[Scandal & Media]

Originally posted by Goosey

He didn't say "offensive". He said "homophobic".

If a straight person who is fine with gays says "that's so gay" that is not homophobic coming from that person because that wasn't his intent. It's just offensive. Maybe using the phrase has homophobic origins but in that instant that person wasn't being homophobic.

"Slurs are not oppressive because they are offensive, they are oppressive because slurs by nature of being slurs draw upon certain power dynamics to remind their target of his/her/their vulnerability in a certain relation to power and as an extension of that, to threaten violence and exploitation of that vulnerability"

The intent doesn't mean **** and neither does being "okay" () with gays. What's being said is still homophobic.

[accelgors]

i think if someone's being really completely ridiculous anyone can call them out, but for more complicated situations...eh, i dunno. i think we should at least give everyone's opinion a chance, even if they're privileged, and if it's stupid we can just brush it off anyway. so basically i'd judge on a case by case basis, it doesn't make sense to think straight people can never have any input because some of this stuff really is just rationality, but if it's stupid then it's ok to just brush it off as them not getting it

so i guess i think they can?

[Goosey]

Originally posted by Scandal & Media

"Slurs are not oppressive because they are offensive, they are oppressive because slurs by nature of being slurs draw upon certain power dynamics to remind their target of his/her/their vulnerability in a certain relation to power and as an extension of that, to threaten violence and exploitation of that vulnerability"

The intent doesn't mean **** and neither does being "okay" () with gays. What's being said is still homophobic.

Quoting Tumblr, really? Sorry, that's not the definition of "slur", that's something some Tumblr warrior named cisyphus (get it? cis-yphus? How hip! How edgy!) thought up. And he didn't mention anything about phobias so your quote is irrelevant.

"by nature"
"power dynamics"
"his/her/their"
"certain relation to power"
"exploitation"


Really now? Don't quote people with their heads in the clouds whose speech is full of social justice buzzwords. I'm using my gut here, it's just common sense.


Someone who isn't homophobic isn't homophobic. Intent doesn't matter? Sorry but yes it does. I think you don't understand the meaning of the -phobic suffix.

[BeBeMint]

Originally posted by Ari Auris

THIS RIGHT HERE is a logical argument

The association of the word with negative connotations is the singular argument against the usage of it.

You continue to clock yourself but don't understand what the others are saying? Dont know if its a troll. Kill it before it lays eggs.