We have decided some brain quirks are disorders (and get accommodations, as is compassionate), whilst others are flaws (and get slurs). But no one picks their hardware. You cannot earn a better prefrontal cortex or deserve a calmer amygdala. Nor does one get to pick the environment they are born in, which will inform their choices later in life. Even the capacity to “learn better” is a roll of the dice, some brains start the race with sprinting shoes, others with lead weights.
So when we call someone stupid, lazy or insane we are not describing a choice, but simply announcing which kinds of unlucky we’ve decided are worthy of scorn.
Oh no, some stupidity is definitely a choice and deserves to be called out as such.
Also, I don’t think insane is always used as scorn. Just a description.
Oh look another war on words, surely there is nothing else to focus attention on
If one values the well-being of people, and if one has time and resources to be on Lemmy, I’d say reflecting upon one’s conduct in the world is a fine place to put attention in.
Yes, of course they stay, because there are stupid, lazy, crazy idiots. need words for them too.
You don’t believe in free will, OP? Just curious.
No.
That makes sense.
Ah, first world boredom.
You can be autistic, ADHD, have some horrible upbringing, have some other genetic thing… you can have any of those things, but you’re still accountable for your actions.
Knowing that someone has those things absolutely helps increase empathy and understanding and assist them with those things.
But a killer is still a killer, even if they did it while suffering with other issues.
Accountability? Yes, accountability is good. It’s proper and necessary to address harmful actions and ensure steps are taken to prevent recurrence. This is entirely possible, and likely more effective, without resorting to insult.
Insults are just punitive justice in a social context: a counterproductive way to discharge outrage rather than foster change. It is to temporarily soothe the egoic zealot lurking within the hearts of all. The research is clear: whether in criminal justice or interpersonal conflict, rehabilitative approaches (clear boundaries, restorative dialogue, support) reduce harm more effectively than punishment alone.
To believe that hate may be remedied with further hate is to mistake fire for water.
deleted by creator
You state that words like “stupid” or “lazy” are mere descriptors for common traits, and in this, you are correct. But let us be explicit: these words are not neutral. They are not clinical. They are not even accurate. They are judgments masquerading as observations, and their function is not to describe, but to dismiss, belittle and shame.
It is not the existence of laziness or folly that demands scrutiny, it is the impulse to label a human being as such, as though their value hinges on productivity or flawless reasoning. When you call a person “lazy,” you are not documenting a transient state; you are rendering a verdict. A judgment from a throne no higher than theirs. You ignore the depressed individual for whom movement is a Herculean task, the neurodivergent mind locked in executive dysfunction, the exhausted worker crushed beneath systems designed to extract labor without regard for humanity. The word “lazy” does not describe a choice. It erases a context.
Likewise, “stupid” is not a measure of intellect, it is a weapon. It presumes intelligence is a moral achievement, not a confluence of biology, environment, and luck. It assumes that those who fail to meet an arbitrary standard of competence deserve contempt, rather than inquiry. If a machine malfunctions, we do not call it “stupid”; we examine its design. Why, then, do we reserve such charity for objects, and withhold it from people?
The question is NOT whether we should “ban” these words. It is whether we recognize their purpose: to punish, not to understand. Language does not merely reflect reality, it constructs our perception of it. When we default to scorn, we architect a world where struggle is met with derision, where complexity is flattened into moral failure, and where the burden of proof always lies with the accused. This is not how justice works. This is not how compassion works.
Furthermore, if one desires a change in the conduct of one they would deem a fool, has shaming been shown to work? NAY! It has been demonstrated time and time again that shaming yields not the behavior of a distinguished individual but a seething hatred towards those that inflicted the wound. A resentment that easily turns what was once a mere human folly into a vitriolic conviction. You may then have no hope of opening this fortress of bitterness to see the harm their actions wrought, indeed they may feel justified in their actions. So as have been done unto them, they will do unto others.
https://drdevonprice.substack.com/p/laziness-does-not-exist
https://neurosciencenews.com/guilt-shame-behavior-neuroscience-30065/
Of course, if your desire is merely to feel good for a moment as you unleash an insult upon another, by all means. But this is not the behavior of a paragon of virtue, rather it is base.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Dude.
You are literally arguing for the right to be mean to others without consequences.
deleted by creator
You realize the OP is doing a melodramatic bit, right? It’s funny, at least to me.
You say that they are full of false assumptions but your arguments against them hinge on the assumption that they have been asking for banning for words. Can you point to a single instance where he says this?
This is why I try to be mindful of using those words. They’re really stuck in there but I understand that it would be hypocritical of me to call for understanding towards mental health and cognitive issues and then fault people for not having the cognitive capacity I think they “should” have.
I definitely fail frequently because I get angry when people spout total nonsense, even hateful stuff. I try not to let that get the better of me though.
Unless there’s some Tourette syndrome going on I don’t see why anyone should have to tolerate hateful speech.
There’s a difference between drawing a boundary and insulting others.
I still suffer from the Dunning Kruger Effect…
“Retard” has been making a comeback, too, I think.
Society is confused and their issue is that lazy stupid and crazy people are using the label neurodivergent to offset their deficiencies, taken away actual help from true neurodivergent people.
I’m not one to call people names with the intention of hurting their feelings, and I don’t even believe in free will to begin with. But if I were to call someone an idiot, it wouldn’t come from the assumption that they actively choose to be one or that they could choose otherwise. No, they’re helplessly an idiot - and I’m just making a factual statement about the world.
I’m not looking in their file and saying “ahh yea it says you have the stupid. I guess I’m calling you stupid.”
Add to the list:
Asshole, cretin, piece of shit, maniac, psychopath, pedophile, pervert, jerk, narcissist, self-centered prick, dickhead, douchebag, and incel.
There’s probably some history behind why people act the way they do. Maybe they were molested as a child, so that’s why they find sex with kids appealing.
Edit: I just remembered I made a similar comment in an Ask Lemmy thread recently.
I get what you saying, but do you really really REALLY want us to sympathise Trump supporter?
I don’t think OP is suggesting we sympathize with the ideology or the harm it causes. There is a vital distinction between empathy as an alignment and empathy as a diagnostic tool.
Understanding the cognitive or mental health mechanics that lead to radicalization isn’t about giving someone a ‘pass.’ It’s about having the clarity to see the situation for what it is. If we don’t understand the ‘why’ behind how people are manipulated, we can’t effectively dismantle the systems that recruit them.
True compassion in a political sense isn’t about being ‘nice’ to someone spouting hate; it’s about having the clarity to address the root cause of the behavior rather than just reacting to the symptoms with more hate. It’s possible to hold a boundary against someone’s actions while still being mindful of the human vulnerabilities that landed them there.
