- Joined
- Feb 4, 2018
Referring to people as bodies.
"Black bodies" "Fat bodies, etc.
"Black bodies" "Fat bodies, etc.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2020
I heard this for the first time from some leftist mayor the other week. I assumed that it's supposed to mean people can make a 'home' for themselves anywhere if it 'feels like home' (for example, the people who live in tunnel systems in big cities) and that "homeless" would invalidate people who feel like they have a home, just not a house.
I feel like it's another of those well-intentioned things that just wasn't necessary. People living on the street are probably more concerned with staying alive than with politicians calling them the politest words possible.
Other words that drive me nuts: People using heavy words like "abuse" and "violence" and "violating" inappropriately. I think the effect on society is that it dulls the meaning of these words and makes it harder to identify legitimate issues. It's like a wide-scale Boy Who Cried Wolf.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2017
I'd point out that words like this are basically Redditisms. I've never heard anyone say this in real life, and if someone did I think he'd be seen as quite mad. Phrases like "intersectionality" on the other hand are actually used.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2018
Nazi and racist and fascist. Those words mean utterly nothing now, and racist more so since Webster changed the definition to appease the woko haram, so racist no longer means "is an outright bastard to another human being based on the colour of their skin". Apparently it's some systemic thing, and nearly everyone is not part of "the system", so how can they be racist?
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
"birb," especially "smol birbs."
Talk like a grown-up.
Talk like a grown-up.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2018
I saw an obese troon the other day showing off their watering can on social media. It had "woter for plampts" written on it. I find it amazing people like that expect society to take them seriously when they talk like actual retards.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2020
"White European"
It's easy to see why someone might say that:
1) Make it popular to European ethnic groups to call themselves European, and not for example French, Albanian, Greek etc. You already see cosmopolitans who actually have "European" in their bio and consider ethnic identitty to be reactionary.
2) Replace European with white European. Now it's time to reduce people to their skin pigmentation. By calling Europeans white Europeans you of course try to say that Europeans can have black skin too. Now we successfully copied Anglo-Saxon American terminology for a conept that wasn't really common in continental Europe and you can whine about systemic racism in Europe (even in places where there was no/little involvement in the slave trade, like Sweden)
3) Now you can start the political games. Ethnocentrism among European ethnicities can no be considered white supremacy, because black people are Europeans too (black Europeans!) . You can say it's white European's fault to be called white because they invented it. Of course it doesn't matter now that it was actually American inspired leftists who pushed the "white/black agenda"on European ethnicities. This of course would also apply whan you give counterarguments like: "Why don't we call Europeans in Africa white Africans or Europeans in Asia white Asians?" or "It doesn't make sense to lump all people who live in Europe in one category. There are actually not only cultural, but also genetic differences among the populations. For example Northern and central Europeans are predominantly of West Asian origin, whereas Southern European can trace back a lot of their ancestry to the Middle East. Isn't lumping all Europeans into one category just an American concept and actually will decrease diversity and increase tensions?" => "White people invented race! So it's not valid!"
4) If the agenda actually works, you'll have a beautiful neoliberal (It's always funny to see how many so-called leftists are just neoliberals in disguise) Europe that is totally sterilized. No different cultures, languages (cosmopolitans love English), customs, because everything is now commodified into the categories of "white", "black" and maybe "Asian" Of course it will only be a question of time until Asia and other continents get "diversified" as well.
Look, I'm not against the idea of Africans (or any other large group) becoming European. Modern European didn't exist either 10'000 years ago and it's normal that demographics change. My problem is that cosmopolitans create artificial categories to further a political goal. If African populations lived for let's say 2000 years in Europe from now on, of course they will sooner or later become "European", since the perception of what a European is will change naturally. 2000 years from now nobody would think that Europeans can't have black skin, because in that timeframe every group becomes imbedded in a now geographical area (The same way it will be normal in 2000 years to consider all Americans native to the Americas). But you can't just create new categories from top-down and then think that people will just accept it. Identity is complex and it is always dangerous when a force tries to change it artificially instead of letting identities arise naturally.
Somehow this term "White European" enrages me more than any other term because it's so obviously crafted by a neoliberal elite.
It's easy to see why someone might say that:
1) Make it popular to European ethnic groups to call themselves European, and not for example French, Albanian, Greek etc. You already see cosmopolitans who actually have "European" in their bio and consider ethnic identitty to be reactionary.
2) Replace European with white European. Now it's time to reduce people to their skin pigmentation. By calling Europeans white Europeans you of course try to say that Europeans can have black skin too. Now we successfully copied Anglo-Saxon American terminology for a conept that wasn't really common in continental Europe and you can whine about systemic racism in Europe (even in places where there was no/little involvement in the slave trade, like Sweden)
3) Now you can start the political games. Ethnocentrism among European ethnicities can no be considered white supremacy, because black people are Europeans too (black Europeans!) . You can say it's white European's fault to be called white because they invented it. Of course it doesn't matter now that it was actually American inspired leftists who pushed the "white/black agenda"on European ethnicities. This of course would also apply whan you give counterarguments like: "Why don't we call Europeans in Africa white Africans or Europeans in Asia white Asians?" or "It doesn't make sense to lump all people who live in Europe in one category. There are actually not only cultural, but also genetic differences among the populations. For example Northern and central Europeans are predominantly of West Asian origin, whereas Southern European can trace back a lot of their ancestry to the Middle East. Isn't lumping all Europeans into one category just an American concept and actually will decrease diversity and increase tensions?" => "White people invented race! So it's not valid!"
4) If the agenda actually works, you'll have a beautiful neoliberal (It's always funny to see how many so-called leftists are just neoliberals in disguise) Europe that is totally sterilized. No different cultures, languages (cosmopolitans love English), customs, because everything is now commodified into the categories of "white", "black" and maybe "Asian" Of course it will only be a question of time until Asia and other continents get "diversified" as well.
Look, I'm not against the idea of Africans (or any other large group) becoming European. Modern European didn't exist either 10'000 years ago and it's normal that demographics change. My problem is that cosmopolitans create artificial categories to further a political goal. If African populations lived for let's say 2000 years in Europe from now on, of course they will sooner or later become "European", since the perception of what a European is will change naturally. 2000 years from now nobody would think that Europeans can't have black skin, because in that timeframe every group becomes imbedded in a now geographical area (The same way it will be normal in 2000 years to consider all Americans native to the Americas). But you can't just create new categories from top-down and then think that people will just accept it. Identity is complex and it is always dangerous when a force tries to change it artificially instead of letting identities arise naturally.
Somehow this term "White European" enrages me more than any other term because it's so obviously crafted by a neoliberal elite.
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2017
This attacks you on so many levels. Why the fuck would two little boys of different races want to marry? Of course a white girl would interject. But it was all a script, and somehow not believing that script is a worse hate crime than the script itself! Also, they might actually be fags for real!
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2020
Probably been said but there are so many troons use "y'all" and they are definitely not from any part of the US that gives them the right to use that word.
It was probably Portland as both the current mayor and his opponent are beyond pozzed. The current mayor doesn't really do anything about homeless, while the opposition thinks they need more free stuff. The opposition also literally identifies with antifa. I think part of her platform is to stop homeless camp sweeps because a public sidewalk is apparently a "home" now. She also wants to do a UBI trial. In thinking about voting for her for purely accelerationist purposes.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
The endless barrage of "go out and vote" ads that try so hard to be quirky, trendy, or relatable.
Anyone who needs to be reminded to go out and vote is probably privileged enough to otherwise not vote; if they had skin in the game, they'd already be motivated enough to go vote.
While I'm willing to wear a mask in public to get the Karens to shut the fuck up, it's creepy to see people wearing them in profile pictures; being enthusiastic about face diapers is creepy and masochistic.
Anyone who needs to be reminded to go out and vote is probably privileged enough to otherwise not vote; if they had skin in the game, they'd already be motivated enough to go vote.
While I'm willing to wear a mask in public to get the Karens to shut the fuck up, it's creepy to see people wearing them in profile pictures; being enthusiastic about face diapers is creepy and masochistic.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2018
The only people I’ve ever heard use this are usually the ones looking to condescendingly lecture you while sounding as annoying as possible. To me, anyone that uses this phrase isn’t looking to actually teach you anything, but browbeat you into submission.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2018
"Say it louder for the people in the back!"
Half the time when people say it, it's just repeating what somebody else said.
"Then everybody clapped."
Come on man. They tell this in depth story about xyz over something, then end it with "then everybody clapped." Usually in a public place or transportation.
And using children for your politics. Especially on social media.
Half the time when people say it, it's just repeating what somebody else said.
"Then everybody clapped."
Come on man. They tell this in depth story about xyz over something, then end it with "then everybody clapped." Usually in a public place or transportation.
And using children for your politics. Especially on social media.
Pigtoad
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2020
"do better"
"spilling the tea"
anything that has to do with "receipts" (screenshot spam that no one gives a shit about)
"spilling the tea"
anything that has to do with "receipts" (screenshot spam that no one gives a shit about)
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2020
Surely this has been brought up before but I don't like the capitalisation of Black if you're not going to also capitalise White. They're either both proper nouns or they aren't.
This mildly irks me.
This mildly irks me.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2018
Those tards telling people to vote actually mean "go and vote Democrat" .
I'm not in the USA but I've found a very effective method of culling the dreck from my social circle to be, round election time, to tell people admonishing me to vote that I have indeed at my vote for the conservative/ right wing candidate. Anyone so egotistical and insecure they need everyone to vote as they do is not a person you want in your life, in my experience.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
When people call people who obviously aren't afraid of something X-phobic.
Phobic has become a buzzword for anyone critical of "marginalized folx"
Also pansexual. Freud defined pansexuality as a lack of sexual preference between race, age and species.
The modern definition of pansexuality is "attraction to all genders".
John Money created the term gender, and it's an imaginary concept.
Freud > Money
Phobic has become a buzzword for anyone critical of "marginalized folx"
Also pansexual. Freud defined pansexuality as a lack of sexual preference between race, age and species.
The modern definition of pansexuality is "attraction to all genders".
John Money created the term gender, and it's an imaginary concept.
Freud > Money
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2018
Any time a Fattie spells obesity, o**sity. Like, change the spelling all you like but you are and its killing you.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2020
I just hate it whem people use asterisks in place of letters, as if the object of their contempt is Voldemort.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2019
“Decent human being”
A phrase used by annoying SJWs and y’allposters everywhere to refer to somebody who shares their twisted view of the world. It annoys me primarily both because it’s such a general term and also because the basis of “decency” in a moral framework is left undefined. Another extension of the “right side of history” bullshit, I assume.
A phrase used by annoying SJWs and y’allposters everywhere to refer to somebody who shares their twisted view of the world. It annoys me primarily both because it’s such a general term and also because the basis of “decency” in a moral framework is left undefined. Another extension of the “right side of history” bullshit, I assume.