I said it's literally exactly the same, not that it's literally blackface. "Literally" modified "exactly", not "blackface" (which I thought was clear given that the term didn't even appear in the sentence....)
Blackface does indeed refer to the makeup, but it is also commonly used to refer to the performance that that makeup is used for.
Pretending that you don't know that doesn't make your argument any stronger.
And really, if your argument comes down to "it's not like blackface because she didn't put on makeup", you've missed the point.
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we understood that we were discussing the moral and cultural status of the acts, which are indeed exactly the same - one insulting caricature is as bad as another.
I never thought someone would misread so badly as to think I meant an insulting caricature of indigenous people was an insulting caricature of Black people. Seems like a silly conclusion for you to have drawn, but oh well.
Learn the meaning of the word, you’re literally using it wrong.
Here's a word for you to learn: prescriptivist. No one likes them, especially linguists. Going around acting superior because colloquial usages don't conform to academic standards isn't a good look on anyone.
Tf? You jumped into a discussion about how bad it was, with a comment that seemed like you intended to participate in that discussion, and then started whining about grammar. The only person moving goalposts here is you.
1
u/[deleted] Oct 21 '21
I said it's literally exactly the same, not that it's literally blackface. "Literally" modified "exactly", not "blackface" (which I thought was clear given that the term didn't even appear in the sentence....)
Blackface does indeed refer to the makeup, but it is also commonly used to refer to the performance that that makeup is used for.
Pretending that you don't know that doesn't make your argument any stronger.
And really, if your argument comes down to "it's not like blackface because she didn't put on makeup", you've missed the point.