Political Memes

yeah, and just because it's still technically a slur, doesn't make it automatically offensive. There are a lot of words that we use now that used to be highly offensive, and vice versa, the times change, language adapts, people move forward.

Queer used to arguably be a slur, though more accurately a derogatory term. Now it's literally in the acronym of LGBTQ. A lot of people call themselves queer.

Regardless, looking into the history of the word pansy, it seems to predate the slur usage of it. At a time when women generally had a different place in society, and men were considered to be much more physically active, for lack of a better descriptive term. It quite literally just defines itself out to "a man who is as physically strong as a women" which given the time period, explains the insult. That shifted over time to mean "effeminate" which is basically just the same thing. And was picked up as a slur. And is now currently defined as a slur because nobody uses it anymore (except for me, because i think it sounds funny)

so in some effect, the definition you're using, exists based on the definition of it from hundreds of years ago. And it was just co-opted by shitty people. Hitler manufactured a lot of industrialized weaponry. I don't see anybody calling industrialized weaponry offensive towards jews. Likewise i see no reason for slurs to be offensive when not used in the context one would expect it to be used in.

Part of the reason why slurs are so offensive, is because they're used to denigrate a certain group of people. Of which, i am not doing. Perhaps i'm wrong about the historical definition of this word in particular, but from my knowledge slurs are sourced from words with related meanings, and the thing that makes it a slur, is the colloquial/societal usage of that word at regular, in that context.

In fact, the very definition of the term slur itself is generally used to describe things that "are roughly like this" or more homogeneous. Which ironically, given the typical usage of slurs, and how they generally work. Lines up pretty well with my definition of them. If what it meant was all that mattered, then we wouldn't be here right now arguing the contextual relations of the slur itself, because everybody would agree with you when you state that "what it meant" matters more than "who it was used on" and like i've said, so far you're the only person that's particularly upset about this.

It’s defined as meaning “a weak man” because people used to accuse those “weak men” of being homosexuals

or was it that it was being used to accuse homosexuals of being "weak men" questions and answers that will never be satisfied...

I want a solution to institutional racism and police brutality that actually works, not some bullshit that uses guns like “healing crystals” for social problems.

That's not like, the problem guns are really meant to solve, it's kind of unrealistic to expect guns to fill that role. At least, in full, right. If you want a solution to institutional racism and police brutality, guns are kind of secondary to that whole conversation, as I see it, you'd ideally want to just like, abolish the police, and probably you'd want some form of reparations, you'd probably also want to enact more federal funding for local civic infrastructure to bridge the gap while also not forcing people to abandon their own communities, you'd wanna do a lot of stuff. The guns are kind of a secondary order of thing, if we're talking about racial inequality.

I agree that cop watching can pretty effectively be done with cameras as well. I'd also like to add, though, that had people pointed guns at them instead of cameras, the cops probably would've stopped killing him, in that moment. It's hard to say anything with certainty, though, I'm not one to try and make claims on that front. Part of the issue is the cops are extremely unpredictable, consistently well-armed, and consistently poorly trained. They might just scramble to shoot someone immediately on seeing anyone with any kind of gun, regardless of whether or not they're in the right, because "their life was in danger", or whatever, just like that guy with the acorn. Probably this would be less likely in a scenario in which you were consistently cop-watching enough that so-and-so cop knew who you were, but yeah, it's gotten pretty bad. I think probably there's a mild element to which this has escalated due to increased police militarization and paranoia, compared to the 70's.

I dunno, it sort of depends on your definition of working, of success, I guess. The cops still choked that man to death, it's just that his death led to a lot of backlash, riots, and the cop being actually charged for once. I mean, someone still died, so that's pretty bad, but a cop finally got put in prison, so that's good. Pretty sad, that that's what it takes, and I would probably say that it's a massive shame if that's really the case. I dunno if any institutional level of police reform has taken place in minneapolis specifically where it happened, and I guess you could blow that up nationwide. I do know that post-protests, a lot of cities scrambled to fund their police more, like atlanta with the stupid cop city shit they're pulling, but that arguably would've happened anyways since both before and since, we've seen an increasing ramp up in the "crime wave" type of narratives, which are trying to pour more into police funding.

If cops are hard to predict, knock on effects from social media spread of police brutality videos are really hard to predict. It's hard to know if, had he not died, would those protests have still happened with a slightly different catalyst? It seems like there's a pretty consistent set of protests taking place at least in minneapolis almost every time a high profile nationwide or local incident occurs. Would we be in a better or worse position, afterwards, had he not been murdered? I don't really know, I still think it shouldn't probably be a controversial position to take that he should probably not have been killed. I don't know whether or not someone doing an armed cop-watch could've solved that, at this point, or if it would be kind of moot, and the only solution is an unwavering dedication to more radical political reform under which all other tactics are rendered kind of moot, or at least secondary. Certainly I've always been in favor of a diversity of tactics, even including electoralism and reform, mostly under the guise that it doesn't take too much extra effort and time spent fighting over it is time better spent doing other shit. I don't even necessarily think that armed protests are a bad idea in all instances, and that's another possible political use for guns. Certainly, the right has found success with that tactic, though they also benefit from a being in a position that most police are going to be more sympathetic too. I think a lot of it probably comes down to local gun laws and how they're enforced, being a major factor in their political use.