this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2026
161 points (99.4% liked)
Memes of Production
359 readers
1054 users here now
Seize the Memes of Production
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the “ML” influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
founded 6 days ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Please remove the ableist language.
Source for this image is explained here.
More like "source for this image is clumsily half-explained and never properly pointed to in a Reddit comment and the data vis is still garbage." This isn't 1935; that word isn't ableist, but I've removed it anyway so there's at least a comment pushing back on this nonsense.
I would have been surprised that someone was such a blatant wanker and a bootlicker but then I saw “@lemmy.world”
The word is used to disparage a persons intelligence, there's no need for it at all and it only serves to belittle others. You can criticise something without such language.
As for the comment, there is nothing wrong with a person not having a slide from a presentation on hand to sate your lust for 'sources', especially when it links to other data/articles that back-up the graph.
Yeah, that's the point of using insults. It's 2025, and I'm completely sick and tired of watching society crumble around me because fine, sophisticated people can't or won't bother to take five seconds to evaluate the ragebait slop being presented to them. You're talking about a term whose clinical relevance was dead over 40 years ago, so unless I'm a psychologist telling you this over ARPANET, it isn't ableist.
As for the sources, why is that in scare quotes? No the fuck it does not sate any reasonable person's "need for 'sources'", because it doesn't link to the source. By the Reddit comment's literal own admission, it does not link to a source for any of this. It just states there was some unnamed 2023 conference where this was presented then links to an article from The Guardian which has nothing to do with this particular graph's data and just has a link to this document which doesn't even classify groups according to the graph you posted. It also links to an ADL article, which equally lacks this data.
Because you're insulting people with intellectual disabilities, they've done nothing wrong. There are better words you can use without being problematic. It doesn't matter what it's clinic relevance was because it's meaning in popular culture is well established and that is the problem. If you dislike being told not to be an arsehole, go post elsewhere.
As for why it's in quotes, because as far as I'm concerned you're attempting to sealion. Likewise I did not say it linked to a source for this, I said it links to other data that backs up the claims in the graph allowing you to independent verify that it is accurate.
As for that PDF you so happily disregarded, it provided one the means to locate the CSIS briefing and additional information - https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states. You are being unreasonable in expecting everyone to simply hand you all the information for every single thing, you were given the means to find it if you so bothered to.
People asking you for sources isn't what sealioning is; get a grip. You gave specific data points with no source, no timeframe (well okay, now you have a timeframe according to some random Redditor), and no methodology. That's not sealioning; that's asking after the fact for the basic common decency you owe readers when you post things like this but are plainly too embarrassed to admit you can't provide.
As for the CSIS source, what are you even talking about at this point? Even assuming it has the data shown in the graph (it doesn't), the chain for this evidence would be to prompt you for a Reddit comment which links to a Guardian article which links to some document which allegedly helps me find the CSIS article (it doesn't; it doesn't link to, let alone mention the CSIS article by name, a single time). Is this an actual joke? That you're being snarky with "the PDF you so happily disregarded" like that's a totally normal sequence for someone to follow?
You still haven't shown anyone the source for literally a single data point in the graph, so I not only think I'm being perfectly reasonable but that you're desecrating the corpse of the burden of proof.
Lmao. Powertripping piece of shit. Ban me, you cunt. Do it.
Oh, I didn't even consider "blindly"; I assumed it was the one used clinically in the early 20th century as a category of mild intellectual subnormality.
Oh... it was 'Morons.'
Yeah, watch your tone, spazz.
I have very little knowledge of what happened in this convo, but the term "spazz" is not a super great look. It's a slur. Like, use it if you want, but it's a bad look.
Christ, you people are in-fucking-sufferable.
"Words that I use as insults cut people deeper than I probably intended. Clearly it's their fault for getting cut by them rather than something I could be introspective about."
That's how you sound. Sound like an asshole if you want, but don't be surprised if people treat you like one in turn. That's all I'm saying.
Excuse me. But I find the word asshole to be demeaning, please check your privilege before using such hurtful language.
Or, failing that, maybe just grow the fuck up and accept that insults are meant to be insulting you fucking moron.
This is the issue with arguing because something made you mad rather than understanding what the other person is saying and then responding in a way that makes sense.
Asshole isn't a slur. It's an insult because it compares the target of the insult with something that is dirty and spews only filth.
A slur is a slur because it compares the target of the insult with a member of a lower caste in society, implying that the target is of the same value as those society has dehumanized. When you use a slur, you reinforce that that caste designation is correct and worthy of scorn. That you think that people are less valuable for belonging to that caste and that that belief is good.
So, when you use a slur as an insult, it tells those around you that you're an asshole. But it also tells members of that caste that you think of them as subhuman and, therefore, you're not safe to be around.
So, to reiterate my point, you can talk like an asshole if you like, but don't be shocked when people treat you like one.
Being a moron, by the clinical definition, is a negative trait. It means you have a very low level of intelligence. I am equating your intelligence to being very low, specifically within the range that would be considered a "moron". It's asinine to claim that it's not a negative quality. Although some people exist that fall within that terminology, that doesn't make it a non-negative quality, and comparisons to that quality are not immediately an insult toward the groups that possess them.
If you call something stupid, are you insulting stupid people? How about when you say something is dumb?
If someone asks you to repeat yourself 5 times and you say "What are you, deaf?", are you insulting deaf people?
If a referee at a sports game makes a terrible call and you say "Is the ref blind?!", are you insulting blind people?
Or maybe these comparisons are simply because we, as a society, recognize these traits as being detrimental. So when someone acts in a manner that calls into question their faculties, we make the comparison that perhaps they possess one of these detrimental qualities. So when you act like a moron, and people call you a moron, it's not an insult to morons everywhere. It's just an insult to you.
Compare that to things like racial slurs. Those are different because by using them as an insult, you are insinuating that race itself is a negative trait.
Yes, those things are insulting to the people who belong to that group. There's an entire style of joke where the setup and punchline is "what are you, ____?" And when the person responds yes, the original speaker is chagrined. Almost like inferring that someone is lesser because they have different capabilities is a shitty thing to do. Who'd've guessed?
But really the only difference between these and slurs is impact. Those groups that are impacted are the ones who decide if they're slurs.
Well... not really. It's the zeitgeist that really decides the difference between the two. Some group gets a little too shitty with using a word as an insult and it can expand into a cultural slur. I mean, that's how the Euphemism Treadmill operates. Some word is determined to be naughty by the zeitgeist, so the group that was using the naughty word switches to another word, implying it has the same meaning, which just adds another word to the naughty list. Sometimes words that were naughty stop being naughty because people stopped being shitty with them. It's the way of living languages, railing against it just makes you seem childish at best.
And I didn't say shit about "moron". Keep up, please.