yeahiknow3
@yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
- Comment on Based Red Dead 1 week ago:
I think that there are a lot of good reasons not to use the word “retard”. And there aren’t many good reasons to use it. I know of plenty of alternatives.
Agreed. That’s my feeling as well.
But how often do people use the word cretin?
Most people have no clue what that word means or how it originated. I certainly don’t use “cretin,” since I have no use for disparaging someone for being mentally and physically crippled. Maybe that’s your point, that properly understanding the genesis of some term can undermine your desire to use it? And you’re right. Cretinism, the disease, makes me really sad, as does the fact that assholes chose to turn it into a pejorative. So maybe that’s has something to do with my unwillingness to ever use the word.
In my mind, “retard” was more of a vague diagnosis mental slowness, so it makes me less sad. Still, I’m far less willing to use it than an alternative word like “idiot” whose meaning is totally divorced in my imagination from any origin story. After all, once you use a word (a bunch of sounds) to mean something long enough, it eventually makes no difference what the word used to mean. That said, I can see your point. The cretin example is a good one. Very persuasive.
- Comment on Based Red Dead 1 week ago:
I agree with everything you’ve written, but we are sort of going in a big circle. Earlier I wrote that
using the r-word to insult someone autistic is cruel and unacceptable.
For that reason, I can endorse everything you’re written here. However, I thought our disagreement was over whether there should be a concerted effort to banish a particular pejorative term from our vocabularies (namely the r-word). I had argued no, since it seemed like an overreaction, whereas you made it clear that groups of people were being offended/hurt by the casual use of that term.
So then the question becomes:
- To what extent are we responsible for moderating our private speech in order to appease random people we’ve never met?
- My intuition is that the answer is never. I think words should be struck from our vocabulary for a very different reason. Namely, when they represent an evil ideology. That is to say, I think that removing words from our vocabulary is a drastic thing to do and should be reserved for truly heinous verbiage (the sort of language that, if you used it, the only possible outcome between us would be violence). Some of these words are so evil, I can’t even euphemize them without feeling angry and sick.
- My understanding is that you have looser parameters for unacceptable language, which must meet a certain thresholds of causing offense to be a candidate for censorship.
- Comment on Based Red Dead 1 week ago:
I really like your response and I needed a minute to read it. Let me reply later.
- Comment on Based Red Dead 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).
- Comment on Based Red Dead 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.
There is no such thing as empirical evidence for an emotionally qualitative claim.
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.
The unfortunate truth is, yes. We are blameworthy for all acts independent of intention or context, because we have to be responsible for everything we do.
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.
- Comment on Based Red Dead 1 week ago:
We 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.
- Comment on Based Red Dead 1 week ago:
My understanding is that words like “moron” and “retard” were conceived as medical terms that outlived their usefulness when they inevitably entered the vernacular, because, again (and this is important), you can’t stop people from calling each other stupid.
- Comment on Based Red Dead 1 week ago:
People who use words do so for a particular purpose. That’s what I mean by design. The n-word had one and only one purpose: a humiliating slur against a group of people.
Since this is obviously not the case with the word “retard” or “moron,” etc., I find the comparison obtuse at best and bad faith at worst. If you’re not willing to be honest, then there’s simply no reason for us to have this conversation.
- Comment on Based Red Dead 1 week ago:
Um, that’s the point. A “moron” was also a medical diagnosis, just like “idiot.”
If you choose to be offended every time I call someone a moron that’s your prerogative and none of my concern.
- Comment on Based Red Dead 1 week ago:
I appreciate your good faith response. I see and empathize with your perspective. To play devil’s advocate, you can’t control whether a group of people decide, out of the blue, to internalize hurtful language that isn’t aimed at them. The N-word had a very specific target and a very specific history. The word “retard” does not. It basically has the same vernacular trajectory as “moron,” or “idiot.” Why aren’t those synonyms verboten? I don’t like inauthenticity, and I don’t like people getting offended at things that have nothing to do with them.
- Comment on Based Red Dead 1 week ago:
Americans and their hatred of random words. Lmao.
- Comment on "Free" Speech Absolutist™ 3 weeks ago:
That’s fascinating and quite shitty. Unfortunately there’s no other communication service with comparable performance when it comes to screen and file sharing, which is what I care about.
- Comment on "Free" Speech Absolutist™ 3 weeks ago:
Good write up, except Skype is a terrible example, because it never became worse. Arguably it’s better than any alternative. (Although I’d love to be wrong about this.)
- Comment on Do you want the murderer of the UnitHealthcare CEO prosecuted? 1 month ago:
Thanks for the reply. This is a genuinely tricky question, because most of us acknowledge that revenge under some circumstances isn’t just permissible but desirable, but the devil is in the details. Revenge might be justifiable
- For practical reasons such as a deterrent to future transgressors.
- To ameliorate some tiny fraction of the hurt inflicted by the transgressor.
For instance, it would be devastating to lose a loved one, but it would hurt even more if those who killed her were out there enjoying themselves consequences free.
- Comment on Do you want the murderer of the UnitHealthcare CEO prosecuted? 1 month ago:
Well good. Then I can take you seriously. I’m willing to have my mind changed. Why don’t you think we should kill evil people? Do you want to reform them?
- Comment on Do you want the murderer of the UnitHealthcare CEO prosecuted? 1 month ago:
Killing is a fast and easy solution… being able to look beyond killing is one of the few privileges our intelligence gives us
Sure.
We are all animals (some more than others). And we have learned the hard way that to realize more of the transcendental values — to bring more courage, wisdom, and meaning into this world — we should preserve life whenever possible. But there’s nothing fundamentally sacred about life… We kill all the time. Literally non-stop. Billions of animals, just like us, sentient and desperate to live, butchered for your use and pleasure. So unless you’re a vegan, you do not get to deploy sentiments about “the sanctity of life” or the like. It’s silly.
If you want to learn about practical ethics and stop talking gibberish, I suggest Shaffer Landau’s excellent textbook “On Living Ethics.”
- Comment on Do you want the murderer of the UnitHealthcare CEO prosecuted? 1 month ago:
Why are people so against killing? From an ethical perspective, it’s often quite justifiable. We’ve been trained like monkeys in a cage to respond adversely to death, but that reaction is based in a social contract that is only conditionally valid.
- Comment on Do you want the murderer of the UnitHealthcare CEO prosecuted? 1 month ago:
The reason we reject mob justice is not that it is anyways unjust, but because it is often unjust. In this case, however, the outcome was actually in line with any reasonable objective standard of justice as far as I can tell. I’m willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I don’t see it.
- Comment on Do you want the murderer of the UnitHealthcare CEO prosecuted? 1 month ago:
Fun fact, murder means “illegal killing,” not an immoral one. There are plenty of unethical but legal killings, and vice versa. So to clarify, murder isn’t always “bad” by definition.
- Comment on UK parliament backs Taiwan UN participation, rejects China's “distortion of the international law” 2 months ago:
That sounds like a bonus.
- Comment on What's dodgy about the proposed Australian political donations reforms? | Constitutional Clarion 2 months ago:
Fair enough. Thank you for the explanation! I’m not from Australia and I could only dream to have a bill like this in the US.
- Comment on What's dodgy about the proposed Australian political donations reforms? | Constitutional Clarion 2 months ago:
I’m still trying to figure out why people in this thread are defending much, much higher caps on donations.
- Comment on What's dodgy about the proposed Australian political donations reforms? | Constitutional Clarion 2 months ago:
I don’t believe the bill is doing that, but yes. I’d sacrifice my left nut to get money out of politics.
- Comment on What's dodgy about the proposed Australian political donations reforms? | Constitutional Clarion 2 months ago:
I see, I see. But isn’t everyone in agreement that political campaigns should be publicly funded? What is there to be upset about?
- Comment on What's dodgy about the proposed Australian political donations reforms? | Constitutional Clarion 2 months ago:
It occurs to me that your response is identical to that of the evil billionaire Clive Palmer. I think this whole thread might be pure astroturf. I’m out.
- Comment on What's dodgy about the proposed Australian political donations reforms? | Constitutional Clarion 2 months ago:
There’s no universe in which it makes sense to allow billionaire coal barons to buy elections, for “independent” parties or otherwise. I’m not sure what more there is to discuss.
- Comment on What's dodgy about the proposed Australian political donations reforms? | Constitutional Clarion 2 months ago:
The bill seeks to make it harder for billionaires to buy elections.
- It caps individual donations to $20,000/year
- It forces real time disclosures of donations of $1000 or more.
- campaign spending is capped to $800k/seat and $90 million/party
It is a fantastic bill that makes it harder for the rich to steal elections. That’s why this literal Coal Barron hates the bill:
Yeah, right. Regular Australians harmed by an $800k spending limit. Ridiculous.
- Comment on How do Americans win their country back? 2 months ago:
Fuck you.
- Comment on How is it that "protecting basic democracy and the rule of law, and not crowning a criminal dictator" wasn't even on the chart?! 2 months ago:
Also, I love how no one gives a shit about the ecological apocalypse. This is why I kept telling you guys: let the hurricanes destroy everything. No more FEMA. Americans clearly don’t care.
- Comment on How do Americans win their country back? 2 months ago:
For all practical purposes, about 30% of people are unfeeling morons - basically psychopathic. That’s the number that consistently opposes abortion, for instance. Add to that all the dumbasses who don’t know any better (the undecideds on any extremely obvious moral issue), et voila. That’s how you get slavery, nationalism, genocide, theocracy, you name it.
