"Wokeist" - When people talk about progressivism without acquaintance

Obviously if someone were to ask “is {pronoun} {minority identity} or is {pronoun} normal?”, that’s odious, though pretty much anyone I’ve ever seen phrase it that way has been immediately embarrassed even if they aren’t ashamed of their majority-normativity at large.

I think we do have a separate issue which is that we shouldn’t always adjust to the safest common denominator of respecting triggers. If you think not normal == aberrant, that’s like, a you problem (general you). It’s a bigger you problem if you don’t think that but out of worry, you enforce that on behalf of others. I hope you understand what I mean and why.

 

Dulce etc decorum est, pro patria mori.

Pretty sure we've made a whole cultural thing out of using Latin when it suits us, so by ask means provide some examples to disprove the notion you're just blowing hot air

I mean, "et tu, Brutus" is hardly what we'd call a common insult. So let's have some Latin insults aimed at Brits (or just Englishfolk, if you feel like being purist).

It's almost like "normal" is a poor descriptor, eh?

Anyhow schlaufuchs already covered this and was relatively ignored, so there isn't much use repeating it.

Really? Please tell me, fellow countryman, where have you ever heard "sissy" (derived from sister) spoken as "sis" (in the context of the slang, and not actually anyone's sister). "sissy boy", yes. "sis boy" . . . hmm. Almost comes across as made-up, but if you have some actual evidence it belongs to a dialect or similar (instead of maybe anecdotally being yelled within earshot one time), that'd be downright fascinating.

I only ask because it was a very common (and mild) insult where I'm from (anecdotally), and I haven't heard it abbreviated in my life, nor (more importantly) does the established etymology seem to support the abbreviation.

 

I did come across cisgender people called cissies in an episode of South Park.

 

Everyone's words will become old and hate-riddled. It's actually the goal, and not an easy one.

 

There's the side-quest of when you suspect it's being used as an insult, but with plausible deniability. That would require reading the room, but also a calculation of making a type 1 or 2 error, and the consequences thereof.

 

Shall I start calling you "Dumbo"? I just don't think we should adjust to the safest common denominator of respecting a person's feelings, right? So what if you're not a cartoon flying elephant? I think Dumbo is a very courageous little (well, pretty big) thing and if you happen to take it to mean the other thing, the insulting thing . . . well, that's just a you problem (general you).

Do I have to torture this metaphor anymore, it do you get the point?

Besides, "not normal" is inherently aberrant anytime we're discussing human behaviour. We don't often use to to characterise something like skill; positive modifiers are used. An abnormal or irregular skill fundamentally reads differently to a special or exceptional skill.

Trying to insist that people are taking words the wrong way when the word isn't just possibly degrading (intentionally or otherwise), it's plausibly so (from context if nothing else) is very much a you problem. You as in Hygro. It's your problem.

Ah, yes, a lovely little English thing, that show. Very quaint.

---------------------------

EDIT - missed a post! It's a banger, so:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abnormal

And I'm supposed to give any kind of weight to what you personally think . . . because?

 

Considering the history of (bad) medicalization, criminalization and institutionalization, and more recently conversion therapy, surrounding queer and trans people, and the way not being "normal" (used very much in the sense of aberration and wrongness) was weaponized as a justification for all of those, and still is by many people ("You're not a woman, you're mentally ill", anyone?) you'll excuse me if I laugh at your patronizing talk about oversensitivity to triggers.

Terms exist in a context, where they have a history. "Not normal", used by outsiders about queer people, has a massive history of being used to justify absolutely abject treatment. So the reverse - talking about people who are not queer as "normal" is part and parcel of that same mentality.

I'm happy desribing myself as not normal. But the concept of normal and "not normal", applied by the majority to queer folks, is a clear danger, and must be adressed as such.

 

I would say in the context of discussing people “abnormal” carries a negative connotation regardless of intent due to its evolved usage in common parlance. I don’t think it’s worth fighting over to reclaim it as a neutral word.

 

Yeah normies don't always have bad taste/ideas.

I like Avril Lavigne & think she's talented.

 

Because assuming a negative connotation with missing context is problematic? a you problem?

 

I do as well, but I started questioning her judgment when she married Nickelback.

 

You reckon he's got a vested interest in not facing consequences and criticism for being gross

 

Anyone keeping up read one post, and if you scrolled back, there was a different one.

I think he did. His show was cancelled, he took a couple years off, and old fans like me haven't watched his new stuff. I didn't even watch that clip.

 

Let he without sin cast the..... F it! STONE HIM!!!

 

if trans women and men are just women and men wont the word trans be dropped along with the t in lgbtq+

 

Trans is merely an adjective to specify a particular kind of man or women in times when it is useful to mention, just like with black woman, blond woman, elderly woman, disabled woman, French woman, Muslim woman, or college-educated woman. Nobody is suggesting the any of the other specifying adjectives are unnecessary or ought to be dropped, so why should trans?

To the second point, when we have achieved a queer liberation then perhaps there would no longer be a need for an lgbtq label, no different than when we have achieved communism there will no longer be a need to define oneself according to one single profession ("I could fish in the morning, hunt in the afternoon, etc."). But I don't think even the most ardent radicals would say either of those events are anywhere near enough at hand to warrant pondering seriously today.

 

That’s kind of splitting hairs to me. Would you also take the B out? Because in any given moment of time a B is a G or an L or not. Same for Q, who may just be infrequently G or L or T or plus.

 

I agree with the general thrust of this post, but to be clear: a B is always a B. A bi woman who is dating a man is bi, and if that same bi woman sometime later was dating a woman she would also still be bi. Bi is not a label that changes according to whom the individual happens to be sleeping with or dating. This is actually a harmful and pernicious stigma within the umbrella.

 

Growing up, I was actually baffled at how many sucky stereotypes were attached to bi. It's the closest to what I am in regards to sexuality, so I usually shorthanded myself as it, and some people find it completely natural to think of bi people as functional nymphomaniacs. Baffling conversational hijinks ensue.

 

That’s what they say, but I knew a B who is transitioning and now she’s an exclusively L, but she places more emphasis on the L than the transition, but also considers herself a B during the transition.

Of course I asked her what acronym she used and she said

Spoiler :

BLT