cassandrashipsit:

samanticshift:

christinakelton:

luvtheheaven:

samanticshift:

samanticshift:

“i don’t judge people based on race, creed, color, or gender. i judge people based on spelling, grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure.”

i hate to burst your pretentious little bubble, but linguistic prejudice is inextricably tied to racism, sexism, classism, xenophobia, and ableism.

ETA: don’t send me angry messages about this…at all, preferably, but at least check the tag for this post before firing off an irate screed.

no one seems to be following the directive above, so here’s the version of this post i would like all you indignant folk to read.

no, i am not saying that people of color, women, poor people, disabled people, etc, “can’t learn proper english.” what i’m saying is that how we define “proper english” is itself rooted in bigotry. aave is not bad english, it’s a marginalized dialect which is just as useful, complex, and efficient as the english you’re taught in school. “like” as a filler word, valley girl speech, and uptalk don’t indicate vapidity, they’re common verbal patterns that serve a purpose. etc.

because the point of language is to communicate, and there are many ways to go about that. different communities have different needs; different people have different habits. so if you think of certain usages as fundamentally “wrong” or “bad,” if you think there’s a “pure” form of english to which everyone should aspire, then i challenge you to justify that view. i challenge you to explain why “like” makes people sound “stupid,” while “um” doesn’t raise the same alarms. explain the problem with the habitual be. don’t appeal to popular opinion, don’t insist that it just sounds wrong. give a detailed explanation.

point being that the concept of “proper english” is culturally constructed, and carries cultural biases with it. those usages you consider wrong? they aren’t. they’re just different, and common to certain marginalized groups.

not to mention that many people who speak marginalized dialects are adept at code-switching, i.e. flipping between non-standard dialects and “standard english,” which makes them more literate than most of the people complaining about this post.

not to mention that most of the people complaining about this post do not speak/write english nearly as “perfectly” as they’d like to believe and would therefore benefit by taking my side.

not to mention that the claim i’m making in the OP is flat-out not that interesting. this is sociolinguistics 101. this is the first chapter of your intro to linguistics textbook. the only reason it sounds so outlandish is that we’ve been inundated with the idea that how people speak and write is a reflection of their worth. and that’s a joyless, elitist idea you need to abandon if you care about social justice or, frankly, the beauty of language.

and yes, this issue matters. if we perceive people as lesser on the basis of language, we treat them as lesser. and yes, it can have real ramifications–in employment (tossing resumes with “black-sounding names”), in the legal system (prejudice against rachel jeantel’s language in the trayvon martin trial), in education (marginalizing students due to prejudice against dialectical differences, language-related disabilities, etc), and…well, a lot.

no, this doesn’t mean that there’s never a reason to follow the conventions of “standard english.” different genres, situations, etc, have different conventions and that’s fine. what it does mean, however, is that this standard english you claim to love so much has limited usefulness, and that, while it may be better in certain situations, it is not inherently better overall. it also means that non-standard dialects can communicate complex ideas just as effectively as the english you were taught in school. and it means that, while it’s fine to have personal preferences regarding language (i have plenty myself), 1) it’s worth interrogating the source of your preferences, and 2) it’s never okay to judge people on the basis of their language use.

so spare me your self-righteous tirades, thanks.

Oh my gosh YES, this post got so much better.

this is sociolinguistics 101. this is the first chapter of your intro to linguistics textbook. 

and

and yes, this issue matters. if we perceive people as lesser on the
basis of language, we treat them as lesser. and yes, it can have real
ramifications

I don’t agree. The school system has abandoned minorities for far too long. To let these young people go into their adult lives without the ability to read, spell, or properly punctuate is a shame. To pat them on the head and say, “write how you want because you’re a minority” is telling them that you don’t care about their education or their capacity to learn. Furthermore you’re okay with that because they’re minorities? Have you no shame?

with all due respect, this is a terrible comment. truly terrible.

first of all, i went to great detail about how other dialects and usages, while perhaps not appropriate in every context, are valid, useful, and complex, so blathering on about how students just don’t know how to read, write, or spell completely misses the point. saying that certain usages are just wrong is a value judgment made overwhelmingly about language common to marginalized people (who are not necessarily minorities, but anyway). this is not a new or bold assertion. this is fundamental to the field of sociolinguistics, and i’ve never seen anyone present a compelling case in favor of linguistic prejudice. no one’s patting anyone on the head–we’re saying that grammar cops suffer from a basic misunderstanding of how language works. as i wrote in the very long post you don’t appear to have read, the point of language is communication, so if people are communicating effectively, language is functioning exactly as it’s meant to.

but what really gets me about this abysmal response is your assumption that linguistic descriptivism = not teaching grammar, spelling, or reading at all. that’s not even remotely the case–in fact, here’s a post i wrote about my success in bringing a descriptivist approach to the classroom. i’ve done this same kind of thing in one-on-one tutoring and have found it far more effective than any “this is wrong, this is right, grammar is set in stone” approach. teaching descriptivism leads to better writing, a deeper understanding of grammar, and fewer assholes.

in conclusion, please take your melodramatic “have you no shame?” bullshit as far away from me as possible.

I just look at this and somehow OF COURSE the asshole racist commenter is not only in the DA fandom but a fucking Solas stan.

kat2107:

v1als:

A quick note based on my post-Brexit experience in the UK – in the time period after the election, your biggest threat will not be Trump and his government. It will be your newly validated bigot neighbours. After Brexit, hate crime shot up by 60% in the UK nearly overnight and it still hasn’t returned to its pre-Brexit level. I imagine the same will happen in America. Be careful. No matter who they are, Trump voters are not your friends. Be safe. Your biggest enemy right now is the neighbour you went to church with and the people you pass on the street every day. Lock down. Go to ground if you have to. Look out for one another. Please, be careful.

THIS is what you can do tight now if you are white and desperate in America right now: 

– Cook your Latino, Black, Native, LGBT, Muslim and Asian neighbours a casserole tonight. I can assure you, they are much more afraid than you today and maybe they should not get out of the house. 

– Offer to take them or their kids wherever they need to go when they have appointments and maybe school.

– Go over and say hi, say: I know you are scared. How can I help you?

– If you see a woman wearing a hijab on the subway, sit next to her and smile.

– If you see a man wearing a turban, a kippah do the same. 

– Watch out for your kids non-white class mates. 

– If you see someone hollering racist shit at another person in the streets and it feels relatively safe. CALL THEM OUT ON IT.

It is not that more people suddenly are racist. But many people suddenly feel validated and allowed to abuse others. Those people? Are cowards! As soon as someone stands up to them, they shrink back into their little holes!

RACISM IS A PLANT THAT GROWS IN FERTILE DIRT. 

iF YOU NIP IT IN THE BUD OFTEN TIMES IT WILL WITHER AWAY. 

Wehret den Anfängen! 

afatblackfairy:

lavendul:

foodball:

We’re in panic. Our coin went from 18 to 21.50 a dollar (and will probably reach 22.50), our products and services will be more expensive by the morning. No one will want to invest here. We’re humiliated, we were called rapists and apparently you agree. We’re threatened to be separated by a wall… Do you have idea how many millions of families will be separated? How many children will see their parents being deported? The violence migrants will receive?
Old and young, we have our heads down, we don’t know what to expect. But thanks for making it clear, one more time, how hated we are for most of you.

im so fucking sorry

this is so fucked up

jimhines:

In some respects, this is a retread of a blog post I did on Halloween three years ago, about the way we as Americans treat “Gypsies” as imaginary fantasy beings,
like elves and wizards. But I keep running up against it. Last week it
was someone doing their “Gypsy” accent and talking about their costume.
The next day, one of the blogs I follow used an image of an old “Gypsy”
fortune telling machine as part of a post about the current political
situation.

When I pointed out to one of these individuals that “Gypsy” was a
racial slur*, they said they knew, but used it because people wouldn’t
understand, otherwise.

Look, the treatment of the Romani people throughout history has been horrific, and continues to be to this day.
We’re talking about a group who have been persecuted, enslaved, and
murdered for centuries. Here are a handful of the many examples:

• 1749: The “Great Roundup” in Spain.
  During the reign of Ferdinand VI in Spain, thousands of Romani were
  “deported, interned, subjected to forced labour, punished, hurt and
  killed.”
• 19th-20th Century: The Church of Norway and the Roma of Norway.
• 20th Century: Hounded in Europe, Roma in the U.S. Keep a Low Profile.
  “One law in New Jersey, enacted in 1917 and repealed in 1998, allowed
  Gypsies to be regulated more harshly than other groups by allowing local
  governments to craft laws and ordinances that specified where Gypsies
  could rent property, where they could entertain and what goods they
  could sell.”
• World War II: The Roma Genocide.
  The Roma were among the first victims of Hitler and his Nazis. “[A]t
  least 500.000 Roma were victims of the genocide, amounting to perhaps as
  much as 70-80% of the total Roma population in Europe at the time.”
• 1979: Sterilised Roma accuse Czechs.
  Beginning in 1979, Czech doctors sterilized Roma women against their
  wills. This policy officially ended in 1990, but human rights groups say
  the practice continued through at least 2003.
• 2008: This persecution of Gypsies is now the shame of Europe.
  Italian Interior Minister Roberto Maroni responded to a wave of
  violence against the Roma people with the quote, “That is what happens
  when Gypsies steal babies.”
• 2012: The situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States.
  “[O]ne in three is unemployed, 20% are not covered by health insurance,
  and 90% are living below the poverty line. Many face prejudice,
  intolerance, discrimination and social exclusion in their daily lives.
  They are marginalised and mostly live in extremely poor socio-economic
  conditions.”
• 2016: NYCC ’16: Anti-Romani Statements Made at X-Men LGBTQ Panel.
  American author Peter David defended the portrayal of Romani people as
  thieves, relaying a story about how Roma parents break their children’s
  legs to make them more effective beggars. David refused to discuss the
  issue further, and “told the questioner to go away.” (David later apologized, saying he was mortified and ashamed of himself.)
• “End of 19th century: Legal to shoot Roma people, priests that gave
  baptism, confirmation, wedding or funeral to Roma people were in risk of
  losing their job.”
• “Most of 20th century: Children were taken from their parents (1500
  children out of a population of less than 10.000 were either brought up
  at other people’s homes or in institutions) laws were enacted to make it
  impossible for Roma to continue their traditional living and Roma were
  subject to forced sterilization, often without their knowledge.”

There’s a lot more information out there about the Roma and
the discrimination they continued to face. There are an estimated one
million Roma living in the U.S. today, but many prefer to keep a low
profile. From the Hounded in Europe article linked above,
“‘Traditionally, nothing good has come from being identified Roma
because the prejudice is so high,’ says Robert Kushen, executive
director of the European Roma Rights Center.”

I grew up ignorant. I had no clue “Gypsies” were a real thing. I
thought nothing of the person in my D&D group who played as, and
later dressed up as, a “Gypsy” character. Eventually, a friend of Romani
descent helped me start to open my eyes.

In the U.S., racism against the Roma is similar in some ways to
racism against Native Americans. We erase them, replacing real, living
people with stereotypes and costumes and caricatures. The idea of a
white person dressing in black face and putting on a minstrel show would
horrify to most of us today, but people think nothing of dressing up in
their homemade “Gypsy costume” and putting on their best fortune-teller
act for Halloween or the local Renaissance Festival.

Is that conscious, deliberate hatred or intolerance? Not always. But
it’s still racism. It’s still hurtful and damaging to a marginalized
group that’s been targeted for hatred and extermination for centuries.

Harm done in ignorance is still harm.

—
*The last time I talked about this, a commenter challenged whether
“Gypsy” (or the derived word “gypped,” which is essentially equivalent
to saying “Jewed”) was really a racial slur, or if I as a white person
not of Roma descent was just White-Knighting and making a big deal over
nothing. Here are a few links and references for that conversation.

• Always Romani, But Never a Gypsy.
  “It is an ethnic slur word for my people. Originally it alleged
  incorrectly that we came from Egypt, instead of India, but, over the
  centuries, it has come to imply we are thieves.”
• The Problem with the Word “Gypsy”.
  “There are Romanies (like myself) who take no offense to the word, and
  in fact, have embraced it and there are others who abhor the word,
  likening it to the word ‘nigger’ when describing an African American or
  ‘spic’ and ‘wetback’ to refer to a person of Mexican heritage.”
• I’m sorry, but no you cannot & never will you be.
  “This little word, ‘gypsy’, makes my skin crawl. It causes aches in my
  heart and beats at my soul. I die a little inside everytime I must say
  or write the word. ‘Gypsy’ is a racial slur. It is tantamount to the ‘N’
  word. Like the ‘N’ word, ‘gypsy’ was created by people who believed we
  were sub-human and enslaved us.”

Mirrored from Jim C. Hines.

cassandrashipsit:

• Have I blocked more fans of color than I’ve followed?
• Did I ever follow any in the first place? 
• Do I even follow any now?
• As a white person, do I get offended when fans of color (particularly black fans) tell me my opinion about racism doesn’t count?
• Do I lash out at them for not being “respectful” enough when they correct me?
• Do I dismiss them because I think they’re rude, even though I DON’T have any business putting my two cents in?
• When racism rears it’s ugly head in fandom, do I boost the posts of fans of color, or do I write my own dissertation on the subject, even though I don’t have any fucking lived experience of racism?
• Do I regurgitate the words of black women to look “woke”?
• Do I criticism White Fandom™ while ignoring criticism of myself from fans of color?
• As a non black PoC am I contributing to anti-blackness with non critical reblogs of problematic meta, head canons, fanfic, or fan art?
• Do I reblog white washed art without negative commentary?
• Do I long for the “good old days” where people didn’t get offended by posts that are “no big deal”?
• Have I ever used the term colored?
• Have I ever used the term mulatto?
• Do I present myself as an expert on fandom racism and how bad it is?
• Am I a fucking hypocritical piece of shit who tries to malign black women because they won’t accept my tepid ass non apology?
• Do I use personal hardships or trauma as a shield against valid criticism even though one has not a goddamn thing to do with the other?
• Do I sit back and nod when fans of color make posts like this, or do I reblog them to boost them and show my support?

If you answer yes to one or more of these, you need to sit your ass down and fucking listen instead of jumping into the fandom racism discourse like you have ANY business being there Becky.