I don’t really understand this meme. If I wanna insult someone, obviously I’m gonna use insulting language. At least that’s the easiest of a thousands possible ways to insult someone. What’s your point?
My point is that it’s not necessary to use language that puts down entire groups of people in order to offend someone. The phrase, “bigoted piece of shit,” is obviously ‘insulting language,’ but it is categorically different from calling someone a slur.
I see people going around saying that the only way they can possibly offend people with their insults is by calling them slurs. That’s nonsense. And it’s very ironic that these same people get really, really mad at me when I call them something like “bigoted piece of shit,” which just proves my point - if it were actually true that slurs are necessary to get that ‘sting,’ then they wouldn’t get so upset when I call them out for being the bigoted pieces of shit they are.
Saying that you need slurs in order to insult people is basically an invitation for people to lay into you as harshly as they like, short of using slurs. And I am more than happy to accept that invitation by calling such people what they are.
Lemmy has a weird issue with being super restrictive of ableist language, beyond reasonable, in some spaces and completely ambivalent in others.
I had someone say I was as useless as accessibility kitchen items, which mostly just means I’m extremely useful to specific people and viewed as a joke by intolerant people who don’t care about others…
Weirdly good compliment. Really telling in the idiot using it.
Lemmy in general is divided into 3 major subsections: liberals, Marxist-Leninists, and anarchists. The Marxist-Leninists and anarchists tend to be far stricter about ableism than the liberals.
Yeah that about sums it up. I wonder why the Anarchists do it.
Anarchists are to liberalism as libertarians are to Republicans.
Every so often you’ll run into one that is serious and intellectually rigorous to the ideals they profess, but most of them are simply (liberals/republicans) but also want to be cool.
Anarchism isn’t typically “fuck rules, do what you want.”
It can be, though, if you’re smart about it.
I still have such dissonance about this. I want to say “Look at this idiot” and point out something unintelligent that an objectively evil person does. But because intelligence is an inherited trait, we can only use negative language when referring to a person for evil that they do by choice? Or something? So, evil people bumbling can only be mocked for the evil intent and not for their inability to be evil with skill and intelligence?
I dunno. Trump is a numpty and if that offends the numps or whatever group that term was originally a slur for then I apologize.
edit: to be clear, the r word seems objectively shitty to use and I don’t. I just have yet to find an objective litmus test for where the line is between that and “silly” cuz I swear there’s always someone there to explain the etymology of “silly” and how it’s origins were shitty in some way
Intelligence is an inherited trait?
But because intelligence is an inherited trait
I don’t think this is true, practically speaking. Intelligence is like endurance running speed in that there are heritable components to it, but at the end of the day environmental factors dominate on who is or isn’t faster than another.
I can make fun of someone for being dumb in the same way that I can make fun of someone for being a slow runner. It’s only problematic when their slowness is actually caused by something out of their control, like some kind of health issue.
By this logic fat shaming is acceptable? Some people naturally have faster or slower metabolisms. But anybody can have healthy or unhealthy body weights. Some just have to work harder at it. So if somebody has a naturally fast metabolism but chooses to eat and exercise like Trump does, it’s ok to make fun of them for their weight?
I know this is distilling your well stated point down too far, but I’ve always enjoyed the Forest Gump philosophy:
Stupid is as stupid does.
The ableism is coming from inside the house - it’s not a bad thing to be intellectually disabled. The problem with Trump is not that he’s stupid, it’s that he’s a selfish, careless, thoughtless, cruel, ignorant asshole.
Using words like “stupid” as an insult implies that all people lacking in intellect or wisdom are also bad people.
The thing is, having someone who is so intellectually disabled try to run our country is a really bad idea. And we can see all the pain and destruction this is causing.
Trumps stupidity is very valid to insult for this reason. It is emphatically harming countless people across our nation.
Stupid is as stupid does, and Trump does lots of stupid things.
The pain and destruction is caused by fascism, not by his intelligence. If he was “more intelligent”, he would not cause less pain or destruction.
I dunno… get a nice, well-intentioned, thoughtful, compassionate and caring person with an intellectual disability into office, they’d listen to advisors, work well with others, they wouldn’t assume they already know best about every situation… I think it would work out pretty well, to be honest!
Right. This is what I was talking about. I (and I suspect others) oftentimes want to name call a person and not only point out their evil but also point out their incompetence and inability. Both of which usually have some intelligence component.
It seems reasonable to berate an evil person when they can’t even be evil competently.
But we can’t (or shouldn’t) because it indirectly (or directly) makes fun of people who are perfectly good people who are unintelligent.
Again. I get it. Probably just showing my bias and yet another fuckin thing to unlearn.
I’m guessing it’s not just cognitive abilities either? “Tripped over his own dick” is offense to folks with motor control problems. Etc etc.
Therefore the only thing you can make fun of is a person’s evilness. Not their incompetence (because all incompetence is presumed to be from natural causes that aren’t their fault)
You absolutely can ridicule someone’s lack of competence, for sure, because competence isn’t an inherent trait. Intelligence and competence aren’t really causally linked. Sure, someone with an intellectual disability might not be the world’s greatest chess player, for example, but for most people with an intellectual disability, with more than an average amount of practice, they can beat an average player.
I think “tripped over his own dick” is fine, that doesn’t suggest to me “he’s bad because he has mobility issues”, it’s more like carelessness.
Remember as well that you don’t need to be perfect, nobody is acting or expecting that. All we can all do is try our best and if we hurt people, take accountability and apologise to them. No one always gets it right and it’s okay to get it wrong, so long as you’re not being stubborn and refusing to change because you don’t care about the feelings of others, people will be fine with it!
I agree. Furthermore, I see no difference between the “r word” and any other word that denigrates someone for their intelligence. That’s because there is effectively no difference other than a well monied campaign against that one, single word.
I accept all of those words as valid as a result. I don’t conflate them with actual horrible words with actual history, such as the n word. I’m actually quite offended that people are suggesting these are equally offensive.
People who are offended by this “r word” are idiots in my book. If the only thing that offends you about that last sentence is the “r word” bit, then you’re probably a hypocrite.
Idiot, imbecile, stupid. These are all offensive if you yell them at a neurodivergent person. So, why is only one word not okay to ever say? Why must I censor myself here in this very conversation?
The answer is money. Lots and lots of money went into a campaign against it. Also, virtue signaling. Lots of that, too. Have some moral integrity, stop this assault on semantics. It’s meant to divide people who would otherwise be united.
It’s meant to divide people who would otherwise by united.
“I want to avoid using language that offends others in order to be more inclusive and reduce division.”
“Stop being divisive!”
When Musk started using this word earlier this year, he knew what he was doing. This is a weakness to all of us who actually care about other people, and vulnerable groups. You do you, though.
To expand upon this, the reason I defend the use of this word within the context of using it to replace “stupid”, or other denigratory language targeted at intelligence, is because the majority of people alive today were raised with it not being an insult. I think it’s despicable to label people “ablest” when all they are likely doing is trying to call someone “stupid” - something that everyone seems to still agree is totally fine.
This was a common, clinical term before 10-15 years ago. It’s wrong to use against neurodivergent individuals because it over-simplifies the many different different complexities that exist within the neurodivergent community. This said, the idea it is so horrible we can’t ever utter it again is absurd. If you go back into the roots and origins of other words, such as the n-word, there is no moral justification for it’s existence. This word, however, has a justification… a strong justification.
Punishing people for using a word they don’t see as divisive is immoral, and in itself divisive.
This is complete nonsense, it was already an insult 10-15 years ago and was largely phased out because most people agreed it was problematic and offensive. Now, the right is trying to bring it back and sow division by introducing the idea that it isn’t, an effort which you are choosing to be complicit in, god knows why.
This. I think this is where that line is that I’m still trying to dial in on. To some extent, intelligence is under our control (this is why “you’re being ignorant” is legit. Some idiocy (or lack of education?) is by choice). So, maybe it’s fine to mock somebody for remaining willfully ignorant. But not ok if they’re intellectually less capable due medical/biological factors?
No wonder it’s a blurry line. This shit is ambiguous af.
I hate that this response lead with “I agree”. To me, the r word is repulsive. I hear what you’re saying about “it didn’t used to mean what it’s come to mean”. But folks use the same argument to fly the swastika and use the n word. I get where you’re coming from. But word of advice: try taking arguments that you want to use to defend one thing and see what kinds of things you don’t agree with you could use the same argument for. Legitimately a fun mental exercise and amazing way to pre-check your arguments.
I don’t even believe in free will, I can’t talk shit to anyone
Or homophobia, sexism, racism, etc. Then they get banned and complain about being censored.
Also goes for body shaming
???
Maybe an unpopular opinion:
It would be nice if the r word was not a medical condition and just a word, the word has a good sound to it in my language. I would trade easily the r word for dumb or something like that. Dumb in Portuguese is awful
was not a medical condition and just a word
It is just a word. It means to delay or the opposite of “advance” and is still used like that in industries like aviation and terms like fire removedant.
But when you use it to call someone stupid, that’s when you’re using it in the context of ablism and as a slur.
Similar to the term for a female dog, which is still used in veterinary medicine and research to mean an actual dog that is female. Though like the R word, the context as a slur is gradually discouraging its use even as its original meaning because people don’t want to risk having it misunderstood.
No i feel you. Honestly we do need a woke slur that isn’t homophobic, racist, sexist, ableist, etc.
Piece of shit. Simple and to the point. Shit’s pretty gross and it’s universal human instinct to avoid it. Maybe even shithead if you want a single word.
Asshole. Gender neutral and not tied to ethnicity since we all have one. Maybe even going further and calling someone an asshole related condition like prolapsed rectum or hemorrhoid, things that can happen to anyone, are pretty painful and definitely to be avoided, but AFAIK were never conditions that were heavily marginalized or shamed.
Clown or fool. Clowns/fools are types of characters people played historically (and still do?), IMO it doesn’t imply anything about a person’s actual intelligence or mental state, only their actions. You’re not born a clown or fool, but you can definitely act like one. Also lends itself to a snarky 🤡 emoji I’ve seen some people here use instead of typing out an insult.
Though there could be additional context or history to any of these terms I’m not aware of that push them into one of the -ist categories, IDK I’m not a linguist.
Sycophant, rogue, reactionary, deeply userious, ghoul, vampire, all seem to be pretty good.
Ghoul is the only really good one in the list. Its a generic feind thats in no way cool.
Rogues and vampires are cool.
Sycophant is good when someone’s being a sycophant. But you can be independently ghoulish.
I’d argue it depends on how you use it. Calling Bezos a blood-sucking vampire of a man that lives more the more he feasts on others is pretty insulting, I’d say.
It should be, but vampires are alluring which belies their evil. That’s the cautionary part of the fiction.
Is Bezos a soulless ghoul cannibalizing the festering, necrotic wound of poverty which he grows larger every day? Yes, and in no way can that be conflated to being sexy.
Sure, I like that more, but vampire can have its uses for variety’s sake. Gotta be creative.
I feel like there needs to be a good word for someone who has the capacity to do better burlt chooses to dwell in ignorance and should be ashamed of that.
Deeply unserious usually works. They aren’t taking things seriously, or putting in any actual effort, just coasting along on their preconcieved notions.
Many of the bad words have that nice ring in my language, if only they weren’t offensive… I would totally trade 'em
I mean I guess that is why they are offensive words. They are bad to use even if you know they sound so good to shout. Otherwise they would just be fun shout words like “purple nurple!”.
We are all guilty of this. Especially if you don’t think so, you are.
I’ve had bigots use gender affirming insults and supportive people that are just the worst at gendered language, people suck and we’re all just people.
Exactly. Just try to be better when you can.
I don’t really think it’s difficult to avoid ableism in our language.
Look at this cowbee, so easy for you but think of how hard being reasonable and empathetic is for bigoted assholes? In avoiding ableism you’ve become a participant!
<Exceedingly dripping sarcasm emoji>
<Exceedingly dripping sarcasm emoji>
i need to get into the habit of adding tags like these because i’m almost never serious and it never fails for someone to miss the sarcasm/snark each time i do it.
If a single word with no significant history attributes ableism to the person or people who use it, then perhaps you’re the problem.
What are you alluding to?
Maybe the fact that you think the terms: dickriding, meatriding, dicksucking or cocksucking are somehow slurs?
Never said they were slurs, but that their usage as pejoratives is usually with homophobic and/or misogynistic undertones. The insulting part is usually the societal shame cast on women and gay men historically, as there’s nothing actually wrong with liking dick.
That is just not true. The terms have roots in AAVE that have nothing to do with bigotry. It’s mocking the action itself rather than the perpetrators of said actions
Why is the action bad?
