Comment on Based Red Dead
yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 1 week agoWe disagree on the facts. You have once again, without self-awareness or so much as a morsel of empirical evidence, equated “retard” with the n-word, which is preposterous and honestly kind of racist, so I’m out.
Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
I appreciate your good faith and legitimate concerns. But if you could, please answer the question. What is a slur? Your original definition was sufficient for both terms.
There is no such thing as empirical evidence for an emotionally qualitative claim. There is no feasible way to achieve true objectivity there. Trying to call one word worse than another scientifically (rather than philosophically) is like asking people to decide which genocide is worse than another. Not all genocides are the same, of course, and already people migbt rush to say “but we know the worst one!”
But the truth is the answers will vary wildly by the person you ask, and you will not walk away with scientifically rigorous definitions, just a dataset of emotional responses that either agree or disagree with your own internal emotional response.
What - in your opinion - are the qualities of the n-word that differentiate it from “retard”, such that one could be called a slur, and the other is not? Are these differences universally applicable, regardless of the slurs in question? There are more slurs than the “n-word”. What sets those other words apart from the word “retard”?
I really do appreciate your points, because they are reasonable concerns about the nature of human communication and moral philosophy.
Certainly independent of intention, because we as human beings can never truly know another’s intentions with certainty. We can do our best but that’s not useful for establishing moral principles.
But this is the important thing - being worthy of blame is not being worthy of shame. A person can be blamed for an act they commited with all the right intentions and a morally disputable context. Others can tell them “you should have known better”, or others can even choose to no longer associate with that person if they want, because that’s their freedom to do so.
But that doesn’t make them a bad person. Other people’s opinions are not truth. Not in a philosophical sense, not in an objective moral sense. The difference is if that person can accept that blame in the first place. If they can genuinely see why other people blame them, why other people don’t want to associate with them, and genuinely try to make sure what they did and what they do next was right to do.
They may even come to the wrong conclusions. They may genuinely think they’re doing the morally correct thing, and everyone else is morally incorrect, and sometimes people are right when they think that, and sometimes people are wrong when they think that. That doesn’t make them bad people, if they decide to do the wrong thing when their intentions were good. That doesn’t make them worthy of shame. But everyone else does unfortunately have to blame them for whatever they do next, good or bad, because there is nobody else to blame.
I know this is terribly apropos, but I have to ask… Was the use of neurotic here intentional?
These examples are not control. If you say a word, and another person says “how dare you!” and decides you’re a bad person… have they controlled you?
Sure, sometimes these groups get power and exert control. But I want to clarify that that’s not your stated concern here. You didn’t bring up examples of theocratic governments or religious persecution. Your stated concern is what “to what extent are others entitled… to getting mad… to being offended?”
The answer is to the fullest extent. Others are entitled to be offended, and get mad. They’re not entitled to imprison you or harm you. That’s control.
But to what extent are others entitled to being offended? What do you think the answer to that question should be? Do you think that you should control them? To tell them that they’re not allowed to feel the way they feel about your behavior, and rhey’re not allowed to use the words they want to use to express those feelings?
Or do you think they’re allowed to be offended, just as much as you’re allowed to be upset when you believe someone is insulting you or judging you without cause or justification?
Everyone is entitled - to the absolute fullest extent possible - to their beliefs, and their expression. This includes you. Just as everyone else is entitled - to the absolute fullest extent possible - to believe you’re a bad person for your beliefs, and for the way you express yourself.
I don’t think you are a bad person. But I also don’t think they’re being bad people when they tell you they don’t like what you have to say.
yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 1 week ago
A slur is an insulting or disparaging remark (according to the dictionary). Our contention is not over the definition of that word (I hope), but over whether the use of offensive language (such as slurs) is categorically unacceptable.
There are lots of slurs, but only a handful cross the line (for me at least), because I consider them to exclusively and belligerently perpetuate some evil ideology (usually racism). I don’t want to list these words here, but I can think of maybe 3 or 4.
Well, history is not a matter of emotion. It is a matter of empirical fact. We can trace the origins and common usage of words, and the n-word is no exception. That body of knowledge is the product of research (historical data). The (mis)use of the medical term “retard” is also well understood. Its transference to colloquial slang is actually unexceptionable. Consider “psycho” or “cretin.” In the same vein, the word “autist” is now being used disparagingly among teenagers being goofy or weird, and so on.
“Autist” may not be sticky enough to require the medical community to come up with an alternative, more technical (and therefore less appealing) term for that mental disorder.
Regardless, people will continue to look for ways to call each other stupid, and the best thing we can do is encourage researchers to come up with long and convoluted names for medical conditions so they don’t get co-opted by teenagers looking for creative ways to insult each other.
Well, yes and no. You have a responsibility to be mindful of those around you. But they also have a responsibility to at least attempt to understand what you’re trying to say. If we ignore your intentions, the result is tantamount to willful misunderstanding.
Remember, we are apes. Nothing more. Language is complex, and the average person is painfully, animalistically stupid. That’s why we have to be charitable to one another and give folks leeway to communicate without losing our shit over misunderstandings.
Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
That’s not the best thing we can do. We don’t have to waste time trying to avoid giving teenagers ammunition, and we certainly don’t have to do it by giving people with learning disabilities a diagnosis that could be hard for them to remember or understand.
Teenagers don’t need ammunition. The reason “autist” isn’t sticky enough, the reason it’s not used colloquially, the reason it’s only an insult for teenagers and people with the emotional maturity of the average teenager is because it’s an actual diagnosis with an increasingly well-studied list of symptoms, and standards of care, and moral implications.
It should serve the same vernacular niche as “retard” but it doesn’t seem to be doing so. Adults don’t say “that’s autistic” with good intentions. They do say “that’s retarded” with good intentions. Why? Because being a “retard” was a blanket diagnosis with no real treatment options, and no real empirical evidence of its value as a diagnostic label. It was too broad and too vague and therefore effectively synonymous with “very stupid.” “Autistic” isn’t synonymous with stupid.
I really do think we agree completely for the rest of this, this might just be semantics. They do, absolutely, have that responsibility. You are blameworthy for your acts. And they are blameworthy for their’s in response. The whole point is that you and they are entitled to beliefs and feelings, just as you and they are responsible for words and actions. If you are judged poorly for doing the right thing, then you can blame them for that. And they can blame you for the things they’re judging you for.
They’re entitled to that, because yes we are just apes trying to grasp at moral truths that are not written in the stars or the atoms of the world, and in fact some of these moral truths appear to be actively in contention with many of our ape-derived biological and psychological functions.
And we very often get things wrong. And yes, we have to try to be charitable and give each other leeway. I think that you and I do disagree on some fundamental information, and I think you and I have given each other plenty of leeway, and managed to communicate in a healthy and productive way.
I’m asking you - why should that stop here? Don’t the people offended by a term deserve some charitable consideration? Some leeway? They’re communicating a feeling that they have. They feel upset. They feel offended. They feel angry. Are they entitled to those feelings? Yes. Can you blame them for those feelings? You are entitled to.
But many of them won’t understand or believe your intentions are good. Is that their fault? That they can’t see into the mind of a fellow ape, and know your heart is pure?
The transference of “retard” from medical diagnosis to colloquial slang is actually exceptionable. Because it appears to be the last one in the list for this particular group of people. The last one to be so pervasive, so ubiquitous, and so synonymous with “stupid”. There were plenty of others before… but what’s the next one?
It’s not about disarming teenagers. It’s about trying to learn more. It’s about seeing each other’s intentions, and actions, and needs. And it’s about not using a word so stained by bad intentions, so villainous in action, and so dismissive of needs.
When a doctor told a parent their son was mentally retarded… that was it. They just were. For the rest of their life. They were a “retard.” And the parents just had to deal with it.
When a doctor tells a parent their son is autistic, they follow it with “here’s what that means.” Here’s a couple of potential reasons why they might be the way they are. Here’s what their life might look like as an adult, based on these studies. Here’s the coping mechanisms you can try to teach them, here’s the educational methods that seem to work best, here’s the support structure that you need to build.
Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But the whole point is it is far, far better than it ever was with the word “retard”, and we as apes and as a collection of apes know so, so much more now. That’s why “that’s autistic” doesn’t mean “that’s stupid” for most people, and therefore why it also doesn’t replace “that’s retarded” for most people.
The term itself was deeply flawed from the beginning, as was idiot, as was cretin. I do blame the people that came up with it, and used it. But I don’t think they were bad people. I don’t hate them. I think they were acting with good intentions, and probably with the best information that they could find in context.
I just also think they caused a lot of harm by inventing a diagnosis that was far too broad to be medically or socially useful. They can be blamed for that. It was their responsibility to do no harm, and they did harm. That doesn’t make them worthy of shame, or bad people. It just makes them human.
yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 1 week ago
I really like your response and I needed a minute to read it. Let me reply later.
yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 1 week ago
But “autist” is used colloquially. All the time. That’s my point. I mean that it hasn’t entered wider usage outside of high schools, twitch, and discord servers. Boomers don’t use it as an insult (yet).