@lookatthisfuckingoppressor-blog / lookatthisfuckingoppressor-blog.tumblr.com
To all the conservatives out there using any convenient enough excuse to bully, harass, and oppress people you think are different - I dedicate this song to you.
I really hate it when parents of autistic kids use phrases like “I know they’re in there.” Bitch they’re right in front of you! You haven’t lost them! They’re not locked away like a final boss in a video game!! This is your child As Is! Love them for who they are not what you wish they would be! Fuck!
I didn’t expect this to get notes but it’s absolutely ok to reblog and I’m glad it has been
“i don’t judge people based on race, creed, color, or gender. i judge people based on spelling, grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure.”
i hate to burst your pretentious little bubble, but linguistic prejudice is inextricably tied to racism, sexism, classism, xenophobia, and ableism.
ETA: don’t send me angry messages about this…at all, preferably, but at least check the tag for this post before firing off an irate screed.
no one seems to be following the directive above, so here’s the version of this post i would like all you indignant folk to read.
no, i am not saying that people of color, women, poor people, disabled people, etc, “can’t learn proper english.” what i’m saying is that how we define “proper english” is itself rooted in bigotry. aave is not bad english, it’s a marginalized dialect which is just as useful, complex, and efficient as the english you’re taught in school. “like” as a filler word, valley girl speech, and uptalk don’t indicate vapidity, they’re common verbal patterns that serve a purpose. etc.
because the point of language is to communicate, and there are many ways to go about that. different communities have different needs; different people have different habits. so if you think of certain usages as fundamentally “wrong” or “bad,” if you think there’s a “pure” form of english to which everyone should aspire, then i challenge you to justify that view. i challenge you to explain why “like” makes people sound “stupid,” while “um” doesn’t raise the same alarms. explain the problem with the habitual be. don’t appeal to popular opinion, don’t insist that it just sounds wrong. give a detailed explanation.
point being that the concept of “proper english” is culturally constructed, and carries cultural biases with it. those usages you consider wrong? they aren’t. they’re just different, and common to certain marginalized groups.
not to mention that many people who speak marginalized dialects are adept at code-switching, i.e. flipping between non-standard dialects and “standard english,” which makes them more literate than most of the people complaining about this post.
not to mention that most of the people complaining about this post do not speak/write english nearly as “perfectly” as they’d like to believe and would therefore benefit by taking my side.
not to mention that the claim i’m making in the OP is flat-out not that interesting. this is sociolinguistics 101. this is the first chapter of your intro to linguistics textbook. the only reason it sounds so outlandish is that we’ve been inundated with the idea that how people speak and write is a reflection of their worth. and that’s a joyless, elitist idea you need to abandon if you care about social justice or, frankly, the beauty of language.
and yes, this issue matters. if we perceive people as lesser on the basis of language, we treat them as lesser. and yes, it can have real ramifications–in employment (tossing resumes with “black-sounding names”), in the legal system (prejudice against rachel jeantel’s language in the trayvon martin trial), in education (marginalizing students due to prejudice against dialectical differences, language-related disabilities, etc), and…well, a lot.
no, this doesn’t mean that there’s never a reason to follow the conventions of “standard english.” different genres, situations, etc, have different conventions and that’s fine. what it does mean, however, is that this standard english you claim to love so much has limited usefulness, and that, while it may be better in certain situations, it is not inherently better overall. it also means that non-standard dialects can communicate complex ideas just as effectively as the english you were taught in school. and it means that, while it’s fine to have personal preferences regarding language (i have plenty myself), 1) it’s worth interrogating the source of your preferences, and 2) it’s never okay to judge people on the basis of their language use.
so spare me your self-righteous tirades, thanks.
Oh my gosh YES, this post got so much better.
this is sociolinguistics 101. this is the first chapter of your intro to linguistics textbook.
and
and yes, this issue matters. if we perceive people as lesser on the basis of language, we treat them as lesser. and yes, it can have real ramifications
(Also, most of what people loudly defend as “proper English” is nothing more than an adherence to one particular style guide over another–it was what they were taught, therefore it is the only way. Heh, nope. Learn some more. Linguistic descriptivism for all.)
most of what is taught isn’t even based on English but the rules for teaching latin
yes, you can split the infinitive because in English it’s two words, but in latin it’s one
so it is based on a structure designed by a very small educated elite to remind others of their place, and that place was as subhuman, the educated gentlemen who made these rules generally considered anyone who lacked in some way - no matter what it was - as subhuman and that they should be kept down by any means necessary and so created a labyrinth of traps to reveal them- including language
Lingustic prescriptivism is outdated and can be used far too easily as a tool for perpetuating classism, racism, and misogyny.
“i don’t judge people based on race, creed, color, or gender. i judge people based on spelling, grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure.”
i hate to burst your pretentious little bubble, but linguistic prejudice is inextricably tied to racism, sexism, classism, xenophobia, and ableism.
ETA: don’t send me angry messages about this…at all, preferably, but at least check the tag for this post before firing off an irate screed.
no one seems to be following the directive above, so here’s the version of this post i would like all you indignant folk to read.
no, i am not saying that people of color, women, poor people, disabled people, etc, “can’t learn proper english.” what i’m saying is that how we define “proper english” is itself rooted in bigotry. aave is not bad english, it’s a marginalized dialect which is just as useful, complex, and efficient as the english you’re taught in school. “like” as a filler word, valley girl speech, and uptalk don’t indicate vapidity, they’re common verbal patterns that serve a purpose. etc.
because the point of language is to communicate, and there are many ways to go about that. different communities have different needs; different people have different habits. so if you think of certain usages as fundamentally “wrong” or “bad,” if you think there’s a “pure” form of english to which everyone should aspire, then i challenge you to justify that view. i challenge you to explain why “like” makes people sound “stupid,” while “um” doesn’t raise the same alarms. explain the problem with the habitual be. don’t appeal to popular opinion, don’t insist that it just sounds wrong. give a detailed explanation.
point being that the concept of “proper english” is culturally constructed, and carries cultural biases with it. those usages you consider wrong? they aren’t. they’re just different, and common to certain marginalized groups.
not to mention that many people who speak marginalized dialects are adept at code-switching, i.e. flipping between non-standard dialects and “standard english,” which makes them more literate than most of the people complaining about this post.
not to mention that most of the people complaining about this post do not speak/write english nearly as “perfectly” as they’d like to believe and would therefore benefit by taking my side.
not to mention that the claim i’m making in the OP is flat-out not that interesting. this is sociolinguistics 101. this is the first chapter of your intro to linguistics textbook. the only reason it sounds so outlandish is that we’ve been inundated with the idea that how people speak and write is a reflection of their worth. and that’s a joyless, elitist idea you need to abandon if you care about social justice or, frankly, the beauty of language.
and yes, this issue matters. if we perceive people as lesser on the basis of language, we treat them as lesser. and yes, it can have real ramifications–in employment (tossing resumes with “black-sounding names”), in the legal system (prejudice against rachel jeantel’s language in the trayvon martin trial), in education (marginalizing students due to prejudice against dialectical differences, language-related disabilities, etc), and…well, a lot.
no, this doesn’t mean that there’s never a reason to follow the conventions of “standard english.” different genres, situations, etc, have different conventions and that’s fine. what it does mean, however, is that this standard english you claim to love so much has limited usefulness, and that, while it may be better in certain situations, it is not inherently better overall. it also means that non-standard dialects can communicate complex ideas just as effectively as the english you were taught in school. and it means that, while it’s fine to have personal preferences regarding language (i have plenty myself), 1) it’s worth interrogating the source of your preferences, and 2) it’s never okay to judge people on the basis of their language use.
so spare me your self-righteous tirades, thanks.
Oh my gosh YES, this post got so much better.
this is sociolinguistics 101. this is the first chapter of your intro to linguistics textbook.
and
and yes, this issue matters. if we perceive people as lesser on the basis of language, we treat them as lesser. and yes, it can have real ramifications
(Also, most of what people loudly defend as “proper English” is nothing more than an adherence to one particular style guide over another–it was what they were taught, therefore it is the only way. Heh, nope. Learn some more. Linguistic descriptivism for all.)
most of what is taught isn’t even based on English but the rules for teaching latin
yes, you can split the infinitive because in English it’s two words, but in latin it’s one
so it is based on a structure designed by a very small educated elite to remind others of their place, and that place was as subhuman, the educated gentlemen who made these rules generally considered anyone who lacked in some way - no matter what it was - as subhuman and that they should be kept down by any means necessary and so created a labyrinth of traps to reveal them- including language
Lingustic prescriptivism is outdated and can be used far too easily as a tool for perpetuating classism, racism, and misogyny.
I just lmao “if you’re so poor you need government assistance and are begging people not to take that away from you then why don’t you give to charity, checkmate” like are you fucking serious, do you ever just take a second to stop and think or is the concept of having no money just that foreign to you holy shit.
“Sorry I don’t have rent this month. I have $300 to the World Wildlife Find”.
Also that person seems completely unaware that there isn’t a “type of person” who receives assistance. Literally the only commonality amongst them isn’t poor morals, or greed, or some other imagined failing. It’s poverty.
And people I know who have gone from being very poor to making enough to get by R reasonably comfortably are like the most generous people I know. There was even a study done recently that shows that, as a percentage of income, poor people give far more to charity on average than rich folks.
So not only are they foolish for thinking poor people can make large charitable contributions: they’re also plain old factually wrong.
LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK
I feel like the accuracy of this greatly depends on which millennials one is referring to.
In my experience, if you’re talking to some American white AFAB then it’s pretty unlikely they’re reconnecting with humanity’s heritage of diverse pre-colonial gender experiences and more likely that they’re just putting new glittery packaging on the same white supremacist patriarchal gender binary bullshit and calling it queer and progressive.
So the message in this tweet is super important, but I also think it’s important to find ways of expressing it that don’t make it easy for it to be appropriated by shitty white people at the expense of the people of color who are doing the actual work of reasserting genders and gendered experiences that have been nearly wiped from existence by white supremacist colonialism.
LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK
There’s this dude on Twitter who asked Wendy’s how many retweets for a lifetime supply of chicken nuggets, and they were like 18 million, and there are people actually helping him, talking about “Help this man get his nuggets”, which is interesting.
I can’t help but to think if a fat person did that, they’d be attacked and sent lectures of false health concern about fast food being the reason they’re fat, so they don’t need it.
Matter of fact, most of the people celebrating fast food that I come across are thin people. And for one I don’t do the “ Lets condemn fast food” thing. If people want a burger and fries for whatever reason, let them enjoy it.
But it’s interesting to me how people’s view of food and who consumes what is also fat phobic. It’s the outdated unscientific belief that small automatically= good, and big automatically= bad. So in fatphobic’s minds they’re thinking “Oh he or she isn’t big or that big, so they can’t possibly eat like that every day” opposed to when they see a bigger person and immediately assume that since they’re big, they must eat that all the time.
A thin or smaller person person talking about eating a whole pizza is cute, a fat person talking about enjoying a vanilla cone is met with condemnation and fat shaming, with and abundance of concern trolling.
So over "she eats so much like wow how does it fit" characterization trope for thing, conventionally attractive white women on TV.
Rory Gilmore: *eats fifty cheeseburgers* Audience: "wow she is so brave and quirky and unconventional" Fat person: *exists* Same audience: "why do you hate yourself and also us?"
I honestly don’t think anything could make me more livid than some rich white fucker saying that children shouldn’t be given free meals in school because they’re not creating “results.”
Fuck you. I don’t give one single fuck if food actually helps kids learn. The result I am looking for is that the child is no longer starving. Hunger is a problem in and of itself and you solve hunger with food. End of story. Also go fuck yourself.
It is not a person’s purpose in life to “create results”. People should have a high quality if life regardless of how much or how little results they create.
Kids should be fed regardless
But people don’t “deserve” a high quality of life. They earn it
Nope. It is a human right to have a high quality of life.
Someone has lied to you
Nope, I’m a decent human being.
You can be a decent human being and know that no one owes you a damn thing as to your quality of life.
“Hey I want to be a shieldmaiden and stand in the shield wall!” “Uh, you can’t even hold a shield. Or a sword. You’re not strong enough. You need to earn a place in the wall. Go train and get strong enough” “But I deserve it!” “No you don’t kid. Go train” “You’re not a decent human being”
In every valid profession, one duty incumbent on the professional is the duty to pass on the knowledge and skills tey have received from teir teachers. So when an aspirant approaches a professional shieldmaiden the conversation actually goes:
“Hey I want to be a shieldmaiden and stand in the shield wall!” “Ya sure? It’s tough work.” “Yeah, but I want to be a shieldmaiden and stand in the shield wall!” “Okay, show up at 5 a.m. with the other recruits for the 10km run. We’ll provide you with basic meals, barracks accomadation, gruelling training and a lot of being yelled at. Do that every day for a year, and we’ll talk again. You can quit at any time.”
Note that basic subsistence is never at question, because people with malnutrition and pneumonia from sleeping rough make crumby shieldmaidens. But a profession that relies on random citizens to train themselves isn’t a profession that anyone is going to count on.
Sure. But at no time does one DESERVE a place because potato. You earn your place on it.
No one is guaranteed this kind of thing. The world doesn’t give a shit about you
Hey buddy crack open the Havamal. All that talk about being a good host? That’s a anthropological term known as general reciprocity. Taxes when down correctly are an institutionalized form of it.
You pay taxes and it goes to things that help people that need it with the faith that when the time comes and you need it you also will receive aid.
You also skimmed past the point about decent living conditions helping society function.
Still not a right. Courtesy is not a right, which is more than an obligation but a requirement subject to sanction if violated. It’s a duty that the state MUST provide.
And you skimmed past the requirement to demonstrate that welfare assists with “decent living conditions.”
Your entire basis for your argument is a definition for “right” that you chose and a seeming assumption that you get to decide what people do and do not deserve. Why do you think you get to decide these things?
Rights are an abstract concept and there are multiple forms, such as legal rights and human rights. And they are only what we as a collective decide they are. Or they are what a monarch or dictator decides they are. Or they are what representatives in a government decide they are. And who the fuck are you, exactly?
I would like to live in a world where we all decide that there is a human right to enough nutritious food to keep a person healthy, and clean water, and shelter that we can all agree is reasonable. Basic needs. I don’t want to live in a world where randos get to decide that people only have a right to what they “deserve” and said randos get to decide what people they’ve never met and whose situation they know nothing about “deserve.” I don’t want to live in a world where these randos spend far more time only doing that than asking the mega wealthy what the fuck they did to “earn” multiple billions of dollars that they do not need and that they’re hoarding in offshore accounts, keeping that wealth out of the economy and helping nobody. Please look me in the eye and tell me that they work that much harder than I do, or than a minimum wage worker does.
I’m telling that within the context of this thread, which is talking about feeding children based on state issues funds, “rights” have a specific meaning. This is purely rights that the state must meet. And I’m stating that no one has the right to take property from another, by force, to provide for someone else
You also believe this, else the next time a homeless person breaks into your home because they need a place to stay or, better yet and more appropriate, the state orders you to give them a place to live because they need it, you won’t complain. Because you have plenty of room and they are needy. Your property rights mean nothing, correct?
It’s funny that liberals kill babies because no one has the right to depend on someone else.
But they have the right to depend on others.
^^^
Nailed it. It’s also funny how everything the left wants is magically a right.
Sheer coincidence, I’m sure.
Me: Hungry kids should be fed.
Some dumpster fire: But you don’t want to take away people’s bodily autonomy #ironic
Some other, smellier dumpster fire: Nailed it.
Coolmanfromthepast also seems to believe that "rights" are the result of anything besides people desiring and demanding them.
Triggeredmedia literally can't tell the difference between one's body and one's property.
The shitheads are out in full force.
So, how unjustifiably arrogant do terfs have to be to hear Transwomen call out every aspect of their ideology, rhetoric, and aesthetic and think: "They thirsty for these bad bangs".
Save The Children Syrian Children’s Relief Fund Rating: 88.14 / 100 Percent of Donation Directly Applied to Services: 87% UNICEF - Syrian Crisis Rating: 85.64/100 Percent of Donation Directly Applied to Services: 90.3% Doctors Without Borders Rating: 97.23/100 Percent of Donation Directly Applied to Services: 88.3% Hand in Hand for Syria Rating: 87.89/100 Percent of Donation Directly Applied to Services: 86.3%
what if i told you that a lot of “Americanized” versions of foods were actually the product of immigrant experiences and are not “bastardized versions”
That’s actually fascinating, does anyone have any examples?
Chinese-American food is a really good example of this and this article provides a good intro to the history http://firstwefeast.com/eat/2015/03/illustrated-history-of-americanized-chinese-food
I took an entire class about Italian American immigrant cuisine and how it’s a product of their unique immigrant experience. The TL;DR is that many Italian immigrants came from the south (the poor) part of Italy, and were used to a mostly vegetable-based diet. However, when they came to the US they found foods that rich northern Italians were depicted as eating, such as sugar, coffee, wine, and meat. This is why Italian Americans were the first to combine meatballs with pasta, and why a lot of Italian American food is sugary and/or fattening. Italian American cuisine is a celebration of Italian immigrants’ newfound access to foods they hadn’t been able to access back home.
i think the halal snack pack is a good example of this in australia.
So all those people who are like “stupid Americans, that’s not REAL (insert nationality) food!!! Can fuck off.
Taco Bell putting Doritos in shit is still fucked, though.
We’re so ~progressive~ now.
I realize this is probably difficult for you to understand since you likely see children as property and not people: but there is a difference between torturing an individual against their will and administering desired medical treatment. like a pretty huge one.
Keep misgendering children, though. Doesn’t make you seem like a disgusting bully at all.
also that literally does not happen. there may be cases of puberty-blockers being administered at that age (since puberty can start around then), but HRT as a whole is later even for those able to access it before the age of medical consent (which varies between countries)
You know WW2 happened, right?
Not a liberal, just trying to respond to your ahistorical, jingoist nonsense with some middle school history.
We’re so ~progressive~ now.
I realize this is probably difficult for you to understand since you likely see children as property and not people: but there is a difference between torturing an individual against their will and administering desired medical treatment. like a pretty huge one.
Keep misgendering children, though. Doesn't make you seem like a disgusting bully at all.
Trump tweeted this in 2013 yet just launched 50+ tomahawk missiles at Syria
I'm thinking that's time-traveling 2018 Trump trying in vain to send a message to his past self.
