"Why yes, my overpriced fake leather nostolgiabait shoes that have nothing in it, dont come in wide, and gives people pla tar fasciitis is muxh better than the other overpriced fake leather hipsterbait shoe!!!!"
And then kids will literally screech in the damn store if they dont get their shitty nike shoe, becayse its about the NAME of the BRAND!!!
FUCK OFF SNEAKERHEADS YOU ALL SUCK!!!
There’s a history of bigotry behind every word in the English language. It’s a language made by and for bigots. A language forged in the fire of colonial world domination and liberal rationalism that justified it. I’m sorry but you will never escape using words that have a history of bigotry behind them if you speak English and live in the west. If you keep cutting out words you will just be left stunted and unable to communicate without sounding like a total dork and still be speaking the language of colonizers anyway, just speaking oddly.
To be clear, this isn’t a carte blanche to just drop whatever slurs you want. You obviously still should be mindful to not be insulting and offensive and gross. However, where are the massive populations of people who actually, really think that “stupid” is akin to the n-word or something and a slur? Nobody actually thinks that.
Obviously it’s not as bad as the n-slur. But that doesn’t make it good. The issue isn’t the hisotry of the word so much as the current implications. I’m not a fan of the idea that we have to attack someone for intellectual levels over what they are saying. Maybe I’m tired and not analyzing this correctly but right now, this is what I would think of
I agree with this, but you don't.
So which is it? Does historical etymology matter or does current use and meaning? Again, the vast majority of people do not find "Stupid" to be a bigoted phrase associated bigotry. The current, descriptivist definition in how it's actually used is not bigoted so you criticized it on it's history. Then you say the history doesn't matter but how it's used?
Both matter and both indicate it shouldn’t be used but the way it’s used is more important. It’s not descriptivist lol, I’m referring to the way it’s currently used and historically
Updooted on hooxbear, never thought I'd see the day of the prescriptivists
I didn’t say I’m descriptivist. I said my statement wasn’t descriptivist
descriptivism = good, correct
prescriptivism = bad, the opposite of correct
I agree your statement isn't descriptivist, it's prescriptivist, which is why it's not correct. Hope that clears things up.
My statement wasn’t prescriptivist. It was descriptivist, I just wrote wrong
deleted by creator