Ahh yes, the famous humanitarian Nicolas Maduro

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

I don’t feed trolls

Ahh yes, because yours is also correct…

Check your irony buddy

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Cites biased leftist sources for info:

Maybe that’s cuz he IS a fucking dictator?

Same old same old

Funny how self-proclaimed “Marxists” don’t seem to know how to reason properly. That’s the paradox of the ml instance

Huh? What you did there was clearly a motivated insult. What the fuck is your point here

Slurs are a social construct. They don’t exist without human meaning. I don’t support harmful language. Slurs just don’t exist in the same way gender doesn’t

Slurs are socially constructed; opposing its use affirms its existence. I’m saying there’s no point in opposing it because that’s not how you get actual social change! The slur use exists insofar as oppression exists. The slur CAN’T exist without oppression. What you’re promoting is literal idealism that Engels critiqued.

there’s a large difference between marginalized groups disempowering the word and non-marginalized groups perpetuating its power.

There is something deeply racist about the idea that the only thing a white person can do by choosing to disregard a social construct is perpetuate oppression—and further that there be no nuance on the matter.

Are you deliberately missing my points or what? I’m referring to ‘objective meaning’. I’ve repeated this ad nauseam. Realistically, there’s nothing stopping anybody from creating a new ‘slur’ once the old one becomes unfashionable. This is why it’s a pointless endeavour to police language. Rather, focus on opposing the structures that would afford the persistence of oppression through demeaning language.

see how using words with bigoted undertones helps perpetuate that bigotry.

So you think black people also shouldn’t use the n-word?

Is this supposed to be an own? I don’t think you achieved what you thought you were going to with this

Words have meaning yes, but I’m opposing the ‘objective meaning’ that is assumed when a non-black person uses the n-word EVEN in a non-malicious manner. This is what I’m rejecting. I’m not suggesting that people should be free to level identity-based hate language towards groups, I’m saying that this idea shouldn’t be applied mechanistically.

I’m also not saying that we should ignore the cultural hegemonic fight in the way we wouldn’t transphobia or misogyny, but that language isn’t necessarily always an expression of ideology. You can absolutely have language that isn’t ideologically tied. This is why blacks can use the n-word without the perception of animosity that would come with a white person using it. This is because they directly challenged ideology and the language adapted in accordance. In fact, having certain words that are “off limits” ironically sustains working class divisions because it has failed to do away with social constructs invented by the bourgeoisie.

Again, the words only carry meaning insofar as you ascribe it to them. The n-word, other than its dark past, means nothing on the surface. The fact that only blacks are “allowed to use it” is proof enough of this point. The idea that blacks are incapable of themselves self-perpetuating racism by their own use of the word, but somehow white people ‘can?’ seems itself racist to me.

It’s a needless social construct that should expose itself as such with the death of capitalism.