this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2025
351 points (96.3% liked)
Greentext
6847 readers
877 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A fuckin CENSORED greentext? Really? Never thought I'd see the day 4chan got whitewashed lol
Assuming OOP said 'retarded', that doesn't fit their message well does it?
it's called context switching, within 4chan the r-word is an honorific rather than a slur.
There is nothing wrong with the world retard, don't let corpos implement their double speak.
Americans and their hatred of random words. Lmao.
I’ve grappled with “retard” & “bitch” (made a thread about it a couple months ago too, trying to form/reform my opinion).
Clearly we have to be careful with any messages industry pushes. With that said -
What do you think about these statements from Special Olympians?
CC: @yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
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 people getting offended at things that have nothing to do with them.
I literally had an argument with @PugJesus@lemmy.world about this a while back where he declared retard as against sub rules but then continued to call the poster a moron. They're the same fucking word from different time periods on the treadmill of what is politically correct.
Either both are slurs that shouldn't be used or both are acceptable.
That's not how language works, and unless you go around calling Black folk 'colored', you understand that in other contexts. What words are acceptable and what connotations they have change with time and usage.
So moron is acceptable now because all the people impacted by the discrimination are dead, so we just need to wait for the retards to die off before we can use the word again?
The same group of people and behaviours are/were described by both words.
But we've been over this and confirmed we do not and will not see eye to eye on this.
Dude, it’s the euphemism treadmill. You exercise your mind while making other people more comfortable to be around you. Your complaint has existed for hundreds of years, and will only lead to poorer social connectivity. Just hop on and put on some tunes
A “moron” was also a medical diagnosis. Historically, the n-word was designed to be cruel and humiliating. The word retard was not.
If you choose to be offended every time the word “moron” gets thrown around that’s your prerogative.
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.
Ultimately, people will use terms to call each other stupid. This is inevitable since people are, in fact, stupid.
I am not fully committed to this position. That said, I just think we disagree on the extent to which intention and context matters when measuring blameworthiness for language acts. For instance, the n-word as repeated by black people might be harmless, whereas its utterance by anyone else is unacceptable. Similarly, using the word “idiot” against a neurodivergent person is very bad. If used against me, though, that’s fair game.
I also don’t know the extent to which people are entitled to control what others say because they’re offended. Christians are constantly offended, Muslims are offended, apparently some folks in the special Olympics are offended.
Look, unless a word is linked to a hateful ideology, I see no reason to be scared of it quite so categorically.
Again, two main questions I need to figure out (believe it or not, I don’t use “retard” in my everyday speech — which is hard for me because like 80% of the human population is retarded):
Are we really blameworthy for speech acts independent of our intention and context? Right now, I’m leaning no but maybe.
To what extent are others entitled to control our personal, private speech on the basis of their own internalized (and possibly neurotic) offense to it? I.e., religious groups getting mad, or autistic people being offended when people call each other “retarded.”
We also disagree on the facts I think. You have once again, without a morsel of empirical evidence, equated “retard” with the n-word, which is totally preposterous. So I think we are at an impasse.
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.
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. Boomers don’t use it as an insult (yet).
I didn’t say “autistic” is synonymous with stupid. Usually it’s used to mean you’re excessively or neurotically detail-oriented.
I agree with everything you’ve written, but we are sort of going in a big circle. Earlier I wrote that
For that reason, I can endorse everything you’re saying. 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 were in the affirmative, since groups of people were being offended/hurt by the casual use of that term.
So then the question becomes:
I totally agree when it comes to any public discourse.
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 as diseased and 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 has something to do with my unwillingness to ever use the word.
In my mind, “retard” was more of a vague diagnosis of mental slowness, so it makes it less real as an actual medical condition. Like when you say “retard” I think “Republican.” Those are the people who need diagnosing. Still, I’m less willing to use the r-word than alternatives 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.
I really like your response and I needed a minute to read it. Let me reply later.
It comes from the medical diagnosis "mental retardation". It was designed from the beginning to target disabled people.
That is true, if you use it against disabled poeple. I only use it against moronic able poeple who should know better.
To break down my response to this
There are people with high intelligence and those with low intelligence, bandying about with different words will never change that. Intelligence is crucial in social, economic and evolutionary terms. They are correct no one would ever want to be lacking in intelligence because it would only make life worse. There will always be a need for a word to describe someone of lower intellect, or describe an argument or position as being thoughtless, in order to dismiss the person or idea as quickly as possible with as little engagement possible. Preferably while using small words so they understand.
You can still say they have a room temperature IQ but they might not get the meaning...
I agree, and I would not want someone with an IQ of 70 to be in the military, or to be a teacher, or a doctor, as each of those scenarios would likely result in disaster not just for the 70 IQ individual but for everyone impacted by them.
Yea no. This "everyone is special" bullshit just isn't how the world works. The universe doesn't care about you, the world is a harsh place where the unfit died early deaths until really intelligent people worked out how to increase food production, developed medicines, surgeries and hygiene.
You only need to look up the etymology and history of clinical usage of both dumb and stupid to realise they were used to describe the same groups of people and behaviours during different time periods. More bullshit on the treadmill.
I refuse to censor the word retard while moron, stupid, dumb and idiot are considered fine. To censor a synonym of acceptable words, is to put it bluntly, fucking retarded.
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.
I certainly did learn something out of this!
I'll note use that word this way then, I understand now.
This post reminded me of that old Louis CK bit on not liking the term "N Word" because it transfer the burden of saying the actual word from the speaker to the listener's brain
Louis CK's bit on the word "retarded" is pretty damn good too.
Joke's on him my brain is always saying it 😎
It's so social media AI doesn't block the image. Yeah, that's our world now.
Wasn't that just Reddit?