This is true for democratic nations, but they’ve been feeling the hurt lately as representatives are being bought out by (you guessed it) billionaires. So even when it’s the governments failing, it’s usually some rich asshole pulling the strings behind them. Who would’ve thought a corrupt politician would need a sugar daddy.

Oh shit thank you for reminding me. This idea that it’s our individual responsibility to prevent climate change rather than our largest producers/manufactures was a goddamn marketing ploy in the 1920s. It was spear headed by disposable companies like Dixie as people were getting more upset about littering, the public thought companies making one use items was incredibly wasteful and the reason for an abundance of litter in city areas. With the companies PR efforts, they were able to convince the general public that it’s not the producers of the litter that cause the problem, but the people who use it. We had a chance to kill the disposable industry and we missed it, I hope it comes back around some day.

unfortunately; yes.

I KNOW LIKE A SEA OF GRASS

That’s actually what my needy Kentucky bluegrass lawn looks like right now lol, most prairie grass lawns in my area are more drought resistant than the “virgin lawns.”

just adding to this cause I found a good picture, really want to get a fine fescue & pollinator mix alone the fine fescue is nice, but the bee pack has super cute flowers

Hello! You have fallen into the tolerance paradox; how can you be tolerant when you’re intolerant to intolerance? Easy I’m tolerant because I don’t tolerate intolerance. Beliefs aren’t equal, anyone who believes in inferiority or inequal treatment for reasons outside ones control should be called out. It is not a live and let live mindset, it’s a “live the way I tell you to or you’re a bigot” doesn’t sound very liberty loving to me. You can dislike it, you can rant, but once you limit peoples access to equal rights and treatment you’re infringing on their rights. Any freedom loving American can respect that.

I’ll admit I’ve used it for similar reasons. What I really should be saying is “I’m sorry, but I don’t want to talk about this right now.” Maybe I’ll even be brave and say “I don’t want to talk about this with you.” but it’s rare for me to find a person I don’t want to hear at all from. That usually comes up because they’ve already made their arguments, and I’ve already accepted or rebuttal the points to my own satisfaction. At that point they’ll talk themselves into circles looking for justification for parts of their stance, but unable to articulate it themselves. I’ll listen to anyone’s views at least once, given I’m in the right mindset, but I still wouldn’t date someone I don’t morally agree with. Life partners should have higher standards than conversation partners, and aligning values is a bare minimum for relationships.

Yes, other space debris.

AWOO BROTHER

Hold on I’m a fool, the more I think about your point of context the more I realize I missed the point. There’s no indication this is normalizing the language, but rather a mockery or a parody of the language and by extension the ideology of a “master race” in general. Which is honestly a great way to combat racist ideology, apply them to some inconsequential to display its absurdity.

The only real challenge, and what I think needs to be considered, is the same thing you mentioned in your second comment; failure to recognize the joke is on ideology not in support. So, the responsibility comes in recognizing when the context shifts to support for these values and shutting that down or separating yourself accordingly. If the community is able to uphold it’s parody without lending support it may be beneficial to continue using these terms only to turn the language itself into a joke. Thanks @joba2ca@feddit.de I wouldn’t have gotten here without your solid points. I’m leaving my above responses so people can see how I walk through this reasoning, but I wanted to be sure you saw that your points reached me and made a difference. Thanks again.

I understand people mean it as a meme or a joke, I guess I question whether or not it excuses the use. Saying “It’s just a joke” is a common response to things like this, but if the outcome is still the same does it matter if it’s a joke? While context matters to understand intent, does that intent address the consequence of normalizing this language? Or does it just excuse normalizing the language? I appreciate jokes just as much as the next person, but there’s still a matter of responsibility when joking. To me it’s the same as pranking someone, you have to be considerate for a prank to go well, and saying “it’s just a prank” doesn’t excuse the outcome. I understand other people don’t want to take language seriously when their joking, but that doesn’t make their joking harmless.

Thank you for bringing up the other terminology issues, it really shows this is a bigger question than just one concerned person on the internet. I think it’s good to question these terms so that the language may develop with greater intention and awareness. I noticed there is a knee jerk reaction to saying this is no big deal, but I think it would do us good to ask why we’re so quick to excuse language that originates from racist ideals. Things likes discrimination and genocide all start with language, so why do we avoid the responsibility of moving away from these ideas? Just some food for thought.