• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      35
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      That sounds sensible on first thought…but it’s easy to find slurs that are for non-oppressed people’s.

      The French, for example.

      • @prettybunnys
        link
        English
        252 months ago

        It’s not sensible in any way, you can have slurs for anyone.

        Someone not being oppressed doesn’t make them suddenly incapable of being oppressed or held down.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      352 months ago

      A slur is any word that is used to insult someone based on their immutable characteristics (race, gender, sexuality, religion, ableness, etc.). There is NO requirement of oppression.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -352 months ago

        Extremely shallow analysis, certain words have a much different history than others and theres a lot of bad faith implications going on herea

        Would you say cracker and the nword are on the same level?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          19
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Interesting abuse of the relative privation fallacy

          E: oh, it’s a burner account.

        • ObliviousEnlightenment
          link
          fedilink
          English
          42 months ago

          “Plus power” is not how cooquial definitions work. Speak colloquial if you want go talk to normies

        • @SolOrion
          link
          English
          12 months ago

          Jeez, could you be more of a blatant troll?

    • @Soulg
      link
      English
      17
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Any word said with enough hatred is a slur

      Of course that being said I’ve never ever heard cis used like that either