Of course I don't mean to let people make inbred children. But children can not choose to be inbred or not. Seems like it is bad to insult on things they can not choose.

    • machinegobrrrr [none/use name]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Mercilessly shredding apart anything that leads to systemic inbreeding

      cousing marriage isn't seen as taboo in south asian and middle eastern cultures.. should that be treated as systematic problem or just a cultural quirk

      • Mouhamed_McYggdrasil [they/them,any]
        ·
        4 years ago

        depends.

        First cousins, Yeah no, that's not gonna end well.

        Second and beyond cousins, Sure, that's actually about the ideal spot for genetic diversity, around the 2.5th cousin.

        That's also why first cousins are called "Kissing Cousins". Because you're only supposed to kiss them. The 2nd and beyond cousins are the ones you can fuck.

      • LesbianLiberty [she/her]
        ·
        4 years ago

        ¯\(ツ)/¯, seems like it's not our issue to deal with overall, why should we debate someone else's culture that we don't have much familiarity with?

  • MichoganGayFrog [they/them]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Inbred hick stereotype bad, inbred monarch stereotype good. This is how you apply class analysis to idpol.

  • garbology [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    I think inbred is 99.9% an insult against rural people, and not actually inbred folk. And that's also counter-productive and shitty.

  • Sushi_Desires
    ·
    4 years ago

    You should never penetrate a loaf of bread

  • CatherineTheSoSo [any]
    ·
    4 years ago

    What do you mean you won't "let" people make inbred children? Are you some sort of eugenicists?

      • CatherineTheSoSo [any]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Cousin marriage is popular among African and Middle Eastern cultures, so this is just projecting weird American hang-ups on people. Also you can be married without having children and have children without being legally married, so cousin marriage bans don't even directly address the "issue".

  • HumanBehaviorByBjork [any, undecided]
    ·
    4 years ago

    the question is not "does this line of insult unintentionally promote oppressive ways of thinking about a minority or marginalized category of people?" but rather "is language a battlefield with any strategic value, and is anything to be gained by policing ourselves and others so that we can be sure that everything we express is utterly pure, free of offense, harm, or insult to anyone, except those who deserve it, who are somehow never present in the room?"