Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)M

maniclucky

@ maniclucky @lemmy.world

Posts
1
Comments
312
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • grrr

    Jump

  • So calling someone a removed is always a slur? Ignoring context is stupid because it is willfully ignorance. Clearly context matters.

    So dropping the n-slur when no black people are around strips it of its history and the connotations used by the speaker? History is part of the context. Tone is part of the context. Both were present.

    Furthermore who defines it as as a slur.

    Society as a whole generally does that. We collectively decided 20 or so years ago that it was a bad thing to do. And the world was better for it. But that is a bad argument. Advocacy groups publishing articles reasoning far better than I regarding its status as hate speech is probably the better angle.

    I know someone who is mentally developed that throws around the retard word all the time. Are you offended for them?

    I'll assume you meant developmentally delayed. I don't care for it, but that's getting into 'reclaiming the word' territory, which is not what this conversation is about.

    Also retardation has fallen out of favor for medical diagnosis. It has not fallen out of favor for a general insult, no matter how badly you want it to. Once again, ignoring context.

    The existence of this conversation and my general net upvote (with a nod that lemmy is not a complete demographic, nor do a few comments do an informed study make) rather disproves that. It was out of favor for a long ass time. It was scumbags like Joe Rogan who brought it back. Words evolve past their history. A point I have at no point refuted, merely rejected the argument that this is relevant. One must show that the evolution has changed it sufficiently to no longer be a slur. It still bears its history and current status of being a slur despite falling out of medical favor.

    Lastly punching down refers to social ridicule from a high standing group to a low standing group.

    The individual, presumably not disabled, used the intellectually disabled as an insult against others. While perhaps not directly social ridicule it's not exactly promoting social standing. I'll grant that they were not attacked directly and thus punching down is not the most appropriate term. What was done was definitely a sibling and still a shitty thing to do.

    So yeah you are acting stupid and you continue to double down on the stupidity like it is a badge of honor.

    You fundamentally misunderstand. I see an offensive thing. I make a single comment that spiraled in a big way. I defend my position and await a compelling argument to convince me otherwise, which has not arisen. I've even had some good faith debate and conceded a few things in this mess. Your arguments just aren't landing for the reason's I'm spending too much time and effort on.

    I'll admit that my taunts were in poor taste. It doesn't induce good faith debate to insult.

  • grrr

    Jump

  • That's a poorly reasoned take. Slurs are only slurs if someone's around to hear it? That's definitely not how that works. Additionally, groups that are not necessarily mentally delayed (waves in autistic) get painted with that brush too. So even by your poor reasoning, it was a slur because I was there to see it.

    It was also definitely punching down. It was the classic usage "Group X is like group Y and they're bad because of the features they share", specifically difficulty understanding new information in this context. Explain how it wasn't that? How it didn't draw an equality between them based upon the expressed undesirable feature of learning difficulties, thus implying that the intellectually disabled are less because of it?

    So, yeah. You're taunting me. Really badly.

  • grrr

    Jump

  • Well with such a compelling, well reasoned argument, I'll have to concede. Well done.

  • grrr

    Jump

  • Now you're just taunting me. Badly.

  • grrr

    Jump

  • Idiot has a similar history. Most clinical terms and words describing someone with an intellectual disability ends up turned into an insult.

    This whole thing has me soured on using lack of intelligence as in insult, because it shouldn't be. We're more than what we know or the ease in which we learn things. It feels old-timey to use it, but foolish feels a better term for what should be an undesirable trait. Along the lines of reveling in ones ignorance is a thing that shouldn't be encouraged. Could just be my internal dictionary on that one.

    meaning anyone who does this is just a straight up bad person.

    Complete and utter agreement. No caveats. Capital T Truth is one of the very few things I'd call 'sacred' (gross religious connotations aside).

    I guess I’m mostly referring to internet usage as well

    That's fair. I'm the weird millennial that really didn't do forums or vaguely social internet things back in the day. And I think I forget how edgy the internet back then was. This kids, is why anecdote is an incomplete source of knowledge.

    I unironically love good faith and intellectually honest debate. It gives me energy.

    It's too bad they're so few and far between. It's that good faith bit that's so hard to get. Engaging in a way that leaves me open to being wrong and understanding more is delightful, even if the topic is not necessarily so.

  • grrr

    Jump

  • If you're gonna jump in so late with so little to add, at least have the courage to drop the slur. It was right there.

  • grrr

    Jump

  • Do you think “idiot” and “moron” are offensive to the mentally handicapped? Are they unacceptably ableist?

    This popped up elsewhere in this dumpster fire. I eliminated moron (which was specifically called out) from my dictionary because I'll put my money where my mouth is. Further, the idea of shaming people for lacking knowledge is by itself problematic. Intelligence in general is not a single factor but context specific. I don't know a lot about a lot of things and that doesn't make me a worse person, those just aren't my fields. XKCD's lucky 10000 is a great example of why shaming people into pretending they know things makes the world worse. Bear in mind, pride in not knowing things is foolish and worth derision.

    feel a distinct and strong disgust for anti-intellectuals and dumb shit rightwingers that softer insults do not even make qualification for let alone rank for casual usage where I’m not necessarily trying to get creative.

    I understand that one. I agree with the sentiment even if I disagree with the execution. I'd offer alternatives if I had them, but I'm burned on the whole thing for the moment. End of the day I really don't want to insult people really.

    Using the r-slur doesn’t do that.

    That's kinda my point. The group that the r-slur maligns is not one prone to violence or aggregated enough that people feel the need to check themselves. If I remember right (not looking up studies right now so I'll eat my words if I'm wrong), the mentally disabled are far more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators thereof. Might be crossing my wires with mental illness, but you get my point. It's not the best that the only reason certain groups aren't given respect is because they aren't prone to harming those that disrespect them, often to their detriment.

    I don’t consider this taking cultural ideas from the right.

    According to the New York Times, that's exactly where it came from. Posts from Harmeet K. Dhillon, the assistant attorney general overseeing the Justice* Department's Civil Rights Division posted it in some knitting. Joe Rogan said "The word 'retarded' is back".

    And the ramp up in disdain for the usage of word happened leading up to Trump’s first electoral victory in 2016.

    Not even close. I lived through that word dying off in middle school. Early to mid aughts. In my small town it became taboo to say fairly rapidly.

    Its not baseline. Its obviously still a debate, a stubborn one as well.

    It isn't and that's my problem. I am prone to naivete and acting how I think the world should work. It's a thing I struggle with. In my (paltry) defense, the debate died like 20 years ago and assholes brought it back.

    Aside: I appreciate the candid debate. Many thanks.

  • RFK Jr. and Kid Rock Bizarrely Strip Off to Push MAHA Agenda

    Jump

  • Tren is known to make a person red as well.

  • grrr

    Jump

  • I appreciate the answer. I even agree to a large extent with your last point. I still think it an easy thing to not do and will call it out when I see it. I think the people that are letting annoyance with the general rule 'don't be a dick even if you can get away with it' lead them to fascism were probably most of the way there anyway, but that's whatever.

    I'm not going to entreat further change from you, I've got too many paragraphs into this thread as is. I hope to see the immoral sacks of shit get everything they have coming too.

  • grrr

    Jump

  • There was no ambiguous intent to how they used the slur. It was the classic "they're bad because they're like X" usage. It's a word with a long history of harming a marginalized group. It was resurrected by awful people for its original awful purpose.

    So, less good faith this time: why do you defend it? What worth does it have that cannot be claimed elsewhere?

    Asked by someone part of a group that was painted with the r-slur for a long ass time (autism).

  • grrr

    Jump

  • So. Coming down from my high horse and taking a breath. A good faith question for you? I can understand the first paragraph and disagree with the second, but I would like to let that go for just a second.

    Why are you attached to this word? They defend pedophiles, the steal from the poor, they commit atrocities, and they do really bizarre shit like wearing diapers because their leader is incontinent. I get the 'hit them with what hurts' angle and can't say whether or not it's effective. Is casually hurting others, because two different people in these comments have positively asserted that they were offended, worth not choosing a different word?

  • grrr

    Jump

  • I feel like there is a concession here?

    More that I did unacceptable things as a child and grew out of them. An appeal that I'm not some righteous figure, just someone who wants to do better and would like to see that elsewhere.

    This is explicitly what they’re saying it doesn’t mean. They’re not referring to literal mentally handicapped people.

    There is nowhere in there that implies this. It explicitly compares republicans to the intellectually disabled in an equality for the purposes of insult. The republicans were the expressly intended person to be insulted, the intellectually disabled (kinda get using the damned slur, it's a lot faster) being the undesirable comparison.

    And they’re doing so in a way that doesn’t mentally police their own language. Self policing perpetually requires cognitive effort and second guessing.

    Everyone self polices to some extent. We stand in lines, we don't steal, etc, etc. We refrain from using terminology that would hurt others. This is not a high bar. It's the base line. Feels like the only reason it's seen as acceptable is because you can shout that word and not have an angry mob delete you. Use the n-slur on the other hand and no power in the universe will save you depending on where you're standing. But I digress.

    I am autistic. When people insult rightwinger’s social behavior by calling them a cringey autist (and yes, I’ve seen this) it does sting.

    That's the point. I'm autistic too and instead of tolerating shit, backsliding behavior that was picked up from the people we are all agreeing are terrible, I said something. We can rage against them without hurting others. We can have some community standards. Hell, they're defending pedophiles. Why are we using their slurs when they hand us such terrible ones to use? (Argument goes here for using the language they understand, which I don't have an argument against).

    Sometimes you want to hurt who you rightfully hate and are willing to damage yourself and others to do it. Rational ethics do not always come into the picture when you are facing the end of the world.

    Respect for the honesty. And I don't totally disagree. The kid that recently became the 'ok' meme comes to mind. And his way seems more moral. Though it's hard to punch Nazis through the screen.

    Ultimately, this 'purity test' isn't a hard one. This is 'write your name on the paper' level. Debating things like Al Green getting ousted from congress for shit he did decades before is debatable, and a good debate to have. Using slurs that were resurrected by awful people should not be that difficult, nor elicit such discussion. It should be the baseline.

  • grrr

    Jump

  • The test was 'don't use slurs'. I suspect you have larger issues if that is the hill you want to die on.

    I'm autistic. I don't like seeing that word come back. So I called out shit behavior. Have some godsdamned creativity if you're going to insult people. Don't emulate the people you're insulting.

  • grrr

    Jump

  • First and most important: we're in a shitposting community. This is not some stage where the conversation needs a focus. This is THE place to call people out casually. It's a damned free for all for better and worse. I'd honestly be more OK with your argument if this happened elsewhere. I'd still disagree, being polite and ignoring people being shitty in public should be called out more, to hell with face. Holding people to basic standards should be the norm and doing so where others can see shows those that might be hurt that people don't agree. But elsewhere, I'd consider removing my post or some such.

    You're right. Most insults have someone who may be hurt who doesn't deserve it. I've honestly had that thought bouncing around my head for the past hour or so. And I don't have a good answer other than calling them things are/should be universally reviled. Work in progress. Immoral shitstain has a decent ring and I suspect there isn't anyone that identifies with profound uncleanliness. The ideal would be to specifically insult based on bad behavior, but damn that's tough on the fly and very context dependent.

    It should be noted, and you did somewhat, that calling someone and asshole or fucker doesn't have a storied history of being a slur. I'm no philosopher or even terribly good debater to specifically define the line, but 'old slurs that came back because awful people started using them again' feels like an easy win. We gave that word up a long ass time ago, let it stay dead instead of emulating these people we claim to loathe.

  • grrr

    Jump

  • They are making a distinctly unfavorable comparison (or was the monster in the picture that started this a compliment?) by comparing repugnant, morally vacant people to the mentally disabled in an equality. They are saying that republicans are lesser and that they are the same as the intellectually disabled, which would make the intellectually disabled lesser by logic we learned in elementary school.

    It's not hard to not use a slur. There are a great many insults out there. Have some standards.

    And yeah, moron probably would have missed me. It was a slur before my time. And now, I'll update my internal no-no list. Thanks, that's correct. That's a common way people improve, but being called out on shitty behavior.

  • grrr

    Jump

  • Or you call them out in public because discretion just lets things fester. Shame me when I do shameful things, I beg you. Shit like this is how the Overton Window moves. Having basic standards in ones community, however it manifests, is not a bad thing. It signals to others that this behavior is not acceptable instead of quietly letting it slide and implying that it is OK by silence.

    And it isn't a hard standard. It's not asking a lot. Don't use slurs. We generally understand that with race. We mostly understand that with sex and gender. So disability gets a pass? Fuck that. Tear me down if I'm so casually cruel. If you can't have the creativity to have a decent insult that doesn't involve shaming the disabled, then call them (the republicans not the disabled) assholes and move on. Don't use the slurs of the morally repugnant.

  • grrr

    Jump

  • Really? Did you not read the original comment? Because that's how I used it on the playground when I was a child. I asserted another person was less due to an intellectual disability, normalizing that it's OK to insult people using a term that once upon a time neutrally described the intellectually disabled. And then I learned that it isn't OK to punch down, that the people used as an insult were as human and deserving of respect as myself.

    Fuck off with your bad faith nonsense. The original comment is exactly why it became a slur in the first place.

  • grrr

    Jump

  • Don't use hateful and degrading language that harms the intellectually disabled and associated groups.

  • grrr

    Jump

  • You look like them when you drop the r-slur. Don't let their shit behavior and punching down make you worse.

  • Trump, 79, Targets U.S. Olympic Athlete, 27, in New Feud

    Jump

  • Had to read the article to figure out why you bring up an objectively true thing. Well done.