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
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 mean, yeah, in many contexts. For example, when a professional athlete shows up to training camp after putting on a bunch of fat in the off-season, that’s fair game. It’s literally their job to maintain their bodies and if we’re allowed to criticize their job performance then we’re certainly allowed to criticize their maintenance of their physical fitness. There’s obviously a clear parallel here between that and other public figures where their intelligence may be fair game for criticism.
More broadly, when people are engaged in unhealthy habits of any kind (from smoking to sleep deprivation to overwork/stress to terrible relationship decisions to unhealthy eating/exercise habits), I think it’s fair game for loved ones to point that out and encourage steering their lives back towards healthier choices. I’m not advocating that we go and make fun of strangers, the range of acceptable conversation in our day to day relationships is going to be different.
No, that’s not OK to mock people’s medical conditions, and it’s always a good idea to exercise some empathy and humility to know that things might not always be as easy for others as for yourself. But I’ve never been on board with the idea that fatness is somehow off limits, in large part that I don’t believe that most people’s fatness is inherently innate. Correlations between moving to or away from high obesity areas (most notably between countries or between significant changes of altitude, but also apparent in moves between city centers and suburban car-based communities) make that obvious that fatness is often environmental.
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.
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 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
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 mean, yeah, in many contexts. For example, when a professional athlete shows up to training camp after putting on a bunch of fat in the off-season, that’s fair game. It’s literally their job to maintain their bodies and if we’re allowed to criticize their job performance then we’re certainly allowed to criticize their maintenance of their physical fitness. There’s obviously a clear parallel here between that and other public figures where their intelligence may be fair game for criticism.
More broadly, when people are engaged in unhealthy habits of any kind (from smoking to sleep deprivation to overwork/stress to terrible relationship decisions to unhealthy eating/exercise habits), I think it’s fair game for loved ones to point that out and encourage steering their lives back towards healthier choices. I’m not advocating that we go and make fun of strangers, the range of acceptable conversation in our day to day relationships is going to be different.
No, that’s not OK to mock people’s medical conditions, and it’s always a good idea to exercise some empathy and humility to know that things might not always be as easy for others as for yourself. But I’ve never been on board with the idea that fatness is somehow off limits, in large part that I don’t believe that most people’s fatness is inherently innate. Correlations between moving to or away from high obesity areas (most notably between countries or between significant changes of altitude, but also apparent in moves between city centers and suburban car-based communities) make that obvious that fatness is often environmental.
TLDR: I make fun of Trump’s fat ass all the time.
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.
I don’t even believe in free will, I can’t talk shit to anyone
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.
“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.