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.

  • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    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.

    • JackbyDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      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.)

          • FridaySteve@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            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”?

            • JackbyDev@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 day ago

              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.

      • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        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.

        • JackbyDev@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          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?

          • lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            20 hours ago

            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.