There’s a clear campaign against the mentally ill with the global rise of fascism. Lots of it shows up in anti homeless rhetoric, but you can see it in the MAHA and anti vaccination movements.
There’s no reason to use the word “r-tarded” to describe someone. As someone who’s worked with the intellectually challenged, it’s an insult to them to compare them with people who are willfully ignorant.
Who is renornalizing it?
slurs are useful.
they are an escalation step that are words instead of physical violence.
making slurs illegals removes that step and leads the escalation straight to violence.
That is an unpopular opinion.
Ironically, the term “mental removedation” was introduced by medical and educational professionals as a less derogatory and more objective replacement for older, highly stigmatizing terms like idiot, moron, and imbecile, which themselves were previous medical classifications.
OP, I just gotta say, I really agree with you, and I find it really disgusting the amount of people in this thread trying to renormalize it or argue that it’s not problematic. This thread has been one of, if not the, most frustrating threads here over the past two years. Like I’m genuinely feeling gaslit by some of these comments. Do people not remember the voice people would use? Do people not remember the motions people would do? Those weren’t just a mild way to call someone stupid. It was always ableist and still is today. Maybe in five to ten years I’ll feel differently, like language really has moved on, but it doesn’t feel like that’s what’s happening. It feels like people just being more comfortable being edgy.
I thought it was widely accepted that you shouldn’t use this word outside of, like, quoting old medical diagnosis from when the word was used in that context. It is not an okay insult.
Maybe I just hang out with nicer people.
When you stop being offended by letters on a page and direct that hate towards the individuals that use the word as a slur or out of context on purpose, you’ll be a lot happier.
Do you also use the N word? Would you feel comfortable using that as an insult?
The N word is based off negro which is just black. Calling someone black isn’t an insult so the only connotation would be to be racist. removed is based on slow and I would want to call someone slow and imply what they’re saying is moronic, so it literally fits perfectly. That said it’s still used as a slur pretty often and it’s purely a negative word so I still don’t really use it.
No, but then that word has very few uses beyond slurs. The word ‘removed’, however, has many uses in technical fields - for example in setting internal combustion engine timings, or throttle settings in aviation. As always, context matters.
I’m not offended by “removed” because of its shape, I’m offended by it because it takes me back to when Meathead John crushed my throat in the playground calling me it until I would ask him to beat up the boy i liked instead.
Words represent, communicate and are something. Humans have for the entirety of their use of language, understood that the signifier and the signified are interchangeable.
I’m very sorry for your experience, but without knowing you and your history, I can’t possibly know all of that. So I’m left with two choices - sharply limit my vocabulary in the hopes of avoiding making some random person feel bad; or acknowledge that each adult is best qualified to carry and deal with their own traumas.
You don’t have to limit your vocabulary at all, you merely cannot escape the perception of others based on your behavior.
It’s not even limited to humans either - animals, insects will perceive and treat you differently depending on your behavior.
Nothing prevents you from kicking a dog, but the dog and anyone who knows about it will treat you accordingly.
Sure, but if you equate me with someone who kicks a dog just because I talk about master or slave database nodes, or the need to removed message rates - I’m also going to treat you accordingly.
And honestly that’s fair. If I’m sitting in a meeting and you’re trying to browbeat me into calling something a slave in front of some African American co-workers, or you’re talking about removeding something while someone explains they don’t like that term because their child has Downs Syndrome, you are welcome to think we’re foolish for caring - but I can’t imagine that Any Given Person would walk away thinking you’ve gotten the upper hand there
Oh look, somebody else is trying to cast me as a monster because I refuse to be politically correct in a technical context. You should probably also demonize me for the fact that I live my life in a wheelchair and will occasionally refer to myself as gimpy
I’m not trying to cast you as anything, I’m extrapolating real world events from your theoretical responses.
The term “politically correct” is a thought terminating cliche. it’s meant to detach real world experience from hypothetical situations. “Political” here is meant to cast the discussion on what the government is doing, I am not talking about the government, therefore whether this is politically correct or not is irrelevant.
You use that many slurs that avoiding making some random person feel bad sharply limits your vocabulary?
I try not to use any slurs at all, but working in a technical field, I do occasionally use terms that have been picked up as slurs.
And that’s okay, the context matters a lot. But someone’s code will or won’t compile regardless of if they call the branch “main” or “master”
In the context of this thread though, it really really seems like you just want to defend saying slurs
Why would I? I have the intellect and vocabulary to be specific when I choose to be insulting. For example, and only an example, I read you as a weekend intellectual, the sort of person who absolutely must be the smartest person in the room. Your lack of grammar and consistent punctuation gives me the impression you’re Generation Y or Generation Z, part way through what will ultimately be an unfruitful and potentially very short career in tech; and you can’t absorb why you’re not moving up. The real reason, of course, is that you’re bikeshedding everyone’s language instead of learning the craft.
How many slurs did you count?
sucks for you.
my dad used to beat me and call be f-word all the time. but i 100% don’t see any issue with other people using it.
not everyone who experiences the same things as you comes to the same conclusions you do. post-structuralist theory isn’t really so hot these days, but you seem to have referenced it as authoritative to your belief in controlling words.
Well that’s why this sub exists - it is not a matter of fact but a matter of opinion. It’s not even a matter of settled law in most places, or at least subject to scrutiny under precedent or context.
I agree its certainly an unpopular opinion and relevant to the sub, but posting an unpopular opinion in a space designated for such opinions does not mean that opinion becomes acceptable.
Lol you fucking spastic - can’t say that, its offensive
Are you removed - can’t say that, its offensive
Damn bro, you mentally disabled?
This will continue onward, to think otherwise is removed.
Quite the imaginary slippery slope you made up there.
I don’t think intellectually challenged individuals deserve cruelty, nor do I believe anyone does. However, this is the first argument that popped into my head, and I want to genuinely discuss this. Again, I do NOT agree that the intellectually challenged are deserving of discrimination. This is for the purpose of discussion.
If being intellectually challenged isn’t worthy of discrimination, why feel insulted when called removed?
+1
Maybe y’all haven’t experienced it as a slur. I grew up around jerks that did, and it leaves a nasty taste. I’ve caught myself using it, and felt awful afterwards.
Does that mean if I’m autistic I get an R- word pass?
OP, fuck these people.
Anyone who thinks that words mean nothing and that historical context is irrelevant are probably people who have never been on the receiving end of these words being used to dehumanize them.
And all of you people, would you also use:
- n igger
- f aggot
- sand n igger
- ching chong
Or did any of those make you feel wrong? Maybe you don’t actually think that slurs should be used but instead don’t realize the impact of r etard as opposed to whatever made you uncomfortable in that list.
Not at all
My brother has a mental disability. Not his fault, doctors fucked up ab operation when he was a baby and he came out severely damaged. He has the intellectual level do about a 13 year old, but he mostly lives independently, he got his drivers license in a country where many people with full brain capacities cannot. Doctors told my mom after the operation to just dump him in some institution, because he’d never even talk. She told them to go fuck themselves.
I’m fucking proud of him (and my mom), because with severe limitations he really got himself ahead. I see him as a fucking genius.
Then there are removed like Elon musk who do have a full brain with full abilities but somehow fail to even surpass what my brother wasn’t supposed to be able to do, yet by brother does it, these people do
I call people removed when they are supposed to be better but just chose to be lazy or not caring or just behave removed.
Is an insult against people who are supposed to be smart but behave like they have a mental disability, and I stand by that.
If you feel offended, the that is on you.
removed is a word that is now used exclusively to talk about people who are not mentally ill acting like dumb fucking cunts. Like, its totally removed to see people getting upset at Trump being called a removed… If you hear the word, and you think about actual disabled people. Thats a you thing. Cos I promise you, no one else is.
No one is looking at this, and thinking that anyone else, but Trump, is a fucking removed.
It’s like that South Park episode with the bikers.
77 million votes, and he’s the removed?
Yes, America has a removed problem. Theres at least 77 million of them…
Well, no, Trump was specifically mimicking a specific reporter with a congenital joint condition in that image. So I don’t really get why you don’t think that’s Trump not being disparaging. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34930042
I think you need to read what I wrote again, Chief. Cos I never made that claim.
removed is a word that is now used exclusively to talk about people who are not mentally ill acting like dumb fucking cunts. Like, its totally removed to see people getting upset at Trump being called a removed… If you hear the word, and you think about actual disabled people. Thats a you thing. Cos I promise you, no one else is.
No one is looking at this, and thinking that anyone else, but Trump, is a fucking removed.
Trump didn’t call anyone ”stupid” when he did that. Nor did he even use that word you said he did. He was imitating someone with a disability.
Now, the poor guy, you’ve got to see this guy: ‘Uhh, I don’t know what I said. Uhh, I don’t remember,’ he’s going like ‘I don’t remember. Maybe that’s what I said’
The reporter he’s talking about:
Again, you need to read what I wrote again. Because I didnt say what you are saying I said.
Again, Trump wasn’t even using the word this thread is about in that picture but he was mimicking someone with a disability so I don’t see what point you’re even trying to make.
One last time, read what I said again. I am not saying what you are saying I said.
What do you think I think you’re saying?
I don’t like the euphemism treadmill. Normalize all slurs. Get more creative with your language & learn how to reappropriate & reclaim.
The worst take I’ve seen on slurs is the online activism to make the noun female a slur. When I explain that their advocacy accepts a sexist premise that something is wrong with the name of an entire gender & thereby consents to the stigmatization of that gender, they erupt into an irrational rage.
The reason people have a problem with the noun female isn’t because “there’s something wrong with the name of an entire gender” it’s because it’s extremely often used in such a way that people (typically men) will refer to men as men and refer to women as females. It’s why you may see the phrase “men and females” thrown around as a response.
(For the record, I think referring to women as well as men as females or males is pointlessly degrading. The noun version of those is acceptable for non-human animals, e.g. the males in a flock of birds.)
people (typically men) will refer to men as men and refer to women as females
Where
Enough that people made a whole subreddit about it.
No I mean where in the wild? Because I only see women referred to as females in screengrabs from incel forums and incelposters on places like 4chan. Obviously if I went to reddit (which I don’t), to a subreddit specifically for aggregating this behavior, I would see it. So where in the wild are you seeing “men and females”?
I often hear men at the gym refer to women as “females” while referring to men as “guys,” so yes, it’s definitely something that exists in the wild. I never hear them call men “males.” I never hear women call men “males” either.
it’s because it’s extremely often used in such a way that people (typically men) will refer to men as men and refer to women as females. It’s why you may see the phrase “men and females” thrown around as a response.
Right, so the premise is there’s something wrong with the word that names an entire gender. The campaign isn’t “don’t use ‘men and females’”, it’s “don’t use ‘females’”. They’ll write about Ferengis whenever a suspected non-female uses female: they’re not examining meanings & context to draw critical distinctions. ‘Men and females’ is merely a rationalization.
The effect: female is a slur, yet male isn’t, so female is stigmatized. That disparity raises the impression that femininity has such deficiencies even their name is a term of abuse unworthy of pride, and that females are too frail without society coming to defend them from the adversity of their name. In contrast, masculinity is sufficient for its name not to raise adversity, and even if it did, males have the fortitude for society not to come to their defense. That unequal treatment of words implicates females disfavorably thereby stigmatizing them.
Think who that serves: is opposition to the noun “female” unwittingly subscribing to stigmatization & sexist thinking of those who’d welcome the stigmatization? The language police are playing themselves here.
Treating the word female like male, however, wouldn’t raise such questions & impressions, and it wouldn’t ostensibly support a sexist premise and play into its consequences.
Right, so the premise is there’s something wrong with the word that names an entire gender.
How do you get that? The word “women” names an entire gender and isn’t viewed as a problem. Why do you think the problem people have with “females” is because it names an entire gender?
It was already explained, it’s the premise their activism supports by advocating the disparate treatment of female as a slur. From an external, impartial observer, claiming there’s a problem with the word female with little regard for context communicates the problem resides in whatever the word itself denotes rather than the contextual meaning.
Moreover, the position they advocate is counterfactual. The language community decides the meaning of words through observed usage, and in the preponderance of the community, neither female nor woman is offensive. That includes among females. Female is used self-referentially “in-group”: it shows up in feminist book titles, in dating communities (eg, “F4F/M”), classifieds (eg, “need a roommate […] females only”), etc. In conventional language, female is an acceptable word (as is woman).
Imagine online activists started condemning usage of the word dutch as a slur. It’s bizarre: there is nothing wrong with the dutch, yet they’re acting as though we should think so & resist that urge? Why are they propagating problematic presuppositions we don’t have about the dutch? Why are they trying to make this official? Are they some special breed of stupid?
Continuing this analogy, they drag you into fights by claiming you’re a racist for using the word when you’re not actually saying anything offensive about the dutch. You & the rest of society know the word dutch isn’t offensive, yet these activists insist it is by pointing to some fringe online community spewing vitriolic propaganda about dutch inferiority specifically using the word dutch. You repudiate their claim by asking why some fringe group irrelevant to wider society gets to decide the meaning of words, but they condemn your “hurtful” language and say you’re as bad as them or one of them. Don’t be an asshole & use another word like Dutchperson, Netherlander, or Hollander they say: it’s the right thing to do & shows socially conscientious, moral rectitude.
While our society includes both a minority of sexists & a vast majority of non-sexists who use the word female differently, these activists privilege the language & rhetoric of the sexist minority over the non-sexist majority. Why should the sexists get to decide the meaning of words for everyone & the unequal ideas to perpetuate in society? Who does that serve?
Older activists recognized that doesn’t serve them & took a different approach. Against higher odds, black activists reappropriated the word black as a word of pride. Non-heteronormative activists did likewise with the word queer. Instead of antagonizing non-sexists by treating them as sexists or fulfilling an inferiority complex to make sexist language official, online language police would be wise to learn from the older activists & follow their example.
context is important. when I call my friend steph a “stupid removed”, we both know she’s not “stupid” nor a “removed”.
when I call a political leader removed, I mean it in a derogatory way. a slur. in all the negative meanings as possible.
when I call a neurotypical person removed, I mean it in the same way.
however, important context, it is never acceptable to use the word to describe someone who is intellectually challenged. it’s not their fault, and they have zero control over their situation.
I think it’s actually offensive to even compare intellectually challenged people to the word even.
I believe the word has purpose in the lexicon still, and that is describe the willfully ignorant in a visceral way that they are forced to take offense to it.
words can have more than one meaning. if it’s not directed at you or used to discriminate against you, it should be perfectly acceptable to use words to describe.
this zero tolerance and censorship of words never ended well in history only because it’s a constant battle of drawing lines in sand.
I know I’ll probably get banned for this comment, but I still think I deserve to speak my opinion on this. you don’t have to agree or disagree, I just want people to think for themselves and not fall into a dark pattern of censorship.
it’s an entirely reasonable take. but context is hard for people and they fail to understand that other people are not them, and get very angry with other people don’t behave the way they think they should.
And that’s that person’s problem.
