Never said they were slurs, but that their usage as pejoratives is usually with homophobic and/or misogynistic undertones. The insulting part is usually the societal shame cast on women and gay men historically, as there’s nothing actually wrong with liking dick.
That is just not true. The terms have roots in AAVE that have nothing to do with bigotry. It’s mocking the action itself rather than the perpetrators of said actions
Calling someone brown-eyed would be an insult because you’re mocking a specific characteristic of a person. The terms cocksucker or dickriding aren’t intended to mock anybody or any group. They’re metaphors to describe behaviour.
How is it an insult? There’s nothing wrong with being brown-eyed, whatsoever. If you’re linking it to actions, would you call someone “tennis-playing” as an insult?
It’s an insult if you intend it to be. In a vacuum, calling someone tennis-playing wouldn’t necessarily qualify as an insult, but context specific instances might make it one.
Also, since you said there’s nothing wrong with being brown-eyed, there’s similarly nothing wrong with being a dicksucker or a dickrider. It only becomes an insult if you’re trying to ridicule someone on the basis of that
Yes, calling someone brown-eyed or tennis-playing are not used as pejoratives, but using terms like “dicksucker” and “dickrider” are. Rather than using perfectly good insults like “sycophant,” those previous terms are used to draw on societal shame towards marginalized groups. Calling people “r-worded” was phased out for similar reasons, it throws marginalized communities under the bus as an insult, especially because those called “dickriders” are not literally having sex with the other party. This is very cut and dry.
Never said they were slurs, but that their usage as pejoratives is usually with homophobic and/or misogynistic undertones. The insulting part is usually the societal shame cast on women and gay men historically, as there’s nothing actually wrong with liking dick.
That is just not true. The terms have roots in AAVE that have nothing to do with bigotry. It’s mocking the action itself rather than the perpetrators of said actions
Why is the action bad?
It’s not that the action is bad, it just uses it rhetorically is all. Practically no one is using it with bigoted intentions.
How is it used as a pejorative without being bad at all? Would you call someone “brown-eyed” as an insult?
Calling someone brown-eyed would be an insult because you’re mocking a specific characteristic of a person. The terms cocksucker or dickriding aren’t intended to mock anybody or any group. They’re metaphors to describe behaviour.
How is it an insult? There’s nothing wrong with being brown-eyed, whatsoever. If you’re linking it to actions, would you call someone “tennis-playing” as an insult?
It’s an insult if you intend it to be. In a vacuum, calling someone tennis-playing wouldn’t necessarily qualify as an insult, but context specific instances might make it one.
Also, since you said there’s nothing wrong with being brown-eyed, there’s similarly nothing wrong with being a dicksucker or a dickrider. It only becomes an insult if you’re trying to ridicule someone on the basis of that
Yes, calling someone brown-eyed or tennis-playing are not used as pejoratives, but using terms like “dicksucker” and “dickrider” are. Rather than using perfectly good insults like “sycophant,” those previous terms are used to draw on societal shame towards marginalized groups. Calling people “r-worded” was phased out for similar reasons, it throws marginalized communities under the bus as an insult, especially because those called “dickriders” are not literally having sex with the other party. This is very cut and dry.