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.

I would actually push back on that quite a bit. Institutionalized racism is sustained because capitalism creates the means through which it can remain so. You get rid of that, you get rid of the social incentives keeping racism and power structures currently used to reinforce it. No need for policing language

I can use the term ‘wigga’, and it wouldn’t nearly carry the same impact as the ‘n-word’ does. This is a social construct.

Rather than policing language, I’d rather focus on the structural factors that continue to perpetuate racial discrimination.

I’m not gonna lose my marbles over a Caucasian who uses the n-word while rapping a song that happens to contain, and I find it pretty cringe that anyone does tbh

Again, you’re using emotions to make an argument. From a purely logical standpoint there should be no issue with using whatever is considered a ‘slur’ if there is no mal-intent. ‘Slurs’ are social constructs already, and I don’t believe in social constructs.

Yes, calling someone a cunt is also misogynistic.

😂

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

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

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

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

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.

It’s not that the action is bad, it just uses it rhetorically is all. Practically no one is using it with bigoted intentions.

That is just not true. The terms have roots in AAVE that have nothing to do with bigotry. It’s mocking the action itself rather than the perpetrators of said actions

Maybe the fact that you think the terms: dickriding, meatriding, dicksucking or cocksucking are somehow slurs?

Y’all just don’t know what fascism means do you?