There’s a clear campaign against the mentally ill with the global rise of fascism. Lots of it shows up in anti homeless rhetoric, but you can see it in the MAHA and anti vaccination movements.
There’s no reason to use the word “r-tarded” to describe someone. As someone who’s worked with the intellectually challenged, it’s an insult to them to compare them with people who are willfully ignorant.
Ironically, the term “mental retardation” was introduced by medical and educational professionals as a less derogatory and more objective replacement for older, highly stigmatizing terms like idiot, moron, and imbecile, which themselves were previous medical classifications.
slurs are useful.
they are an escalation step that are words instead of physical violence.
making slurs illegals removes that step and leads the escalation straight to violence.
That is an unpopular opinion.
When you stop being offended by letters on a page and direct that hate towards the individuals that use the word as a slur or out of context on purpose, you’ll be a lot happier.
People aren’t upset about the word. They’re upset with the people using the word. Telling people to not use the word like that is how they’re “directing that hate.” People are already doing the thing you’re saying they should do.
I’m not offended by “faggot” because of its shape, I’m offended by it because it takes me back to when Meathead John crushed my throat in the playground calling me it until I would ask him to beat up the boy i liked instead.
Words represent, communicate and are something. Humans have for the entirety of their use of language, understood that the signifier and the signified are interchangeable.
I’m very sorry for your experience, but without knowing you and your history, I can’t possibly know all of that. So I’m left with two choices - sharply limit my vocabulary in the hopes of avoiding making some random person feel bad; or acknowledge that each adult is best qualified to carry and deal with their own traumas.
You don’t have to limit your vocabulary at all, you merely cannot escape the perception of others based on your behavior.
It’s not even limited to humans either - animals, insects will perceive and treat you differently depending on your behavior.
Nothing prevents you from kicking a dog, but the dog and anyone who knows about it will treat you accordingly.
Sure, but if you equate me with someone who kicks a dog just because I talk about master or slave database nodes, or the need to retard message rates - I’m also going to treat you accordingly.
And honestly that’s fair. If I’m sitting in a meeting and you’re trying to browbeat me into calling something a slave in front of some African American co-workers, or you’re talking about retarding something while someone explains they don’t like that term because their child has Downs Syndrome, you are welcome to think we’re foolish for caring - but I can’t imagine that Any Given Person would walk away thinking you’ve gotten the upper hand there
Oh look, somebody else is trying to cast me as a monster because I refuse to be politically correct in a technical context. You should probably also demonize me for the fact that I live my life in a wheelchair and will occasionally refer to myself as ‘gimpy’.
I’m not trying to cast you as anything, I’m extrapolating real world events from your theoretical responses.
The term “politically correct” is a thought terminating cliche. it’s meant to detach real world experience from hypothetical situations. “Political” here is meant to cast the discussion on what the government is doing, I am not talking about the government, therefore whether this is politically correct or not is irrelevant.
You use that many slurs that avoiding making some random person feel bad sharply limits your vocabulary?
I try not to use any slurs at all, but working in a technical field, I do occasionally use terms that have been picked up as slurs.
And that’s okay, the context matters a lot. But someone’s code will or won’t compile regardless of if they call the branch “main” or “master”
In the context of this thread though, it really really seems like you just want to defend saying slurs
Why would I? I have the intellect and vocabulary to be specific when I choose to be insulting. For example, and only an example, I read you as a weekend intellectual, the sort of person who absolutely must be the smartest person in the room. Your lack of grammar and consistent punctuation gives me the impression you’re Generation Y or Generation Z, part way through what will ultimately be an unfruitful and potentially very short career in tech; and you can’t absorb why you’re not moving up. The real reason, of course, is that you’re bikeshedding everyone’s language instead of learning the craft.
How many slurs did you count?
sucks for you.
my dad used to beat me and call be f-word all the time. but i 100% don’t see any issue with other people using it.
not everyone who experiences the same things as you comes to the same conclusions you do. post-structuralist theory isn’t really so hot these days, but you seem to have referenced it as authoritative to your belief in controlling words.
Well that’s why this sub exists - it is not a matter of fact but a matter of opinion. It’s not even a matter of settled law in most places, or at least subject to scrutiny under precedent or context.
I agree its certainly an unpopular opinion and relevant to the sub, but posting an unpopular opinion in a space designated for such opinions does not mean that opinion becomes acceptable.
Do you also use the N word? Would you feel comfortable using that as an insult?
i’m austistic and love the word retard, really don’t understand peoples need to be offended for others. it’s not remotely close to the n-word, saying “r-word” just makes you seem like a tool imo
Look we can’t call each other retards because other people will get triggered for us…
Besides every sane person knows that in common speech this is just means “extremely stupid” with no derogatory intent.
“extremely stupid” with no derogatory intent.
I think you should look up the definition of derogatory. Calling someone stupid is derogatory.
The derogatory intent is directed at the insult target, not an uninvolved group of people, is what they meant.
I meant derogatory towards disabled people.
Riiiiight, in the same way people used to pair it with motions mimicking cerebral palsy? Do you also believe that didn’t have derogatory intent towards people with disabilities and only meant “extremely stupid”? 🙄
motions mimicking cerebral palsy
I’ve no idea what that even is. Sounds like some pseudo science
You don’t remember when people used to imitate spasticity by curling their hands and whacking their chests while changing their voice? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spastic_cerebral_palsy It was extremely common to do when calling people that word.
You don’t remember when people used to imitate spasticity
I don’t. Never even heard about that disease.
BTW: People over internet don’t know who you are, what race you are, and what disabilities you have. If you get called a brain dead retard, it because some dumb shit you wrote. Nothing less, nothing more
How else would you refer to people with below average critical thinking skills who perform actions without understanding or considering the consequences.
Please keep your answer non-derogatory.
I never said it’s wrong to call people stupid.
You should look up context clues
It doesn’t take much literary analysis to understand that using that word to mean “extremely stupid” is ableist.
But OP worked with “intellectually challenged” ???
Jfc can’t even call myself retarded without offending an unrelated neuro-typical “standing up” for us.
There’s a historical cycle where the helping professions rotate the terminology out, as the wider culture overloads the old terms with insulting usage. Eventually the new vernacular leaks out into general parlance and the cycle cycles. “Retarded” was once acceptable clinical terminology because "idiot, “moron”, and “imbecile” had accumulated cultural baggage. The latter terms were, themselves, once politically correct alternatives to even older terms.
I think it’s naive to think that THIS time is special, and today’s politically correct terminology won’t ever leak out into common usage as a slur too.
If a group of people are telling me this word was and continues to be used as a dehumanizing slur, that’s enough for me to look into a vocabulary change. More importantly, the very existence of a euphemism treadmill shows that you can’t stop at language change, and that disabled people need to be much more fully accepted in society.
I got a lot of hate in this thread but I agree with you. We need to much more accepting of people in society disabled or just different. A word change makes you feel good but doesn’t actually do anything. A business with a curb should be required to have a ramp also, for wheelchairs. I wish there was a some sort of option for drive-thru for deaf people. A person with autism who gets overly stimulated by people close should be allowed to ask for personal distance.
Which gets to the larger problem - the dehumanization of people with intellectual and cognitive disabilities. Being such a person is considered such a bad thing that it can be used as an insult. Whatever terminology we use, people with cognitive delays are just as human, just as valuable as anyone else.
Being such a person is considered such a bad thing that it can be used as an insult.
I mean, yes? Ultimately that’s exactly what an insult is. Think of the other words we use as curses and insults. Asshole. Mother fucker. Bitch. Cunt. Dick. Shit(head). Dumbass. Pendejo. Cabron.
Do you want to be something stinky (asshole, cunt, dick, shit), or something disliked (bitch, mother fucker)? Do you want to be like the people who the terms moron, idiot, imbecile, retarded, handicapped, or disabled are describing? Hell, extend it to other things. If someone 6 feet tall was calling you, a 5’4" man, a midget, it’s not like your height suddenly will change if the term is accepted for you, it’s because you don’t want to be perceived as someone short enough to be termed appropriately as such.
And as much as we can all consider everyone human to be just as valuable as any other human, people aren’t suddenly going to want to be short, or have low intelligence / ability to learn/comprehend/adapt. This is why I ultimately have given up on policing the language in general. We are forever locked into the cycle of words becoming inappropriate, because the vast majority of folks genuinely abhor the idea of becoming something like those words are describing, whether its mental ability, height, likeability, worth, etc. You’re not going to change that, ever.
People with cognitive delays are just as human and just as valuable as anyone else
Precisely! 100% agree.
I also want to add that I don’t disagree with people who say that there’s a cyclical pattern with words becoming taboo and being replaced. That’s obviously a fact. But the fact that language evolves doesn’t give us license to be assholes.
Ultimately, the only thing that will improve things is educating the average person about the topic. But calling out ableist language - whether the person using such language intends that meaning or not - is often a good starting point for education (for those willing to learn.)
Also, what most people don’t understand is that developmental delays and cognitive deficiencies are a spectrum and can occur across different types of cognition. For example, I’m what today you might call “doubly special” - I was far ahead in some areas but far behind in others. I still am, to a degree.
So should people use the names for people like me to refer to assholes who intentionally hurt other people’s feelings? I certainly wouldn’t like it if they did. Regardless of how much I might accidentally piss people off or hurt their feelings, it’s rarely my intention to make people feel that way and and I’d rather not have someone else’s moral failing conflated with my struggle to communicate in ways most people understand.
Placing bets. 30 years from now “Autistic” is going to be on the same chopping block. It’s already making it’s rounds as a general insult with the kids, just like retarded did when I was growing up.
If anything isn’t using the currently still correct medical term as an insult more offensive than using the outdated one that has become a generic insult? At least as far as being offensive to people with the condition, rather than those offended on their behalf.
That’s a damn good point.
It already is.
I think it’s naive to think that THIS time is special, and today’s politically correct terminology won’t ever leak out into common usage as a slur too.
I think it’s naive to think that at those times in the past the people who used clinical terms as insults weren’t doing something bad so that we shouldn’t worry about it happening today.
Right, so then we rotate words again. This isn’t hard. We’re not trying to find the One True Politically Correct Term; we’re arguing that one (1) specific word has a negative bias and we need to stop using it.
Neurospicy
These stupid wars on words IMHO is the reason why “liberals” were regarded as a joke prior to trump election
Like banning “master” in github as well as dumb, regex based words filters in chats. Oh you want to mention the “beta version”? Too bad, a social justice warrior decided that “beta” is now offensive, you have to change your language so that you wont affect the hypothetic easily offendable persons
Like banning “master” in github as well as dumb
Master wasn’t banned. The default name was changed from master to main. Literally nothing is stopping you from choosing to use master.
While this is technically correct, when you say “we’re switching the default branch name from master to main to be less culturally insensitive”, you kind of imply that people who continue using master are culturally insensitive. And nobody likes being called that (generally), so it still feels like a ban to people.
That implication is correct?
Look, if it’s pointed out that “x” makes some minorty uncomfortable, but you keep using “x”, you are culturally insensitive to that minority. You can choose to be, nobody would care if you’re not a person/company with milliona of followers.
That’s entirely assuming that there indeed is a sizeable minority that have reason to be offended and indeed are offended. In the cited example above, that wasn’t the case so there was significant controversy surrounding what was perceived as “performative activism” that benefitted noone.
“We’re switching from master to main” was controversial? My god, people must’ve been bored out of their fucking minds.
You know how a normal person would react to this? ‘k.’
That’s entirely assuming that there indeed is a sizeable minority that have reason to be offended and indeed are offended. In the cited example above, that wasn’t the case
A 1s websearch says this is false. BLM movement is definitely a “sizable minority” whatever that means.
You know how a normal person would react to this? ‘k.’
I reacted like this too. But you I don’t think the opponents had invalid arguments to be honest. It was mostly:
-
Lack of an actual outcry to change it.
-
‘Master’ in git did not have any connotations to slavery, so there was no reason to be offended by it (different from eg master/slave databases or something).
-
The change was hamfisted through without the community actually finding consensus and agreeing with the change.
-
It invalidates 15 years of git tutorials, which is confusing for newbies.
-
The defaults for git mismatched with the default in github, which as a very large player put undue corporate pressure on the git project to go along with the change.
-
Changing the branch name does have impact on users, which without a good reason to change it is unnecessary.
-
And the big one: the rename is just performative. If you want to address inequality in tech, make sure people of colour get the same access and opportunities that white people get. Github in particular was ridiculed because they pretended to be so socially conscious, but as it turns out despite having black employees, not one of them had managed to promote into a management function at the time. They put up a smokescreen but did not make any actually impactful changes that improved the position of people of colour, and in doing so abused the BLM movement for PR purposes.
A 1s websearch says this is false. BLM movement is definitely a “sizable minority” whatever that means.
BLM didn’t advocate for this though! Microsoft/Github sort of assumed they would, so decided to change it. But I can’t find any actual outcry that it should be changed from those who were supposedly offended by the term.
Fair points.
Weirdly, that BLM source in wikipedia led nowhere. My fault for not checking.
However performative it may have seen at the time, I’m glad the terms are gone. Master/slave was particularly uncomfortable to use for me personally (I mainly associate it with BDSM)
-
While they are incorrect about the specific term, their main point is correct. “Slave” was removed from the terminology. Same with Blacklist and Whitelist. They are no longer the preferred terms.
Wait, you’re not supposed to say blacklist and whitelist anymore? Shit.
Now it’s CaucasianList and AfricanAmericanList.
Where is the AsianList? I thought we were supposed to be inclusive now!
Nope. Blocklist and Allowlist I believe. Because despite having no racist origins, “black” being the “bad” list and “white” being the “good” list made some people uncomfortable. It’s the perfect example of meaningless surface level changes imo
I used to have a word for how ridiculous this is but the op said I shouldn’t use it anymore
Yeah I mean if that’s the standard I’m fine with it. But as I mentioned in a reply to somebody else, to make something black you don’t add darkness, you subtract light. So inherently black is subtraction and white is addition. Saying that addition is good and subtraction is bad is like a weird byproduct of “positive” meaning good and “negative” meaning bad, when they are just numbers on either side of zero.
Colors are additive or subtractive depending on the medium, so you are entirely wrong here and just spouting nonsense, fyi. Paints are additive, light is subtractive. All colors of light makes white and all colors of paint makes black.
What does black paint do to light?
deleted by creator
Why does one automatically associate black with bad and white with good? Think about it.
Remember that we also do things subliminally. So black = bad rubs off on people who can be called “black”.
I mean I get it, but I never thought of it that way. Like black is the absence light or color. You don’t add darkness to something to make it black, you subtract light, color, energy etc. So black is “negative”. White is the opposite of black. On a color slider, it’s all of everything all the way, it’s “positive”, and I don’t mean “positive = good” way, I mean like mathematically positive, like a “+” sign. Like do electricians need to stop using black cables for negative? It just seems like a reach unless it originally had some racist etymology. Like if the term" blacklist"was originally used by restaurant owners during segregation and they didn’t allow black people in, or anybody on the “blacklist” because anybody on that list should be treated as if they were black then I would be like “Oh yeah holy shit, we should definitely not use that term”. But I think saying black is negative and white is positive has both scientific and mathematical origins.
I’m fine with using blocklist and allowlist. I guess I just never got the memo that we weren’t supposed to use blacklist and whitelist.
You don’t add darkness to something to make it black, you subtract light, color, energy etc.
Except you do, when you’re using additive mixing (I.e paint)
I’m not saying it’s that it’s inherently racist. I’m saying that black people rightfully dislike that “black” is associated with “negative”
But I think saying black is negative and white is positive has both scientific and mathematical origins.
It has neither.
It’s almost like it’s a common theme that dark, dingy, places are associated with danger and bright warm areas are associated with safety, life, purity, truth, etc. and when you simplify that to a basic theme, you end up with black = bad and white = good. It’s a theme that springs up from nature itself.
Which further goes to my point: the words are just placeholders for feelings and emotions. So to change the words does nothing to change the feelings. If you remove all the hateful words, you won’t remove hate. You’ll just end up with “I hope you unalive yourself you bottom of the bell curve” instead.
Dark places aren’t inherently more dangerous. Light, bright areas aren’t inherently positive.
These are the subliminal ideas that were put into your head by literature, religion, popular culture, etc (that was often seeped in racism).
Just like numbers aren’t inherently good or bad, but certain numbers rise associations with “good” or “bad” 3, 7, 13, 666, 777, Etc.
“Nature itself” argument is completely BS, as many animals hunt and spring to life at night, while daytime and light means danger to them.
Dark cave vs open meadow.
Clear skies vs stormy clouds.
Clear still water vs murky turbulent water.
Death and decay vs life.
But nah, I’m just making up literary themes that have existed for centuries. For fucks sake, the vast majority of horror movies rely on darkness.
The fucking yin yang is literally the fusion of light and darkness, good and evil.
You’re just being intentionally obtuse or you’re really that dumb that you don’t get any of these themes.
Also man in the middle changing to “on path”
Wtf?
New preferred term for MitM attacks is “on path” attacks, in pretty much every updated cert doctrine that discusses the concept.
Now that is dumb, way dumber than “blacklist/whitelist”, “master/slave controllers”. You could make it gender-neutral without even changing the acronym!
Man in the middle --> Monkey in the middle, Moron in the middle, Maggot in the middle, etc
If you want to be bureaucratic, you could just say “Attacker in the middle”.
The new term is more obscure and less specific, since it does not have the “middle” component.
“X in the middle” = there’s something between two points, in the middle of them.
WTF does “on path” mean? Something is on a path?
“Morally banning”. But you got my point
Lol you fucking spastic - can’t say that, its offensive
Are you retarded - can’t say that, its offensive
Damn bro, you mentally disabled?
This will continue onward, to think otherwise is retarded.
Policing the hell out of language, while well intentioned, creates a backlash effect that I think actually hurts us more these days. Look at how they originally attacked “political correctness” in the 90s - because we were trying to code some improvements into language. Now people openly laugh at us for not having a solution to homelessness besides renaming them “unhoused.”
Be far easier to just let the R word become the word it has become, which doesn’t describe mental illness or disability anymore, much like “idiot” and “moron” and “imbecile” were once used as medical terms, and now they have none of that meaning.
Languages evolve. It’s a very common thing for descriptors of negative things to become slang for insults. Not to say we should be encouraging this behavior, but rather that policing it is ineffective at best.
Effective solutions address the underlying issues
(Destigmatization of ailments is a good thing, but doing so by stigmatizing the words themselves often has a Streisand effect)
No dude, the PC mob in the 90s were pricks trying to police language. The result came in the 2010s when the UK enacted Section 5 of public order act. Which say a kid arrested and actually in fucking court for calling a horse “gay”. And other for saying “woof” to a fucking dog!
The problem is that all those people who wanted that shit, were just thin skinned little bitches. And now that virtue signalling is all the rage, everything is offensive now. “Sticks and stones and may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.”. Yet here we are, and everyone is clutching their pearls over anything that will get them a worthless up arrow.
Part of free speech is about being allowed to offend people. You are totally free to criticise the person, and whatever he or she might be saying and who they are saying it too. But the fundamental right to offend is something that should be protected by all of us. Or one day, you might just find yourself in trouble with the law, because someone claims to be offended at using the word “fascist” because what you called fascist, didnt rise to horrors of history attributed to that.
And now we have the online safety act in the UK, which is spreading to other countries where you have to show ID to use social media among other things, when it was only ever supposed to be used for porn sites.
But dont take my word for it. Mr Bean said it much better than I ever could:
I get what you are saying but if idiotic and imbecile are still available as insults and are further from medical definition than retard then why not just use them instead? The point being is that retard still has the bite of comparing the person to the mentally disabled and the others don’t.
Wouldn’t it be nice if all pejorative terms of mental incapacity went the way of idiot & imbecile? Why shelter derogatory words[1] from ameliorating?
When a term begins as pejorative and eventually is adopted in a non-pejorative sense, this is called melioration or amelioration. One example is the shift in meaning of the word nice from meaning a person was foolish to meaning that a person is pleasant.
perpetuating stigmatization ↩︎
You’re comparing apples to oranges. Attempting to change “homeless” to “un-housed” is different from just not using a slur — you’re assuming that non-derogatory terms don’t exist for neurodiverse people; there are no “improvements” to be made, just exercising some discretion. You shouldn’t be using slurs just because it’ll turn acceptable soon or because everyone else is using it; if there are people that feel hurt by it and have a history of being marginalized by such usage, you don’t have the right to use it; that is if you are a morally sound person that doesn’t care about BS buzzwords like “political correctness”.
you don’t have the right to use it
So you are about language policing.
Go pound sand.
Now people openly laugh at us for not having a solution to homelessness besides renaming them “unhoused.”
As long as one ignores all the solutions that capitalists dont like, sure. We also cant figure out why people starve while we’re at it.
If you’re serious about helping the homeless, don’t spent scant attention antagonizing potential supporters over vocabulary.
You aren’t being “policed.” The point is the problem is the dehumanization of people with intellectual delays, who are a group currently being target by the fascist government of the US, and probably other fascist governments at the moment. Disability rights are fucking invisible, and language like that goes with that problem.
It’s not about being “offended,” it’s pointing out that words mean things. Some people are hurt by your language. Why isn’t that enough to consider what you are saying and why.
they mean things to you.
they don’t mean those same things to other people.
just like if I say the word sabaka, it doesn’t mean anything to you, but since i speak russian, it has meaning to be.
you find the word retard upsetting. Cool. I don’t. I find the word heteronormativity upsetting, also emotional intelligence. maybe you don’t.
Ah yes, let all those white kids say “the rapper word” (as it was known in my time), slavery is over, segregation is over, those who still discriminate are just jerks, and being black is a nice filter to know who your real friends are. /s
Retarded is a word that is now used exclusively to talk about people who are not mentally ill acting like dumb fucking cunts. Like, its totally retarded to see people getting upset at Trump being called a retard… If you hear the word, and you think about actual disabled people. Thats a you thing. Cos I promise you, no one else is.
No one is looking at this, and thinking that anyone else, but Trump, is a fucking retard.
It’s like that South Park episode with the bikers.
77 million votes, and he’s the retard?
Yes, America has a retard problem. Theres at least 77 million of them…
Well, no, Trump was specifically mimicking a specific reporter with a congenital joint condition in that image. So I don’t really get why you don’t think that’s Trump not being disparaging. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34930042
I think you need to read what I wrote again, Chief. Cos I never made that claim.
Retarded is a word that is now used exclusively to talk about people who are not mentally ill acting like dumb fucking cunts. Like, its totally retarded to see people getting upset at Trump being called a retard… If you hear the word, and you think about actual disabled people. Thats a you thing. Cos I promise you, no one else is.
No one is looking at this, and thinking that anyone else, but Trump, is a fucking retard.
Trump didn’t call anyone ”stupid” when he did that. Nor did he even use that word you said he did. He was imitating someone with a disability.
Now, the poor guy, you’ve got to see this guy: ‘Uhh, I don’t know what I said. Uhh, I don’t remember,’ he’s going like ‘I don’t remember. Maybe that’s what I said’
The reporter he’s talking about:
Again, you need to read what I wrote again. Because I didnt say what you are saying I said.
Again, Trump wasn’t even using the word this thread is about in that picture but he was mimicking someone with a disability so I don’t see what point you’re even trying to make.
One last time, read what I said again. I am not saying what you are saying I said.
What do you think I think you’re saying?
OP, I just gotta say, I really agree with you, and I find it really disgusting the amount of people in this thread trying to renormalize it or argue that it’s not problematic. This thread has been one of, if not the, most frustrating threads here over the past two years. Like I’m genuinely feeling gaslit by some of these comments. Do people not remember the voice people would use? Do people not remember the motions people would do? Those weren’t just a mild way to call someone stupid. It was always ableist and still is today. Maybe in five to ten years I’ll feel differently, like language really has moved on, but it doesn’t feel like that’s what’s happening. It feels like people just being more comfortable being edgy.
I love the word retard. I care about people with intellectual disabilities. I don’t mean them when I say it.
Imo idiot should be considered just as offensive to people who want to ban the word retard. It’s pretty much got the exact same history and stigma connected to it. Although I’m sure there are some who also want to ban the word idiot.
Wasn’t there someone on lemmy that loves to explain this one? Something like idiot, retarded, stupid, and moron corresponding to approximate mental ‘ages’ that were used in the early 1900s?
I have certainly encountered that on Lemmy.
There are a ton of people who think idiot is ableist yeah.
I mean I respect the dedication but my line is drawn before I get that far. And if me not thinking the same as them is a line for them, so be it.
Here’s the thing, the word doesn’t matter… It’s the intent. For example if I said “well aren’t you a fucking genius” and meant it sarcastically that’s just as insulting. I could also say “you gobflecker” in a aggressive tone that also bad.
An example is the old show red dwarf. The replaced every curse word with smeg. Smeg doesn’t mean anything. But in the show when one character calls another a “smeghead”. You know it’s not nice and meant to be an insult even though they never said or explained that in the show.
Banning a word won’t do anything. Ban the attitude and change people’s opinions and you can change the world. For example women, not saying they are treated well by everyone but compared to 200 years ago? Or even further back? For example there was a “treatment” for women who dared consider working. They were basically forced to bed and forced to stay there only hand few broth for 6 months. They literally just had to lay there, no talking no reading no such thing as a video. Today they are treated much better, it wasn’t by banning the world girl or bitch or vagina or anything it was by changing people’s perception.
For example there was a “treatment” for women who dared consider working. They were basically forced to bed and forced to stay there only hand few broth for 6 months
Yeah, I’m gonna need a source on this because it sounds like a wild facebook post.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bed_rest look under the history tab.
Yeah. We’ve been down this road before. Believe it or not but all those african american navy seals with gay brothers who also were active duty military? Yeah, they were just shitty white kids who wanted to say nr and ft a lot. Who’da thunk it?
No. It is about showing the absolute bare minimum of human decency to change your vocabulary and avoid using slurs that people have to constantly hear from people who AREN’T actually african american navy seals with gay brothers and all that.
Ban the attitude and change people’s opinions and you can change the world.
And a huge chunk of that is to stop saying fucking slurs.
but compared to 200 years ago? Or even further back?
Homie… are you ACTUALLY playing the “You could be property so shut the fuck up if I want to say a slur” card?
Also, I strongly suggest anyone who thinks “history” was a no woman’s land or was all about racial purity to actually do some research. Shockingly, things were actually a LOT more “progressive” than they would expect with most bigotry and hatred being more oriented towards killing those Others across the channel. Most of the “We used to be a whole lot more racist and sexist” is, shockingly, from racist and sexist people who want to “make <insert country> great again”.
Nope, I am not saying you could be property so shut up. I’m saying the progress we made was not based on language.
Abraham Lincoln famously said “Free those fucking n****rs”, right? Okay, actually a LOT of the politicians and white people of that era were ridiculously racist but that is why things continued to boil over until the 60s… and then continue on since then.
But yes. A huge part of things IS behavioral. And the language people use is a huge part of that. Because when someone says “Hey, that word is a slur and is hurtful” and the response is “Fuck off, I am not treating you like property so be happy with what you’ve got”… the behavior is pretty abhorrent as well.
Ban the attitude and change people’s opinions and you can change the world.
And a huge chunk of that is to stop saying fucking slurs.
Thank you for this, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills reading some of these comments. I’m shocked how hard this is to grasp for people.
I mean… just look at elon musk.
conservatives (and, if your stance is that “I can’t change my language just because people decided it is suddenly offensive” then you are fundamentally conservative), think the pinnacle of humanity is 20-30 years ago. Generally when they were teenagers or whatever the fuck musk is doing with cultivating his entire life to be the kind of person who posts on 4chan about how LUE over on gamefaqs banned them.
And… 20 or 30 years ago the various funny people on TV were casually dropping slurs like r****d.
And then you just have the normal response to any pushback or criticism on The Internet. People spend 28 hours a day watching Content at 1.5x speed where they are constantly reinforced to their world view (or, more often, the world view of their favorite influencer…) because of The Algorithm. ANYTHING that is not telling them exactly what to do or think is met with scorn.
And when someone says something that goes against that worldview? It is “disingenuous” or “gaslighting” because it is not just a question on if they need to improve as a human being… it is actively opposed to their very existence. It is like they had been wearing red tinted glasses for years and someone said “Actually the sky is blue, not purple”.
Absolutely recommend you try this out with some slurs on people of various races and see if saying “the word doesn’t matter” stops them from beating the shit out you lol
lol, retard isnt even close to the n-word and it’s annoying as fuck when people try to compare the two.
there’s a joke (john mullaney, i think?) that goes if you got two words…and one word you won’t even say…that word is the worse word
Plenty of chuds will gladly say n****r…
Why not? If the goal is to annoy or insult, why wouldnt you use that word, or any word? You are supposed to be trying to annoy the person, to insult them. Why the fucking fuck are you trying to be nice during your insult??? The only reason not to use it, is because its easy. You want to be at least a little creative and get some colour into your insults.
Imagine if people just didnt say that word because they didnt want to, and not because there was a social stigma around it. Woudnt that make the world so much easier to navigate?
What’s up my nigga got widely used without insulting anyone
Yeah, just looking at all the banned words. It seems more like its the “R” sound people dont like…
The word doesn’t matter, it’s the intent.
Eh, maybe, but words communicate intent. By stigmatizing certain messaging - which can include both reserving certain words for only certain use cases and also shaming people who express bigotry regardless of what word they happen to choose - we communicate to third party observers that such views are not welcome in our society. Will it change the mind of the person using those words? Probably not, but avoiding hurtful words still has a great deal of positive social utility.
I don’t know, I don’t think the specific word is that meaningful. A new slur will likely be made for mentally disabled people, then it will get pushback and then another one will be made.
If I translated it to hindi or German or swahili it wouldn’t mean anything but if I walked up to you and yelled them at you you would probably be hurt. If I said them lovingly and softly you probably would be comforted.
The problem with having these conversations on the internet is there is no way to express that so… Maybe… I could see the point of banning potentially offensive words in text on the internet.
If I translated it to hindi or german or swahili it wouldn’t mean anything [to you]
Well, yeah. There may not be a word in those languages with the same connotations, and yeah, obviously I wouldn’t understand them if there were. But all language is contextual. We’re currently talking about english - and I’m specifically talking about United States English because that is what I speak.
Censorship wouldn’t be my choice - and in any case I believe what’s being advocated for here by the OP is social disapproval - but yeah, in the context of the internet I would refrain from using words that could hurt people when it was not my intention to hurt them.
Around strangers, coworkers, or really anyone you don’t know well a similar policy would tend to apply. Even with friends, I wouldn’t want to encourage a culture of being callous with the words I use.
There are so many other ways to express whatever sentiment you’re trying to express, why would you reach for a word that implies that some people are less than others? I’m referring to it in its use as an insult or derogatory word, of course, since technical language has its place and institutions will generally choose whatever language fits their needs. I can’t assess their situation because I’m not involved.
I think we are arguing the same thing. Don’t be mean or an asshole. Don’t look down on people. People regardless of ability should be treated as people.
Of course you shouldnt use it as an insult or derogatory word. I was totally not arguing for that. I was just saying that if you wanted to be insulting or derogatory the word itself doesn’t matter. The change to r-word doesn’t change anything. The question “are you r-worded?” should be just as offensive.
We have down this many times. Stupid, invalid, ibecil all had similar meanings and then were made offensive and a new word was made up, then that became offensive.
The word itself is meaningless, it’s the context and intent.
One thing I just thought of that I would agree with is changing it from an identifier to attribute. What I mean is a person should not “be r-word-Ed” but should be do you “have r-word-ism?” it shouldn’t define a person, but a description of an aspect is different. Like you may have the flu but your not a “fluer” or you might have epilepsy but you may also be a mechanic or pianist or physicist it’s a part but should not define you.
Well then I think we’re pretty far off topic from what the OP was talking about. Lots of people use the r word, and other similar words, as general insults or derogatory words. And that’s not OK, since it implies that it’s bad to have a condition you couldn’t control and didn’t choose.
As for clinical settings, I’m sure they have their own rules about how to talk both to and about people. I can’t speak to that, as I’m not in any of those settings.
And when in my personal life I refer to people with mental disabilities, I’m sure there are both kinder and more specific ways to describe someone’s situation.
Of course you shouldnt use it as an insult or derogatory word. I was totally not arguing for that. I was just saying that if you wanted to be insulting or derogatory the word itself doesn’t matter. The change to r-word doesn’t change anything. The question “are you r-worded?” should be just as offensive.
[…]
The word itself is meaningless, it’s the context and intent.
This feels pointlessly pendantic. I don’t think anyone here has argued in favor of using a censored version of the word in place of an uncensored one in speech as an insult but has been talking about using it all versus not using it, so in that context, yes, the word very much matters. Choosing to use a censored version of the word is still choosing to use the word.
I mean the word will still be used as a slur by those who are rude and want to be offensive. I see this whole conversation to be about people who may have casually used the word but they generally try to be a good person who doesn’t insult and attack others. They may not have known certain words beyond some of the famous race slurs that everyone knows are bad. Non racial slurs have been more a grey area.
“Smeg” does mean something. Its the white crap that forms under your foreskin if you never wash your dick.
Its also an upmarket brand of kitchen appliance. But you are thinking of smegma, not smeg.
Smeg is short term slag for smegma. Yes, its also kitchen brand. But the context of the show, and the popular slang term of the time, it meant smegma.
this is very likely true and it is fair to assume from your username that you’re familiar with uk slang/slurs. also probably fair to assume that grant/naylor would deny it if asked
smeg certainly means dickcheese but i’d guess before being popularised by red dwarf it wouldn’t have replaced other four letter words in constructions like smeg head, smeg off, smeg you etc
on the subject, with ‘gimboid’ they were ahead of their time in using the -oid suffix for insults
Here’s the thing, the word doesn’t matter… It’s the intent. For example if I said “well aren’t you a fucking genius” and meant it sarcastically that’s just as insulting. I could also say “you gobflecker” in a aggressive tone that also bad.
That’s how I insult here: write scathing vitriol that replaces derogatory words with equivalent meanings, condescendingly disparages generalities about the insultee without referring to them specifically. It offends them more & makes a better insult.
I’m unaware of an existent group of people for whom the term “smeg” is or historically was thier actual designation?
It isn’t about not insulting someone, it’s about using language that refers to actual people who haven’t done anything wrong.
It’s like if suddenly everyone decided to call a pedophile a Vrek. You maybe wouldn’t love that suddenly people are invoking YOU to talk about pedophiles.
That’s the kind of collateral damage people are trying to avoid.
I’ve for sure said things are retarded. I’m no saint. I’ve got mixed feelings… but I think your take on the subject is poorly informed. I think you’ve missed the entire premise of the argument against using the word.
So it seems like we are going to have to wait until impaired, challenged and disabled are turned into slurs by the overly-sensitive so removed can achieve the neutral status of idiot, dumb, stupid, moron and imbecile - words that removed used to be considered the politically correct alternative.
I think the argument is whizzing over your head too.
The logical breakdown here is pretty simple:
Argument #1 (OP): It’s probably not good to use disadvantaged groups as a slur.
Argument #2 (You and most others): Well if we do that then I don’t have words to degrade people.
These are completely orthogonal arguments, and I sincerely have sympathy for both. I genuinely do think there is communicative value in having words that illicit the intended response of calling someone’s argument “retarded”. I know what I mean. You know what I mean. It actually has nothing to do with people who are actually handicapped. It’s effective communication… it just has an unfortunate BYPRODUCT.
But not having slurs isn’t a counter-argument to the thesis that using disadvantaged groups as slurs is bad.
Strawmanning it as “PC gone mad” is just a convenient way to avoid actually addressing the concern head on.
Like, just be a fucking man: “Yeah, it probably isn’t good to use disadvantaged groups as slurs, but I’m at a loss for language that satisfies that while also effectively getting the content and TONE of my communication across, so I’m going to use it anyways. Not everythingi do is ideal.”
As soon as you abandon the ego-sheltering delusion that you don’t do things that are probably not great, you can actually think about things objectively without hitting a mental panic button the second you’re forced to evaluate a legitimate position in which your current behaviors would be evaluated as bad.
This post was probably the first time I used the word “removed” as a swear word in a long while. As I mentioned somewhere else around here, in my language it’s an actual word that means delayed, and I do prefer other swear words for the exact same reason I avoid using swear words that are rooted in sexual moralism - like judging someone for sexual behavior, even though I might not actually be doing that or even considering that person’s sexual behavior when using that word. However, if you want to use a word to describe someone as being “not-intelligent”, it is very hard to disassociate it from a group of people who actually have a clinical condition causing that, ESPECIALLY when people forcefully make that association.
The main argument here against that word seems to be that you can’t say “removed” because mentally impaired people are removed. If we were to agree that mentally impaired ≠ removed, as has already been done for all the previous words associated with them, then “removed” is not a word used to degrade them. It only becomes one if people like OP keep insisting they are removed - which is quite ironic, and we just keep repeating the euphemism treadmill cycle.
I don’t think anyone is saying that clinical language doesn’t have a use. If anything, it’s the use of these words as general-purpose insults that makes them unfit for clinical use, not the other way around.
How hard is it to stick to idiot, dumb, stupid, moron, and imbecile?
If you think “removed” is wrong for degrading people with an actual clinical condition, except for “stupid” which seems to be something like calling that person drunk, I think you shouldn’t stick to those either, because they do the same thing.
No, they used to. Nobody cares about them anymore.
I agree entirely, you cracked the code: stop caring, and “removed” won’t be associated with the mentally impaired. People like OP, who care too much, are what keep it a slur used to degrade people with an actual clinical condition.
As someone who grew up with a very close friend with a sister who has down syndrome who really disliked people using the word as an insult I strongly disagree with you.
My point with smeg was that it was a made up word. But you could figure out the intent purely by context.
Again it comes to context, if you intend to hurt a person the word is meaningless.
That dude’s a fucking Vrek, goddamn.
I don’t like the euphemism treadmill. Normalize all slurs. Get more creative with your language & learn how to reappropriate & reclaim.
The worst take I’ve seen on slurs is the online activism to make the noun female a slur. When I explain that their advocacy accepts a sexist premise that something is wrong with the name of an entire gender & thereby consents to the stigmatization of that gender, they erupt into an irrational rage.
The reason people have a problem with the noun female isn’t because “there’s something wrong with the name of an entire gender” it’s because it’s extremely often used in such a way that people (typically men) will refer to men as men and refer to women as females. It’s why you may see the phrase “men and females” thrown around as a response.
(For the record, I think referring to women as well as men as females or males is pointlessly degrading. The noun version of those is acceptable for non-human animals, e.g. the males in a flock of birds.)
people (typically men) will refer to men as men and refer to women as females
Where
Enough that people made a whole subreddit about it.
No I mean where in the wild? Because I only see women referred to as females in screengrabs from incel forums and incelposters on places like 4chan. Obviously if I went to reddit (which I don’t), to a subreddit specifically for aggregating this behavior, I would see it. So where in the wild are you seeing “men and females”?
I often hear men at the gym refer to women as “females” while referring to men as “guys,” so yes, it’s definitely something that exists in the wild. I never hear them call men “males.” I never hear women call men “males” either.
it’s because it’s extremely often used in such a way that people (typically men) will refer to men as men and refer to women as females. It’s why you may see the phrase “men and females” thrown around as a response.
Right, so the premise is there’s something wrong with the word that names an entire gender. The campaign isn’t “don’t use ‘men and females’”, it’s “don’t use ‘females’”. They’ll write about Ferengis whenever a suspected non-female uses female: they’re not examining meanings & context to draw critical distinctions. ‘Men and females’ is merely a rationalization.
The effect: female is a slur, yet male isn’t, so female is stigmatized. That disparity raises the impression that femininity has such deficiencies even their name is a term of abuse unworthy of pride, and that females are too frail without society coming to defend them from the adversity of their name. In contrast, masculinity is sufficient for its name not to raise adversity, and even if it did, males have the fortitude for society not to come to their defense. That unequal treatment of words implicates females disfavorably thereby stigmatizing them.
Think who that serves: is opposition to the noun “female” unwittingly subscribing to stigmatization & sexist thinking of those who’d welcome the stigmatization? The language police are playing themselves here.
Treating the word female like male, however, wouldn’t raise such questions & impressions, and it wouldn’t ostensibly support a sexist premise and play into its consequences.
Right, so the premise is there’s something wrong with the word that names an entire gender.
How do you get that? The word “women” names an entire gender and isn’t viewed as a problem. Why do you think the problem people have with “females” is because it names an entire gender?
It was already explained, it’s the premise their activism supports by advocating the disparate treatment of female as a slur. From an external, impartial observer, claiming there’s a problem with the word female with little regard for context communicates the problem resides in whatever the word itself denotes rather than the contextual meaning.
Moreover, the position they advocate is counterfactual. The language community decides the meaning of words through observed usage, and in the preponderance of the community, neither female nor woman is offensive. That includes among females. Female is used self-referentially “in-group”: it shows up in feminist book titles, in dating communities (eg, “F4F/M”), classifieds (eg, “need a roommate […] females only”), etc. In conventional language, female is an acceptable word (as is woman).
Imagine online activists started condemning usage of the word dutch as a slur. It’s bizarre: there is nothing wrong with the dutch, yet they’re acting as though we should think so & resist that urge? Why are they propagating problematic presuppositions we don’t have about the dutch? Why are they trying to make this official? Are they some special breed of stupid?
Continuing this analogy, they drag you into fights by claiming you’re a racist for using the word when you’re not actually saying anything offensive about the dutch. You & the rest of society know the word dutch isn’t offensive, yet these activists insist it is by pointing to some fringe online community spewing vitriolic propaganda about dutch inferiority specifically using the word dutch. You repudiate their claim by asking why some fringe group irrelevant to wider society gets to decide the meaning of words, but they condemn your “hurtful” language and say you’re as bad as them or one of them. Don’t be an asshole & use another word like Dutchperson, Netherlander, or Hollander they say: it’s the right thing to do & shows socially conscientious, moral rectitude.
While our society includes both a minority of sexists & a vast majority of non-sexists who use the word female differently, these activists privilege the language & rhetoric of the sexist minority over the non-sexist majority. Why should the sexists get to decide the meaning of words for everyone & the unequal ideas to perpetuate in society? Who does that serve?
Older activists recognized that doesn’t serve them & took a different approach. Against higher odds, black activists reappropriated the word black as a word of pride. Non-heteronormative activists did likewise with the word queer. Instead of antagonizing non-sexists by treating them as sexists or fulfilling an inferiority complex to make sexist language official, online language police would be wise to learn from the older activists & follow their example.
I thought it was widely accepted that you shouldn’t use this word outside of, like, quoting old medical diagnosis from when the word was used in that context. It is not an okay insult.
Maybe I just hang out with nicer people.
context is important. when I call my friend steph a “stupid bitch”, we both know she’s not “stupid” nor a “bitch”.
when I call a political leader retarded, I mean it in a derogatory way. a slur. in all the negative meanings as possible.
when I call a neurotypical person retarded, I mean it in the same way.
however, important context, it is never acceptable to use the word to describe someone who is intellectually challenged. it’s not their fault, and they have zero control over their situation.
I think it’s actually offensive to even compare intellectually challenged people to the word even.
I believe the word has purpose in the lexicon still, and that is describe the willfully ignorant in a visceral way that they are forced to take offense to it.
words can have more than one meaning. if it’s not directed at you or used to discriminate against you, it should be perfectly acceptable to use words to describe.
this zero tolerance and censorship of words never ended well in history only because it’s a constant battle of drawing lines in sand.
I know I’ll probably get banned for this comment, but I still think I deserve to speak my opinion on this. you don’t have to agree or disagree, I just want people to think for themselves and not fall into a dark pattern of censorship.
it’s an entirely reasonable take. but context is hard for people and they fail to understand that other people are not them, and get very angry with other people don’t behave the way they think they should.
And that’s that person’s problem.
