Comment on Based Red Dead
Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week agoCopying most of my response to a similar line of reasoning elsewhere in this thread - bad for so, so long, and we can do better.
The thing is, you’re not entirely wrong in your reasoning. It is just a word. If the treadmill had continued for another generation, and a new word had successfully replaced it, it probably wouldn’t be a slur. It might be forever used as casually and as apathetically as we use terms like “idiot” and “imbecile” and lose most of its weight and implications (words, by the way, that I’m not defending usage of - I’m just not elevating them to the morally repugnant status of slur).
But that didn’t happen. This word still holds a terrible number of memories for the living. And it doesn’t need to survive. Plenty of incredible insults have died out from everyday usage for literally no good reason - language just evolves constantly over time. What’s the harm in letting this one die for plenty of very good reasons?
You - any of you reading this, anyone who needs to hear this - you don’t need to die on this hill with this word. It continues to wither away, and there’s genuinely no personal or societal value in trying to keep it in use. No history needs to be preserved in your vernacular, and certainly not such a troubled history.
No one is trying to take away your speech. No one is coming for your words. But you will upset people with your words throughout your life. You’ll upset people with the truth, and you’ll upset people with lies. You’ll upset people with words carefully chosen, and you’ll upset people with off-the-cuff remarks.
But in this case, you will upset people by carelessly using words that carry painful memories. You are not being bold or rebellious. You are not standing proudly against some nebulous tide of societal overcorrection for past mistakes. This is not some last stand for sanity in a world gone mad. There are many places to make that stand, many worthy causes to fight for - this isn’t one of them.
You’re just using the last word that many people remember being used for cruelty and humiliation against a vulnerable group of people. What is that worth, to you? What makes the word hold such value, that you would use it even though it upsets people?
Do you use it because it upsets people? Why? What purpose does that serve? Do you honestly think that this word - of all words - will provide some personal or societal benefit? Will you change the future for the better by using it?
Cypher@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Not something I have disputed, in fact I have made this point repeatedly about the word moron.
There will always be a need in language to describe people who are less intellectually capable so I absolutely disagree with this claim. Retard is simply still the word of choice despite efforts to censor its usage.
Censoring speech is exactly what you’ve claimed isn’t happening, yet it is happening and you are making an argument for the censorship of a word.
Yes. Because I clearly don’t want to have to waste my time on people who are, or are acting, retarded.
Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
Still the word of choice? Published in the DSM-IV 30 years ago? Not the words that came after? The DSM-V, the ICD? These don’t quite fit in the vernacular? They don’t satisfy your language needs?
That’s the entire point. The treadmill stopped on that word. The diagnosis-turned-slurs have stopped churning out. You can call something idiotic. You can say that’s moronic. You can even argue, perhaps, that it’s imbecilic. And finally, lastly, immortally, you can say, “that’s retarded.”
I’m not saying you need to say any of these things, mind you. But I do understand that you want to find a word that’s just a bit more satisfying than saying “that’s stupid.” It sounds childish, I know. So you want to say “that’s retarded” because it really works, y’know? And people get upset when you say it.
But would you say “it’s disabled” to mean “it’s stupid”?
Would you say “that’s so handicapped”?
The catch-all term that said “you’re stupid” also said “these people are all the same” and has been pinned down and stuck in place in your mind and the minds of society, and words like “disabled” or “handicapped” just doesn’t quite cut it. Oh, people use them the way you know they’re going to be used. Mean and ignorant people will use the words the way mean and ignorant people will always use words.
But you’ll never use them that way. You, and your family, and your doctor, and your classmates, and your coworkers, and your friends, and your government… they’ll never say “that’s so disabled” when they want to say “that’s so stupid.”
And sometimes people will say inappropriate things like “what are you, handicapped?” And that won’t be okay.
What comes next shouldn’t satisfy what you seem to want. We probably won’t settle on an easy answer, and the current “safe” terms will probably fall out of favor in their time. Because they become slurs? I doubt it. But because they are insufficient for our language needs? Probably.
If we as a society keep moving in the right direction, nobody will ever use the next “safe” terms the way you freely use the word “retard”. That’s the entire point.
There is no need to set an arbitrary line on some poorly designed IQ chart and say the people below this line are inferior and the people above this line are human and then use that line to call other people stupid.
There are synonyms that you can use for vernacular that absolutely fill the needs that you’re suggesting are crucial for the english language. There are plenty of words to call your friend when he left his keys in your car and his phone at his ex’s.
There are also plenty of words to describe a vulnerable group of people for the purposes of professional care and legal protections. These don’t need to be the same words anymore, and if we do our jobs right they never will be again.