this post was submitted on 19 May 2026
741 points (99.2% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

39942 readers
4599 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 256 points 1 day ago (6 children)

For the lazy who don't want to look it up

[–] WesternInfidels@feddit.online 93 points 1 day ago (9 children)

It feels so out of the blue, so unnecessary. Like the writer had been bored. It's difficult to imagine that this didn't jolt readers out of the story, even at the time.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 65 points 1 day ago (23 children)

Languages change. Moron, idiot and imbecile used to be medical terms. Gay used to simply mean happy and excited. A fag used to be a term for a cigarette.

I really doubt it would have appeared in a mainstream children's book if it were seen as at all offensive.

Words like "bugger" and "damn" used to be extremely offensive curses. Now they're often used as very mild expressions of annoyance to avoid using the serious ones.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 42 points 1 day ago (8 children)

Fag still is a term for a cigarette...

[–] starik@lemmy.zip 16 points 1 day ago

Yeah, but only in old-timey countries, like England.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] fartographer@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago

"Bah humbug," was that era's equivalent of Scrooge wandering around saying, "whatever, bullshit."

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Buggery used to be a crime, now it's a gay way to spend an afternoon

[–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I wonder if straight people were ever convicted of buggery with he opposite sex? I wouldn’t be surprised if “buggery” existed solely to persecute homosexuals back then.

(I was gonna say “non-straight” or “queer” but “homosexuals” read in 30’s English accent sounded funnier to me in my head)

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Found one example in the Wikipedia article about the buggery act of 1533, though it seems like he deserved it. I'm not clear if he was actually convicted.

In July 1540, Walter Hungerford, 1st Baron Hungerford of Heytesbury, was charged with treason for harbouring a known member of the Pilgrimage of Grace movement. He was also accused of buggery, as he was suspected of raping his own daughter. Hungerford was beheaded at Tower Hill,[6] on 28 July 1540, the same day as Thomas Cromwell.

[–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 23 hours ago

Oh, that’s dark D: Rapists for sure deserve whatever extra harsh punishments can possibly be doled out, so that part’s cool at least. But yeah, other than that then, seems like historically it’s pretty much just to condemn gay peeps. D:

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sodomy used to be a common add on charge in sexual assault cases. I don't know if it was ever used outside that context other than to harass gay people. I assume buggery was used the same way.

[–] Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 23 hours ago

Good on adding more charges to sexual assault.

Boo on using any charges to harass gay peeps D:

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago
[–] DamienGramatacus@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Weren't idiot, moron and imbecile medical terms specifically used by white scientists to describe black people back in the good old eugenics days of the 1920's America? Language changes sure but it often has very racist roots.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago (6 children)

I've never heard anything about it having a racial component.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
[–] zjti8eit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It was England, which never treated the n-world quite like those ungrateful colonials.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

It was called out for being offensive even in that time by fellow English.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 9 points 1 day ago

I mean it is from 1951. I've seen a lot worse by people who meant it.

It's 4 years before Emmett Till was murdered for example.

[–] Scrollone@feddit.it 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I mean... there's also a famous Agatha Christie's book that used to have the N-word in its title.

We're viewing these things with our modern eyes. But they didn't have this kind of sensibility those days. It probably felt like using any other word: normal.

I wonder if our grandchildren will feel the same way about something we say normally today.

[–] zjti8eit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago

there’s also a famous Agatha Christie’s book that used to have the N-word in its title.

until 1985!

[–] Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 day ago

I doubt whether the vast majority of British readers would’ve been jolted by it - at the time of first publication. It was a word that had been in everyday parlance that got attached to dark “things” as a describer.

Here’s the thing though, go forward maybe 15 years again and you have the 1964 Smethwick constituency election. The winner had a, uhh, memorable slogan: “If you want a n***** for a neighbour, vote Labour.”

It’s worth noting that the “n*****s” in question were, most likely, gonna be from the Punjab. Go figure.

So, yeah, in less than a generation the word in question went from everyday speech with no overt pejorative meaning to the explicitly racist word it is today. It morphed.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 44 points 1 day ago (8 children)

I genuinely don’t even understand what this means. Black people aren’t charcoal black.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 62 points 1 day ago (9 children)

Black people aren’t charcoal black.

According to old-timey racists, they are.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 39 points 1 day ago

Exactly ... according to old-timey racists in the 1950s ... this is what they imagined about black people

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 45 points 1 day ago (1 children)

In the 1950s ... to average white people who might have never seen a black person before ... they would imagine this

[–] arrow74@lemmy.zip 27 points 1 day ago (13 children)

I can promise you that the vast majority of white Americans had seen a black person in the 1950s.

[–] f314@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago (7 children)

This is a British book, though

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 1 day ago

If you have never actually seen a person with dark skin that's how you might imagine one. Or so I did when I was a kid, growing up in a bunghole village in the impenetrable forests up in northern europe where the darkest skin I'd seen was that greek girl (not very dark at all).

My friend is also charcoal black, so that's definitely a possibility too, human skin is amazing, it can be black-blueish, chocolate, white or red (me in the summer).

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago

Outdated but not offensive, a lot better than it could have been.

load more comments (3 replies)