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.
Do you also use the N word? Would you feel comfortable using that as an insult?
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?
That’s a lot of words to call me a failure, buddy, seems like I touched a nerve. You’re not wrong, but of all the reasons I’m a failure, using kinder, more inclusive language isn’t one of them.
I’m smart enough to know I’m still pretty dumb, but I’m also still smart enough to know that not using potentially offensive language costs me nothing, but makes the world a slightly better place. You do you, though.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who is renornalizing it?
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?
+1
Maybe y’all haven’t experienced it as a slur. I grew up around jerks that did, and it leaves a nasty taste. I’ve caught myself using it, and felt awful afterwards.
I don’t think intellectually challenged individuals deserve cruelty, nor do I believe anyone does. However, this is the first argument that popped into my head, and I want to genuinely discuss this. Again, I do NOT agree that the intellectually challenged are deserving of discrimination. This is for the purpose of discussion.
If being intellectually challenged isn’t worthy of discrimination, why feel insulted when called retarded?
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.
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?
Now it’s CaucasianList and AfricanAmericanList.
Where is the AsianList? I thought we were supposed to be inclusive now!
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.
“Morally banning”. But you got my point
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
But OP worked with “intellectually challenged” ???
Jfc can’t even call myself retarded without offending an unrelated neuro-typical “standing up” for us.
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.
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
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 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 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.
