Calling someone brown-eyed would be an insult because you’re mocking a specific characteristic of a person. The terms cocksucker or dickriding aren’t intended to mock anybody or any group. They’re metaphors to describe behaviour.
How is it an insult? There’s nothing wrong with being brown-eyed, whatsoever. If you’re linking it to actions, would you call someone “tennis-playing” as an insult?
It’s an insult if you intend it to be. In a vacuum, calling someone tennis-playing wouldn’t necessarily qualify as an insult, but context specific instances might make it one.
Also, since you said there’s nothing wrong with being brown-eyed, there’s similarly nothing wrong with being a dicksucker or a dickrider. It only becomes an insult if you’re trying to ridicule someone on the basis of that
Yes, calling someone brown-eyed or tennis-playing are not used as pejoratives, but using terms like “dicksucker” and “dickrider” are. Rather than using perfectly good insults like “sycophant,” those previous terms are used to draw on societal shame towards marginalized groups. Calling people “r-worded” was phased out for similar reasons, it throws marginalized communities under the bus as an insult, especially because those called “dickriders” are not literally having sex with the other party. This is very cut and dry.
Brother it’s called culture shift. Language changes. You’re making a declarative statement without providing justification for it. Also, you’re gonna have to show some evidence from where you got this narrative that the terms ‘dickriding’ and ‘dicksucking’ were originally used to shame homosexuals and women.
Furthermore, this is a sentiment I’ve seen paraded only by YOU. Things like the ‘r-word’ or ‘n-word’ are at least popularly agreed upon ‘no-no’s’ so that’s also saying something about this idea of yours
I did provide justification for it, it’s an insult almost always levied against straight men acting as sycophants for other straight men. Neither of them are having sex with each other, it’s meant to make the submission especially shameful by drawing on the societal disgust towards gay men and straight/bi women. Socially, it has always been an insult to outright call straight men “gay” or the f-slur, because the shame and hatred for queer folk is built-in. This just extends that to the act of submission.
Secondly, I by no means made up this analysis, it’s existed for a long time (as did analysis of the r-word before it became accepted as ableist by the general population). Here’s some example articles/threads/etc:
The list goes on. It isn’t a culture shift, it’s still a pejorative that is only insulting if you think the act itself is shameful or bad, and it’s nearly always used against straight men.
Here’s a comment from one of the threads you posted:
Who gives a fuck, it’s an insult, people don’t throw out insults with a deep dark plan in mind, they do it to piss someone off at being called something.
I’ve called someone a cunt, does that mean I think vaginas are the ultimate insult? Am i deeply woman hating? No, of course not, I was mad at someone being a cunt, so I called them a cunt.
Stop reading into things, and ignore the people in this thread that think you can imply/infer deeper meanings from the surface language people use.
About sums up how i feel about this issue. Most people using the word aren’t intending to insult homosexuals. You and everyone that takes offence with this should go outside.
If i say someone is ‘riding d’ I don’t give a fuck who or who doesn’t do it. I’m alluding to a specific action using a metaphor. It’s basic literature. Stop getting offended by everything.
Also i don’t see the point of the first article you linked
Ah yes, telling a pansexual man that he needs to go outside because I recognize the way problematic language you personally are a fan of using works. Excellent strategy there. By your line of logic, we should keep using the r-slur, racial slurs, etc, if it weren’t for the fact that people already successfully pointed out the same things queer people and feminists have been pointing out about words like “dicksucker.”
Rather than telling people not to be offended by homophobic language you enjoy, you should be capable of self-critique and learn to be a bigger person. There are good reasons we no longer call people the r-word, or f-slur, and these same reasons apply to calling people “dicksuckers.” You aren’t referring to the literal actions, but likening real submissive actions to gay sex as a means to make the submissive actions more shameful. Your intent does not matter when it comes to the messages your words actually convey.
As for the article, it’s Lemmy.ml’s slur filter, you can replace the removed part with “c-sucker” spelled out.
By your line of logic, we should keep using the r-slur, racial slurs, etc
Yes i actually believe this. I’m an absolutist when it comes to this stuff, and i don’t apply this thinking in isolated instances. I have no qualms with a non-black person using the n-word—and i say this as a black person myself. Obviously, this is a fringe opinion, but it is what it is.
Rather than telling people not to be offended by homophobic language you enjoy
Why do you still follow this line of thinking? It’s not that people are offended by homophobic language, it’s that you’re looking for homophobia where there is none. That’s what i take issue with.
You aren’t referring to the literal actions, but likening real submissive actions to gay sex as a means to make the submissive actions more shameful
Refer to the quote linked above and whether you think calling someone a cunt all of a sudden makes me misogynist because it’s also a vulgar synonym for vagina
Calling someone brown-eyed would be an insult because you’re mocking a specific characteristic of a person. The terms cocksucker or dickriding aren’t intended to mock anybody or any group. They’re metaphors to describe behaviour.
How is it an insult? There’s nothing wrong with being brown-eyed, whatsoever. If you’re linking it to actions, would you call someone “tennis-playing” as an insult?
It’s an insult if you intend it to be. In a vacuum, calling someone tennis-playing wouldn’t necessarily qualify as an insult, but context specific instances might make it one.
Also, since you said there’s nothing wrong with being brown-eyed, there’s similarly nothing wrong with being a dicksucker or a dickrider. It only becomes an insult if you’re trying to ridicule someone on the basis of that
Yes, calling someone brown-eyed or tennis-playing are not used as pejoratives, but using terms like “dicksucker” and “dickrider” are. Rather than using perfectly good insults like “sycophant,” those previous terms are used to draw on societal shame towards marginalized groups. Calling people “r-worded” was phased out for similar reasons, it throws marginalized communities under the bus as an insult, especially because those called “dickriders” are not literally having sex with the other party. This is very cut and dry.
Brother it’s called culture shift. Language changes. You’re making a declarative statement without providing justification for it. Also, you’re gonna have to show some evidence from where you got this narrative that the terms ‘dickriding’ and ‘dicksucking’ were originally used to shame homosexuals and women.
Furthermore, this is a sentiment I’ve seen paraded only by YOU. Things like the ‘r-word’ or ‘n-word’ are at least popularly agreed upon ‘no-no’s’ so that’s also saying something about this idea of yours
I did provide justification for it, it’s an insult almost always levied against straight men acting as sycophants for other straight men. Neither of them are having sex with each other, it’s meant to make the submission especially shameful by drawing on the societal disgust towards gay men and straight/bi women. Socially, it has always been an insult to outright call straight men “gay” or the f-slur, because the shame and hatred for queer folk is built-in. This just extends that to the act of submission.
Secondly, I by no means made up this analysis, it’s existed for a long time (as did analysis of the r-word before it became accepted as ableist by the general population). Here’s some example articles/threads/etc:
https://www.thegayuk.com/is-*removed*-a-homophobic-insult/
https://www.reddit.com/r/askgaybros/comments/79o250/is_calling_someone_a_*removed*_homophobic/
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskGayMen/comments/i0mwsv/is_saying_*removed*_as_an_insult_homophobic/
https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/sfnbvp/how_is_saying_someone_sucks_dick_not_considered/
https://medium.com/@thedrick/casual-homophobia-f238d31dc41e
The list goes on. It isn’t a culture shift, it’s still a pejorative that is only insulting if you think the act itself is shameful or bad, and it’s nearly always used against straight men.
Here’s a comment from one of the threads you posted:
About sums up how i feel about this issue. Most people using the word aren’t intending to insult homosexuals. You and everyone that takes offence with this should go outside.
If i say someone is ‘riding d’ I don’t give a fuck who or who doesn’t do it. I’m alluding to a specific action using a metaphor. It’s basic literature. Stop getting offended by everything.
Also i don’t see the point of the first article you linked
Ah yes, telling a pansexual man that he needs to go outside because I recognize the way problematic language you personally are a fan of using works. Excellent strategy there. By your line of logic, we should keep using the r-slur, racial slurs, etc, if it weren’t for the fact that people already successfully pointed out the same things queer people and feminists have been pointing out about words like “dicksucker.”
Rather than telling people not to be offended by homophobic language you enjoy, you should be capable of self-critique and learn to be a bigger person. There are good reasons we no longer call people the r-word, or f-slur, and these same reasons apply to calling people “dicksuckers.” You aren’t referring to the literal actions, but likening real submissive actions to gay sex as a means to make the submissive actions more shameful. Your intent does not matter when it comes to the messages your words actually convey.
As for the article, it’s Lemmy.ml’s slur filter, you can replace the removed part with “c-sucker” spelled out.
Yes i actually believe this. I’m an absolutist when it comes to this stuff, and i don’t apply this thinking in isolated instances. I have no qualms with a non-black person using the n-word—and i say this as a black person myself. Obviously, this is a fringe opinion, but it is what it is.
Why do you still follow this line of thinking? It’s not that people are offended by homophobic language, it’s that you’re looking for homophobia where there is none. That’s what i take issue with.
Refer to the quote linked above and whether you think calling someone a cunt all of a sudden makes me misogynist because it’s also a vulgar synonym for vagina