Maybe they meant to compare to the character “Skank”. Been chugging any hydropump lately?
Now that’s a fucking b movie! 
Yeah, he was complaining about his bank, and referred to it as “Skank of America”.
IIRC, “bank” is a Feminine noun in most Romance languages, so …
Also in German (“die Bank”).
It’s feminine in French, Italian, and Romanian. Not in Spanish, Portuguese, and also not in Galician and Catalan. Feminine in German and Dutch, not in Norwegian (bokmål or nynorsk). Who knows why.
…and in conclusion, war is bad, and in the vast majority of cases (and including the most recent bombings), those who advocate for it are (at best) highly ignorant and misguided.
Fuck the warmongers.
Doesn’t seem the same to me. Gendered terms are pretty common in general, eg ‘pretty’ vs ‘handsome’, and this is also the case for insults (eg ‘bitch’ vs ‘asshole’). This is not true of race-based insults, which are usually overwhelmingly targeted in one direction. As long as male vs female gendered insults are used in a roughly equivalent manner and don’t appear to be motivated by misogyny (or misandry) I don’t think it’s a big deal.
Do people also find it objectionable when someone uses a male-typical insult for a man?
Except there aren’t really very many male-typical insults. “Asshole” is gender-neutral. There really isn’t any male equivalent to “skank”, “ho”, “bitch”, or “slut”.
There really is no male gendered equivalent slur for skank.
(Which has as it’s synonyms words like slut and whore, men tend to hear words like those applied to themselves as compliments.)
In a different thread I called another poster’s boss a dick, and someone else called the boss an asshole, and she felt the need to point out that her boss was a woman. So I’d say there are male-typical insults. I was going to contrast ‘bitch’ with ‘bastard’, which are commonly used equivalents here in the UK, but I’m not sure it’s used much in America.
You’d insult a man by calling him weak, a loser or incel, or accusing him of living in his parents’ basement. Something of that kind.
But really, I just see ‘skanky’ as a pretty minor insult, so it’s weird seeing people making a big deal over it. To me, the overall hurtfulness of what was said is far more important than the exact words used, or whether one of them could have a sexist connotation.
Asshole isn’t a gendered slur. Maybe dick or prick? Those seem way more gentle and more neutral than bitch, skank, and the C-word (in American usage – I understand it’s used practically non-stop in some other dialects).
Hegseth’s unhinged press conference is making it clear how unequipped this administration is to actually accomplish anything besides lying. Certainly not planning and executing (and keeping secret) a difficult military mission.
Fuck the warmongers.
Those all seem pretty equivalent to me, except the ‘c-word’. I don’t use ‘asshole’ much in real life. I don’t even know if it’s common in America or just on this board, where most normal insults have been declared verboten.
No it pertains to any sleazy disreputable person. You too can be a skank. Feel better now?
Jesus fucking Christ. Move the gendered insult stuff to another thread. This one is about saying “fuck you” to warmongers.
Nice to bring this trainwreck back on topic.
I agree. I feel that these attacks by Israel and the United States (or more specifically Netanyahu and Trump) are being carried out for political purposes rather than any genuine military need. They’re causing a foreign affair crisis to divert public attention away from their questionable domestic policies.
I can’t speak for Israel but I don’t see it working here in America. Trump and his inner circle aren’t smart enough to pull this off. Instead of successfully using a foreign affairs crisis to cover up their domestic affairs bungling, they’re just going to add a foreign affairs bungling to their list of problems. These are the same idiots who managed to screw up America’s diplomatic relations with Canada.
Yes. It’s crystal clear Netanyahu believes he needs continuous military conflict in order to stay in power. And yet so many trust that this time, he must have good reason.
Fuck the warmongers, and anyone else who trusts Netanyahu.
Back on topic, I think that setting back Iran’s nuclear program is, by itself, a good thing. But the problem is that “by itself”, because it can’t be by itself. What’s the next step, and who takes it? There’s not really any good answer to that. And that’s why the strikes were a bad idea (well, one of the reasons): Because there’s no good next step.
If the strikes got those two sets of assholes to stop shooting at each other for a while, I’ll take it. But agreed, in the long run it likely will be fairly meaningless.