it’s all about the origins. was the word invented/originally used to demean a group of people alongside their oppression? slur. was a word originally chosen to be used by a group and then gained negative connotations DUE TO being associated with that group? not a slur. huge difference.
Yes, when I heard slimy little brats saying “That’s so gay” they were taking a positive word to use as an insult, not using one that was never anything else.
I daresay the genderspecials who think they can “reclaim” queer were saying “you’re so gay” as an insult in the schoolground.
I read dumbass posts like these and it makes total sense that American is trying to reopen. You are all so, so fucking stupid it hurts.
i just know that this is about you moron trying to defend qu**r, so: you’re trying to make qu**r a normal world AFTER it became a slur. the insult part of it was being weird or abnormal. homosexuals started using gay BEFORE it became an insult. the insult part of it is being gay.
noah fence but that is NOT what a slur is. a slur isn’t using a word incorrectly, it’s a separate solely demeaning word.
someone negatively saying “wow you’re so mentally ill” doesn’t make “mentally ill” a slur, does it?
no problem! i dont think they were on air for a long time, so im sure there are a lot of people who dont know about ‘em!
hey, thanks for providing sources! i genuinely did not know these existed because i never saw these PSA’s
idk if this is a “i dont believe you” what or a “you mean there are people who havent seen these??” what but allow me to enlighten you
i havent watched this commercial in 10 years (which was also when it was posted) but yes i remember this playing on TV when i was younger
in fact, these were so culturally relevant that i distinctly remember watching a dane cook special where he had a bit about it (i think he also mentions rape so tw for that)
i grew up hearing gay be thrown left and right as a derogatory term, and its a small part of why i dont identify with the word.
if youre going to say that queer is a slur, then you have to mention that gay is used as one as well. otherwise, youre just spewing t///er/////f propaganda and im not about that bullshit
all these people who say gay was never a slur are too young to remember those psas that told you to say stupid instead of gay
crazy that the Kondo discourse is still rolling on, but I guess people care more about justifying their personal media consumption preferences than anything else.
I hate the entire concept of having to gaze at oneself as the type of person who buys X. Whether it’s a media product or any other type of product. It’s a cruel and psychologically destructive mindset imposed on us by advertising. This preposterous idea that a certain type of person buys X and not Y.
People all have to do this rhetorical jiu-jitsu to explain why they consumed X but they’re not the type of person you’d think consumes X.
And then you blend it with wokeness and it becomes this increasingly toxic horror show of madness and stacking levels of irony and self-awareness. God I hate it so much.
Advertising and marketing are a plague on humanity. Adbusters was right about everything. Fight me.
What’s up just a reminder that the Hula Girl stereotype can go to hell and is in part responsible for Hawai’i being the tourist destination and getting invaded by rich white people, and for Hawaiian culture being disrespected and appropriated
Here’s a few sources on the topic:
How America’s Obsession With Hula Girls Almost Wrecked Hawai’i (the site is weird but the research is legitimate, gives a good overview of the issue and references a lot of sources that are harder to get your hands on read: books)
“Pop” Goes Hawai’i: The Twentieth Century Origins of Tourism in Hawai’i and the Impact of U.S. Pop Culture on Women in the Islands of Aloha (this one is very long but a really good read)
Misperceptions of the “Hula Girl” (this one is a personal essay but it’s an entry in the University of Hawai’i’s academic newspaper)
Cool cool so its Asian and Pacific Islander Heritage Month so I’m gonna uh. reblog this
Also if you don’t have the time and/or energy to read through these articles lemme give you the basic breakdown (I’ll try to keep this short, but I’ll put it under the cut because it’ll probably still take up space)
Posts like this really show what libfem priorities are. They’re concerned about defeating toxic masculinity so that men can wear ugly pink clothes but when it comes to tackling toxic masculinity to defeat things like commodification of women and sexual violence, they suddenly switch off.
oMg hE wORe a PiNK hOOdiE yAsSs oUr QUEeN rEaLLy sAId fuCK tOxiC mAscULinItY gO ofF siS 👏👏👏
More “pink is for girls blue is for boys” bullshit
What do these people think toxic masculinity means?
“I was socially rejected because I like video games” no tyler, you were socially rejected because you turn every conversation you have into a competition and you call women “females”
The funniest part about unlikeable geek men is they really are fully convinced people don’t like them because of their hobbies. They cannot even begin to process the idea that comics and D&D and shit have in fact always been kinda cool and their personslities might just be repulsive. The combined unwavering ego/persecution complex is… unreal.
Sylvia Plath was right
“Being born a woman is an awful tragedy. Yes, my consuming desire to mingle with road crews, sailors and soldiers, bar room regulars—to be a part of a scene, anonymous, listening, recording —all is spoiled by the fact that I am a girl, a female always in danger of assault and battery. My consuming interest in men and their lives is often misconstrued as a desire to seduce them, or as an invitation to intimacy. Yet, God, I want to talk to everybody I can as deeply as I can. I want to be able to sleep in an open field, to travel west, to walk freely at night.”
Achievements of people born into excessive wealth mean nothing I’m sorry
it’s so interesting so many people keep repeating this same line of “it’s not like they could control where they were born”. and yet. absurdly rich folks do not take that into consideration when poor people need something they don’t immediately have. it’s always “well work for it! work for your food/water/shelter/health” there’s never any consideration to what life that poor person was born into even though they never had any control over it either. interesting how wealthy people feel comfortable playing that card.