#just misdefined

[vamptastic]

i'm very far past arguing about it anymore but i still think the term pansexual is stupid. it'd be one thing if it was a simple reworking of the term to have more accurate etymology, like phasing out transsexual and transvestite in favor of transgender and gender non-conforming. you should still let people use the old term if they want, but coming up with a new one that conveys the meaning more precisely is fine.

but instead it seemed to be suggested as an entirely newly coined thing of its own. which is ridiculous, because it means the exact same thing that the term bisexual has meant for as long as the word has existed- being attracted to men, women, and people of other genders. and of course it implies that bisexual people have a sexuality exclusive of nonbinary people, which obviously has just never been the case, beyond individual bigots. if i call a historical figure bisexual, i generally mean they expressed attraction to men and to women at the same time, OR that they dated someone of an indeterminate gender, OR sometimes that they continued a romantic relationship with somebody through a gender transition. like, that's what the term means, it is identical to pansexuality in terms of who you might actually date or have sex with.

the only place where the terms ever diverge is that sometimes people say bisexuals are attracted to people with gender as a component, so, say someone who is only into a specific type of woman and a specific type of man. while a pansexual would date lots of different sorts of people within the male and female gender, or one type of person across multiple genders. but that's retroactively applying a new definition to bisexual than how people used it before. it's nicer than saying that bisexuality must actually mean bigotry due to its etymology, but it's still using an inaccurate definition that nobody has ever used until you decided it meant that.

basically i think the term was created because bisexual history is difficult to research and most people are entirely unaware that it even exists to be read about in the first place. so instead, people looked at the most literal etymological meaning of the term and decided that definitely must be what people mean when they say bisexual, so let's invent a new sexuality that includes more than two genders.

some people call themselves pansexual because they just like how the word sounds better, which is fine. i also don't care about stuff like omnisexual multisexual etc, it's true that bisexual has a misleading etymology. but generally when i ask somebody why they prefer that term they misdefine bisexuality to explain it. and that greatly frustrates me, because it is not particularly difficult to find writing from the 70s where bisexuality is clearly defined. it's like saying lesbians need to call themselves femalesexual because the root of the word implies they're from the island of lesbos. it's stupid.

basically i don't care what you call yourself, but don't misrepresent what another term means to justify it, just because you don't know anything about bisexual history.

[jewish-vents]

tw for slurs and nazism btw

i hate everything. im so angry i want to cry. i see all these goyim misdefining zionism and calling israel facist and calling us "zionazis" and shit.

JUST CALL ME A FILTHY JEW

JUST CALL ME A KIKE

JUST SIEG HAIL AND SAY YOU HOPE I GET GASSED IM SO SICK OF THIS!

at least the right is open about their antisemitism. at least they own it. at least they admit it. but tiktok """"""leftists"""""""" just say they're "condeming facism" and "speaking up about palestine".

NEWS FUCKING FLASH, YOU'RE NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you're just being antisemitic. you just hate jews.

the israeli is definitely worthy of criticism. netanyahu is definitely worthy of criticism. palestinians DESERVE peace and liberation.

so do WE.

so do jews.

so do isrealis.

but no, these people don't have anything of value to say. they're just repeating misinformation and buzzwords.

and im not listening to anyone to pronounces israel "is RE al", or spells it isreal or calls it "isnotreal" or any of that shit.

FUCK TIKTOK LEFTISTS.

"punch a nazi!!!111!!!!" they cry

look in the mirror. you might as well be sieg hailing.

- sincerely, an angry, tired american jew

.

[mariacallous]

It’s telling that both Dave Chappelle and Ricky Gervais decided to end 2023 by releasing specials in which their comedy pivots to poking fun at the disabled. Could they be more obvious about finding new ways to punch down than targeting people physically unable to fight back?

In a false promise near the opening of his brand-new special and seventh for Netflix, The Dreamer, Chappelle boasts: “Tonight, I’m doing all handicapped jokes,” because “well, they’re not as organized as the gays, and I love punching down.”

Similarly, Gervais decides to have a bit of fun at how we’ve decided as a society to say “disabled” instead of “handicapped” and what that says about us, and suggests further in his special Armageddon, released on Christmas Day, that he’d mock Make-A-Wish kids if given the chance to make videos for them.

And, of course, both men take yet more cracks at the trans community.

Early in The Dreamer, Chappelle tells the audience trans people make him feel like he has to go along with them pretending, as if they’re method acting like Jim Carrey as Andy Kaufman: “If you came here to this show tonight thinking that I’m gonna make fun of those people again, you’ve come to the wrong show,” only to keep going back on his word.

He says he hoped to “repair” his relationship with the LGTBQ+ community – by writing a play for them in which a black trans woman only identifies as the N-word to trip up liberals. He also jokes that if he went to jail in California, he’d identify as a woman so he could tell the other inmates to “suck my lady dick.”

But it’s all just jokes, right? Can’t we just take a joke? Have we lost our sense of humor? Or have they?

Earlier this month, we lost two pillars not just of the comedy community but of our American community writ, as Norman Lear and Tommy Smothers stood taller than most anyone and everyone else in television, standing up to the establishment and protesting the powers that be for the sake of civil rights and humanity.

Now we’re left with Chappelle and Gervais—two titans in terms of Netflix ratings and paychecks—who are fighting for… the right to utter slurs onstage and tell already marginalized people that their existence is a joke for reasons that are nearly impossible to divine. Especially when there’s so much in the world to talk about right now, that they’ve chosen anti-trans rights as their comedy cause célèbre is dispiriting. As Mae Martin said in their 2023 Netflix special, Sap: “Big multimillionaire comedians in their stand-up specials are, like, taking shots and punching down at a time when trans rights are so tenuous and slipping backwards.”

Lear and Smothers used their clout on TV to speak truth to power about America’s involvement in Vietnam and Southeast Asia, the hypocrisy of religion, racism, abortion, homosexuality and civil rights. While great trans comedians such as River Butcher and Jaye McBride resorted to releasing their stand-up specials straight to YouTube this year, which famous straight comedians can you recall sticking up for the rights of trans people in America?

It feels so frustrating to sit and watch comedians with the stature of Chappelle and Gervais devote so much of their time and energy to bullying the LGBTQ+ community when they could be doing anything else on stage. And then they have the temerity to question us, the audience, for not laughing with them.

For his part, Gervais willingly misdefines and misuses “woke” by suggesting, “if woke now means being a puritanical, authoritarian bully who gets people fired for an honest opinion or even a fact, then no, I’m not woke. Fuck that.” Is Nazism or transphobia an honest opinion that shouldn’t get you fired? He then claims in his closing bit that “all laughter’s good,” a concept that would be news to 2005-era Chappelle when he cut ties with Comedy Central precisely because he could hear racism in the laughs during a taping of Chappelle’s Show.

In his Grammy-nominated lecture to students at his alma mater, Duke Ellington School of the Arts, What’s In A Name?, Chappelle claimed: “The more you say I can’t say something, the more urgent it is for me to say it. It has nothing to do with what you’re saying I can’t say. It has everything to do with my right and my freedom of artistic expression.”

But that’s not comedy, either—much like Gervais’ admission in his special that as a university student, his idea of a joke was calling his mother and pranking her by saying he was hospitalized and potentially blind. Gervais said her mom could’ve had a heart attack, but in his mind, he remembers it now as “they could take a fucking joke, right?”

At least Sam Jay, in her 2023 HBO special Salute Me Or Shoot Me, wrestles with her conscience and moral compass over the use of certain words in her act and concludes that having empathy for others is key. “How do the rest of us get here? I don’t know… I’m not going to pretend that I have the answers,” Jay says, adding: “So we’re doing things like we’re policing words, but we’re not policing behavior.”

Anthony Jeselnik, who has built his comedy career on brandishing himself as an offensive caricature of a comedian, told fellow comedian and podcaster Theo Von earlier this year that too many stand-ups would rather get into trouble by saying the wrong thing instead of focusing on their job and saying funny things.

“People think — oh, as a comic your job is to get in trouble. But they don’t want to get yelled at. It’s like, it’s OK to make people mad, but they don’t want any push back. And I think that’s wrong,” Jeselnik said. “As a comedian, you want to make people laugh. This is a quote attributed to Andy Warhol that I love: ‘Art is getting away with it.’ You know, if you put out a special and everyone’s pissed, like, you didn’t get away with it. You know. You need to make everyone laugh that they’re like, ‘Yeah, he talked about some fucked up stuff, but we’re all happy.’ That’s art. Otherwise, you’re just a troll.”

Kliph Nesteroff, a comedy historian whose newest book is Outrageous: A History of Showbiz and the Culture Wars, similarly told me last month that some while comedians see themselves sometimes as “philosophers” he believes they are “betraying their job description because you’re supposed to make people laugh, and philosophers are supposed to philosophize.”

Comedians may claim they can’t joke about anything anymore, but they joke about more now than ever before. The real problem with stand-up today is that too many comedians would rather kick people when they’re down, then lecture us on how we’re too sensitive for not laughing about it.

When Chappelle, Gervais or their acolytes have to incessantly explain that their jokes are just jokes, then they cease to be great comedians—or even comedians at all.

[fairuzfan]

You didn't even provide me a rebuttal you just said "his plans are delusional" and continues to misdefine indigineity I'm not going to take you seriously lol

[meerawrites]

Bisexuality is not just misunderstood it is misdefined (article from Queer Majority)

[rokkazu]

got that damn tiktok misdefining the word necrophilia with a chain of a million people going "no thats x, necrophilia is like (definition of a word that kinda sounds like necrophilia)" on tha dash and i have the looming urge to just break the absurdly long chain and go "no that's a nanosecond, necrophilia is when you wanna fuck dead people" but i dont think the other people in the reblog chain would really find that funny or tasteful. but well it would be a little funny

[your-bigender-big-brother]

why are you misdefining maveriquine? maverine and maveriquine were coined as synonyms and are to maverique what masc is to man. they mean the same thing lol. don't change the meaning of our terms.

The meaning of maverine has slightly changed over time to be a quality that is autonomous, unambiguous, and outherine all at the same time - not that it was ever not that, but it does not have exclusive ties to the maverique experience. It doesn't even make sense to see it that way because maverique is not an umbrella term and so it doesn't encompass other genders, so why have a quality only tied to the one gender? Maverinity can include various other autonomous outherine genders. There's even a term for being maverine-aligned but not maverique-aligned! People who have come to understand this quality long before I have are defining it the same way I do!

Maveriquine is a quality related specifically to maverique and in fact, the original coining post calls it "maverique-ish." In that post, however, it also says “So if male-ish-ness is usually called masculinity, and female-ish-ness is usually called femininity, would maverique-ish-ness be… maveriquinity?” It implies masculine and feminine are inherently tied to being male and female respectively, but we all know that's not how this works and obviously we would disregard that part - we otherwise know what this person meant by suggesting the term. So, while maveriquine is inherently tied to the maverique experience, it's more than likely someone out there with a gender that is maverine might take a liking to that term maveriquine better - even if they're not maverique in any way. Someone out there is masculine and not a man, and someone else is certainly also feminine but not a woman. It makes more sense that maverine and maveriquine may line up and be interchangeable with a quality related to unambiguous autonomous outherinity, but not exclusively maverique.

I am not maverique. I am not maverique-aligned. I do not have a maverique-like gender. But I am transmaverine just the same. And plenty of people see that there is a distinction between being maverique and having a maverine gender, straight from those who are maverique themselves.

There is no misdefining or redefining here, only a word that is growing and evolving to better fit its intended use. People are pushing the limits of what many queer terms mean because that's what we've always done. I don't even know what you mean by "our" because that's also me! I'm included in it because I'm transmaverine!

Transmaverine - a trans experience of a maverine quality - is defined as moving toward maverinity or having a connection to such. You can be transmaverine and not maverique in the same way you can be transmasculine and not a man. In what fucking world would it be the other way around? Being masculine but not a man is Queer 101. It's the year 2025. We know better.

[akajustmerry]

i'm sorry you're getting rude asks in your inbox, but at risk of being another rude ask- fair or unfair, you understand that many people have been called zionists because they shared misinformation with good intentions or tried to clear up misconceptions even if it fit the wrong narrative? or they made a mistake with wording? there's a lot of jewish bloggers i know who have been pro-palestine since the start and were quickly called zionists anyway because they misspoke at some point. there were self-proclaimed antizionists, some indigenousto to other regions, on a zionist blocklkst spread around on here. one of my swana mutuals was called a zionist for making a similar post to yours, sobthis reminded me of that. I'm not trying to cheapen the word "zionist" in your inbox or anything, but I think it's been cheapened and/or misdefined for a while now. it doesnt just mean "bad person". you're easily one off the most pro-palestinian non-palestinian posters on this site, always sharing timely information, and you still got called one. I just think there's something wrong with that and it isn't right. I feel dumb saying "words have meanings" , but they do. for ex., it's kind of like calling every transmisogynist a terf when they're not even a feminist. we all want the same things so we shouldn't lose the plot. felt like that needed to be said and hopefully your inbox gets less weird.

yes absolutely! thank u for saying :) I understand where my mistake was, why it was harmful, and apologise sincerely. people have every right to be upset so I'm not making excuses, and folks have every right to unfollow me. when it comes to genocide, spreading misinformation however it was intended means life or death and I won't be making that mistake again. in the meantime, I'll keep trying to help as much as I can and be more considerate.

[academicelephant]

Last year, 2/3 of the students misdefined the term "open source". My professor wondered about that, then fell silent for a moment, looked over the lecture hall and said "it's actually not surprising, considering how few of you are here." There's almost 120 people enrolled for the course, but as the course has progressed, the number of people attending has decreased and today there were maybe 20-30 of us. Well, there's no mandatory attendance on this course, but it would still be a good idea to be there. Just saying.

[pansexual-pied-piper]

Y'know, it was pretty annoying when most aspec content on here was just the definitions of aspec terms or "you are valid" posts, but considering how much of the aphobia I see people spew is based on misdefining what it means to be aspec, I catch myself thinking that maybe we gotta bring back those Aspec Terminology for Beginners type posts

Then again, most of those people probably don't want to know the real meaning of the words they mock and get mad at, they just want something to be mad about and acceptable targets they feel they can get away with being dicks to

[majinalia]

Thisthisthisthisthisthis. Please please please please. When you jam historical figures into modern systems of sexuality you are making the same assumptions that heteronormative Victorians made. Those heteronormative 19th and 20th century historians were not trying to fucking misportray the guys they dedicated their lives to studying, they just put them in their modern senses.

To them, if a young person had gay sex but later married, he was a straight person who “went through a phase.” Overcame their animal instincts. Because that’s how they understood that to work.

Meanwhile, we in our era would call that same person Bisexual. Yes, this take reads as less problematic and even logical to us. Because it is fit to our sensibilities. But for all you know they would have identified more with the first biphobic ass take more, or have a completely alien sense of self that made perfect sense within their life’s context.

You misdefine the 17th century Balkan sworn virgin if you were to call them a trans man. You misdefine the 19th century BCE Egyptian sekhet when you call them asexual. There’s not even a comparable modern label for how a Eunuch’s gender was treated in China or the Byzantine Empire, so you can be damn sure your 21st century queer boot doesn’t fit.

In personal conversation, feel free to use equivalencies to help others understand. In academic and professional speech, please understand that the entire world fits as neatly in 21st century culture as it did in the 19th Century��s.

seriously I had some little TikTok teenybopper burst out laughing on my tour because I said that a historical figure was “most likely what we’d now call gay”

like

listen

you’re free to take a ouija board out to the cemetery and try to explain the dizzying array of current queer terms and get a solid answer as to how he identifies within that framework but 

until then, I’m going to continue NOT definitively assigning someone identity terms they didn’t self-identify with, and might not have even known, when I’m responsible for representing them faithfully and they’re not here to correct me. even more so when they’re part of my own community

I mean, you know, as long as that’s okay with you. Bestie.

[autumnrory]

god i love going through a discourse blog or someone's tag for shit i agree with there's so much shit i can't articulate and then i'm just like yep that's exactly it like i don't reblog too much of it - okay maybe the bisexual stuff and how it's misdefined and everything bc it's personal lol - and i couldn't fathom running a whole blog of it (though i'm not gonna just sit there and assume that's all the person behind it does with their time lol like why do people think that, you can have multiple blogs for multiple things) but honestly i just like the validation

[fagsystem]

I did Other/Results because I am not 100% sure how retcon is defined. If I'm misunderstanding I am so sorry.

But I say Jason Todd, and the retconning to his personality when his death was retconned

I am not as well versed in the comics as I could be so I'm sorry if I'm missing something. But my understanding is that while his Robin run was short there were still a few pillar character traits established.

Yes, he was willing to murder people who he thought deserved it. He was also a bit unstable/moody, especially towards the end, due to having childhood trauma

But he was also a bright kid. Both in the sense of being smart and dedicated to school, but also being optimistic. 'Robin gives me magic'. He wasn't that way out of naivety. He had seen and experienced terrible things. He just knew he could make the world a better place and was smart enough that he could absolutely have figured out how to as he got older.

I know about the trope of coming back wrong. I know it would have been a severely traumatic experience and that would change him. I know it wasn't completely baseless.

But I feel as though he's honestly quite unrecognisable from who he was as Robin.

While he had a tendency of violence towards certain criminals and considered killing them just, he was also incredibly affected by casualties. People can be framed. He can misunderstand a situation. He could mistake someone innocent for someone worthy of death.

He just seems to not have nearly enough regard for making sure he's not accidentally killing someone innocent. But also he has killed people for far less than accidentally killing someone innocent. He seems too smart to not recognise he's not infallible.

It also never ever sat right with me him attacking Tim at Titans Tower. Like I get he was angry after his death. But like his dad didn't seem to care that he was killed, at least not in his perspective. He didn't avenge him. He replaced him as though it didn't matter that he was going to lead another kid to an early death. And yes, he didn't consider Tim an adequate replacement.

I felt as though it was weird that he decided he'd kill Robin himself. Like I always felt as though he wouldn't blame a sheltered rich kid for being brought into something he didn't feel as though he understood. But even if he did like I always felt like it would make more sense for Jason to not even be able to stomach the thought of it, because killing Robin meant he was like his murderer. It would make him like the Joker. It would make him a monster.

And I just feel like he's too smart to be trying to make the world a better place by becoming a crime lord. And too good at heart with too much of a traumatic history caused by people close to him struggling with addiction to be doing it for any other reason

I need to sleep

I hope I didn't misdefine retcon

Which Batfamily character has been done the worst by retcons?

[corbinite]

Ecofascism is "environmentalism" through the lens of blood and soil. It's about the "purity" of what you put in your body, of the people who own a land, and of the land itself. It's about not wanting to be "tainted" by "savagery" (note this is not nonviolence even if it tries to look like nonviolence). It's about land Belonging to white people and white people being entitled to a version of stewardship through dominance and blood ties. And at its core it's about ownership over nature and over the people who are degraded to be seen as less human and therefore "ownable". That's why ecofascists treat marginalized people as if they were invasive species.

Veganism is about nonviolence. That's it. It takes many forms but it is inherently about nonviolence and a REJECTION of ideas about any hierarchical nature of humanity or the earth. Veganism is not eating plant based because it's more "pure" or "wholesome" or even because it's less environmentally impactful on average. It's just a commitment to nonviolence.

How many of you claiming that veganism is ecofascism can actually list off the traits of ecofascism? Was my first paragraph the first time you've actually seen the word defined instead of just being used as a vague "veganism is colonialism because of [insert whichever factoid you wanna play telephone with this time]"? Was it the first time you heard an explanation of what it was past "well the maga shaman guy didn't eat meat so you connect the dots"? (which wasn't even true, he eats *organic* and that includes meat). Do you think you can identify and fight ecofascism without a working definition of the ideology? Let me clarify, I'm not even saying your definition is wrong. I'm saying you don't have one. If you don't actually have a model of what ecofascists BELIEVE IN to reference, do you think you can pretend to be an authority on how to fight them? The end goal of ecofascism is genocide justified as "fighting overpopulation" and "keeping the land under its rightful protectors. It has to be actively and competently opposed at all costs. You cannot be an activist on vibes alone. You certainly can be a reactionary though.