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

vampireapologist:

Being a good person is a choice. Don’t let people fool you into believing that truly good people never have bad thoughts, are never tempted by the easier path, by the low road, never mess up or act out selfishly. Never believe a person can be good without making a conscious effort.

Every single time you do something good, you’ve made a decision to make the world a little brighter.

Goodness is not an inherent trait, it is a choice. Keep making it! I see you, I’m proud of you, and I’m rooting for you!

sftn:

sftn:

a lot of talk about violence is premised on the belief that we have a natural, inherent ability to recognise certain actions and events as violent (and thus, morally wrong) – and to some extent, this is true; but our understanding of violence is always socially constructed in part

to be specific, our understanding of violence, particularly in the West, is one heavily informed by capitalism and the ‘moral’ tenets that underpin capitalism (namely humanism and individualism, stemming from the Enlightenment tradition)

additionally, violence isn’t a single, all-encompassing concept – a concept of violence is dependent on concepts of what is considered harmful, who is considered a person, who is considered deserving or undeserving of violence, whose violence is considered justifiable or unjustifiable, and more (and, in the West, all of these concepts derive in part from the same philosophies I listed)

capitalism and hegemony are dependent on us conceiving of certain actions, events, and people as violent, and certain other actions, events, and people as not – in the former category goes nearly anything and anyone that threatens or hinders them, and in the latter category goes anything and anyone that allows them to persist – and then, making us believe that these associations are objectively true, natural, and inevitable, such that we won’t question their origins or ends

so, when U say things like “violence is not the answer!” and “we should never resort to violence”, note that not only your concept of violence but what U recognise as violence has been constructed in terms of capitalist and hegemonic ends – and this is how we arrive at “punching Nazis is morally wrong because violence is wrong!”, but being unable to recognise the extermination, disenfranchisement, persecution, theft, imprisonment, exploitation, and coercion that make yr life as a capitalist and hegemonic subject possible as violence – because these violations are made invisible, because U believe these violations are justifiable, because U believe that the people who are the subject of these violations are deserving of violence, and/or because U believe the people who are subject to these violations aren’t people at all

(in fact, in these same ways, capitalism and hegemony make it impossible to recognise the violence the state regularly inflicts on U as violence)

your beliefs and moral attitudes do not exist in isolation – they should all be subject to scrutiny, especially when they lead U to sympathise with Nazis

something that I’ve been meaning to add to this post is a clarification/elaboration:

the conceptualization of violence I’m describing here (i.e., for which direct, physical, legible violence with a clear [human/empathizable] target is the exemplar) conveniently marks the kinds of resistance and action that individuals/groups with little to no political power can partake in as violent and thus reprehensible (e.g., rioting/violent protest, punching a Nazi in the face), and makes invisible/non-violent/illegible the kinds of dehumanizing actions and processes the state enacts (e.g., ‘legislative/bureaucratic’ violence in which dehumanization becomes permissible/necessary through law; imperialism, where the people being victimized/exploited/exterminated are both ‘far away’ and not understood as fully human/’like us’)

illicitbehaviour:

you deserve to be loved without having to hide the parts of yourself that you think are unlovable.

pocketbucky:

nobody talks about how ugly taking care of yourself can be

yes, sometimes it’s taking a warm bath and texting memes to friends and keeping an aesthetically pretty journal.

sometimes it’s crying silently on your couch at 3am, hugging yourself and reminding yourself that you’re a good person.

self care is not always ‘aesthetic’ and cute…and that’s ok. don’t be embarrassed, just do what you need to do.

countrichmond:

chittychittycoco:

blondetrash:

bohoindie:

date the person who says, “have fun, be safe, and call if you need anything” not the person who gets mad at you for going out w/o them

partnership not ownership

Reblog until I die

This can apply to friendship as well. Not everyone’s schedule’s always align for the gang to hang out all together. It’s ok, there’s always next time.

jumpingjacktrash:

you deserve love. your crush does not owe you a date.

you deserve success. your coworkers do not owe you extra hours.

you deserve emotional support. your friends do not owe you free therapy.

what ‘you deserve this’ means is that it’s ok to want it and hope for it and try to achieve it, not that you have the authority to demand that a person provide it. it’s good to ask for it, but you have to be willing to take no for an answer.