his daughter home. Is it really so ridiculous to want child-friendly programming on widely accessible channels and football content in a football discussion?
 
2014-08-21 02:13:38 PM  

Gonz: HaywoodJablonski: What's your thoughts on brony pics in NFL threads and those who post them?

I don't really get the appeal of that particular meme. I also think that's an apples-to-... not even oranges. It's an apples-to-coffee mug comparison. It's cartoon ponies, generally posted by Broncos fans. If Panthers fans started posting LOLcats en masse, I'd think it was a little strange, but whatever. Same idea.

Here's the difference, though. The Bronies aren't saying anything other than "here are some cartoons". To the best of my knowledge, no one's ever developed an eating disorder by trying to achieve the ideal body of a My Little Pony.

Maybe I just have a different perspective. Maybe it's because I've got a daughter, and I wouldn't want her to deal with that sort of crap. I just see it in the same vein as someone saying "tits or GTFO"- at a bare minimum, it's gotten old.


Ok I have a daughter as well, and I want her to be able to become a fully-functioning woman someday. I don't think sheltering her from the real world is any way to do so. You expose her to it and have conversations about anything that troubles her.

What's funny/ironic/sad(?) about this whole debate is how a bunch of dudes are arguing about the best way to make the site more accessible without even asking them. The NFL threads in particular have many female participants, most of whom have dealt with the cheerleader pictures the entire time. And yet they return week after week. The threads have gotten more popular (not less) over time. If I were a female farker/lurker, I'd be insulted that they are incapable of looking at a picture of an attractive woman without feeling the need to binge and purge to reach this "feminine ideal."
 
2014-08-21 02:14:20 PM  

Gonz: Here's the difference, though. The Bronies aren't saying anything other than "here are some cartoons". To the best of my knowledge, no one's ever developed an eating disorder by trying to achieve the ideal body of a My Little Pony.


I developed an eating disorder from seeing all those attractive pictures in the thread.  I saw them and said "well fark, I'm never gonna get anything that looks like that, so I might as well eat and enjoy it."
 
2014-08-21 02:16:51 PM  

This Looks Fun: Is it really so ridiculous to want child-friendly programming on widely accessible channels and football content in a football discussion?


No more ridiculous than it is to have a censorship conversation in a thread about a Johnny Manziel satire of him posting dozens of pictures flipping the bird.
 
2014-08-21 02:20:06 PM  

abmoraz: This Looks Fun: Is it really so ridiculous to want child-friendly programming on widely accessible channels and football content in a football discussion?

No more ridiculous than it is to have a censorship of football thread content conversation in a thread about a Johnny Manziel, who is a football player, satire of him posting dozens of pictures flipping the bird.


Silly. You missed some words.
 
2014-08-21 02:24:06 PM  

skrame: What's the story behind the Spiderman and Mr. Rodgers fingers? They both look real, but I can't imagine either one taking place. Are they just created by highly skilled designers/producers?

Also what is the one with the midget dwarf shorty guy with the eye patch in the prison from?

John Buck 41: That actually was amusing.

Man, I read your comment and looked at the article. Now I hold out hope that they'll have another funny post/article this year. Damn.


The Spider-Man one was from Spider-Man 3 when he was being affected by the symbiote.

Not sure where the Peter Dinklage one is from
 
2014-08-21 02:42:17 PM  

RoyFokker'sGhost: skrame: What's the story behind the Spiderman and Mr. Rodgers fingers? They both look real, but I can't imagine either one taking place. Are they just created by highly skilled designers/producers?

Also what is the one with the midget dwarf shorty guy with the eye patch in the prison from?

John Buck 41: That actually was amusing.

Man, I read your comment and looked at the article. Now I hold out hope that they'll have another funny post/article this year. Damn.

The Spider-Man one was from Spider-Man 3 when he was being affected by the symbiote.

Not sure where the Peter Dinklage one is from


is it just me or does he look a lot like billy quizboy?
 
Displayed 50 of 65 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report