this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2025
879 points (98.3% liked)
Microblog Memes
8129 readers
3062 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
"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