Why Can't We Call Them Buffalo if We Want To?

English speaking white people were the first people to discover them and they called them buffalo. Yeah, I know the natives called them "totanka yotanka" or whatever. Then all of a sudden in the 90's people were like "Um actually, it's bison, bigot!" Why can't we call them buffalo if we want to?!?

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Buffalo comes from french via latin bubalus meaning "wild ox/cattle" Aurochs.

    >Bison comes from french corruption of German Wisent meaning "wild cattle", Aurochs.

    >OP is complaining the use of two words for the same animal that both literally mean the exact same fricking thing, that come from the same european language via other european languages as if it isnt just personal choice what you call it and is trying to spin it as a left vs right political issue.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      > is trying to spin it as a left vs right political issue.
      Political separatism has rotted the brain of morons on here.
      >scientists want to change the name of birds to better reflect their discovery??? THE LEFT BAD!!!!
      >scientists have concrete evidence that some dinosaurs had feathers??? CHINA BAD!!!
      >Britain has banned the XL bully??? WELL IM SURE ITS THE israeliteS FAULT SOMEHOW
      It would be funny if it weren't kinda sad.

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >English speaking white people were the first people to discover them
    >native to europe since the ice age and still extant

    homie wut?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >europoors

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    hey guys don't be mean to OP he's just another example of the long standing tradition on this board of saying the most moronic shit imaginable to come up with something racist to say on a board meant to be about meathead dinosaur fight arguments

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I only call them bison because they are both cow cousins, but buffalo and bison are two different types of cow cousin. Taxonomical laymans term speaking that is.

  5. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    OP you're being actually moronic. They stopped calling bison buffalos when they realized they were two completely separate genuses of bovine, not for sociopolitical reasons. Your implicit accusation that the change was done for cultural sensitivity reasons is even stupider since bufalus is Latin.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      But both bufalus and buffalos are species of bovine?

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes. And humans and chimps are both hominini. Your point?

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          My point is that we, as American white people, can call them buffalo if we want to, and academia can't change that by deciding who is "legitimately bovine" and who isn't.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes they can, and they did back in 1827. They're literally the authority to decide such things.
            You can call them buffalo if you'd like there's nothing wrong with that, most people today do. It's not scientifically correct, but not more so than "starfish." Nobody cares in casual conversation, if you're in an academic setting where it matters any moron would expect it would be corrected.

            This entire tantrum was started because your mean teacher corrected your paper and it made you upset. Study harder next time or grow thicker skin like the noble buffalo.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              Yes, sir.

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I have literally never encountered an issue with calling them buffalo vs bison. Even in academia I've seen "American buffalo" and "European buffalo" used instead of bison when authors wanted to specify.
    Like everything else in taxonomy, the change came from new knowledge and the importance of clarity in the field of study.
    Buffalos are an entirely different genus than bison and have been since the early 1800s.
    moronic fricking zoomers raised by the internet to view everything through some "my team vs their team" lens. Every single error has to be some deliberate attack on you from "the enemy." What a bunch of crybabies.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, when I look at European buffalo, they look very different to American buffalo.

  7. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    who is stopping you from calling them buffalo

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      The liberal universities and the liberal press.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Nobody likes them anymore and their authority is trash. Go wild, buffalo man.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah. Libtard universities also say that animals don't mind sex with humans.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            I really liked the old world where how much the animal liked it or didn't, or if they really loved you or were totally blank inside, was irrelevant because it was simply wrong for a person to do it, and inappropriately exercise their god-like authority to get whatever they want from a clueless buffoon unaware of how disgraced they are. Sex was meant to be special, holy, noble, a man's conquest of his intellectual equal, a bond ordained by god and the world, for the purposes of furthering his dynasty and strengthening the bond between his wife and he. Bestiality was merely masturbation and disrespect for the animal and the self, because love or not it was a fruitless effort that could only lead to ruin and early depression.

            Dignity, honor, and natural law, how I miss thee, you were great friends before reason and logic killed you and started a contest to see who could pee on your grave the hardest.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              I think I agree with you? Also, animals can't consent.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                More specifically: Whether animals can consent to sex alone or not is irrelevant, they can't consent to the vast spiritual and moral implications of sex because they can not understand dignity, sanctity, honor, and goodness. No animal was ever a philosopher. It is exploitation that lowers man to the level of the animal, which is wrong because that is the opposite direction of greater, cleaner, more orderly civilization.

                Specifically leaves no room for misinterpretation and makes anti-moral postmodernists seethe.
                >BUT THATS JUST "BECAUSE IT IS OK"
                >Yes.

                Alternatively you can make postmodern rationalists seethe even harder following their own moronic strategy
                "Even if animals can consent, their opportunities to enforce their consent are limited and they are unable to report rape or effectively defend themselves from it. Even humans must put significant thought into determining what happened if and when they were drugged. It is impossible to enforce an if-the-animal-isnt-coerced-or-harmed law, therefore it is for the best if it is completely illegal"
                Almost seems tautological doesn't it. What's their rebuttal? Live under a surveillance state so they can frick horses? Lmfao. Zoohomosexuals BTFO.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                In the end consent is never between two people, it’s between two people and the justice system (a stand in for god, effectively the real god).

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                KEK. Exactly. Don't even get me started on trannies and lookism.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                kys degenerate

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Looks like furries have taken over all lib universities

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *