You must log in or register to comment.
Ehh…Not that it’s entirely applicable to this case, using royal titles as positive complements to people still seems like a nice way to keep such titles positive in peoples’ minds. Which is bad.
Like the whole fad of calling people “kings” for having an agreeable opinion. Extremely lame.
The juxtaposition of “no kings” but then using queen in a positive light in the same sentence is hilariously hypocritical on a linguistic level.
This overlooks the queer history behind Queen. Using the term Queen was historically a perojative against men who were not masculine enough. Its use as a compliment is therefore more accurately described as a reclamation of a homophobic/misyginisric slur, rather than the ad hoc application of royal titles.
The term King does not have this history.
“not that it’s entirely applicable to this case…”
Also, you’d have to be silly to deny “queen” isn’t also a royal title, no matter how little respect female rulers have gotten throughout history. The problem is the class of people, and “queen” is absolutely part of it.
“Queens” has other meanings now which muddy the 1:1 comparison you’re trying to make.
Imo, this may feel questionable in 20 years, but it feels like a win right now so let’s take it
“Not that it’s entirely applicable in this case…”
Fuck yeah, let’s go Boston!
Home of the tea party
Which is maybe not something to laud given that the modern tea party movement led directly to trumpism.
That one didn’t come from Boston
Boston is the “Balls”. We may need to fight another revolution very soon.
I’ll be very honored to be 2025’s version of the modern Minutemen.
I swear to God, if your name is Preston, I’m gonna punch you in the face and then join the ranks.
Not a Preston.
That’s good for both of us! 🫡
