5 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill For what it's worth, this stuff is cult

by Y_Y 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill For what it's worth, this stuff is culturally relative. The r-word is apparently "retard", and not an unsayable slur within my cultural sphere, to the best of my limited knowledge.

aidenn0 5y ago
> The r-word is apparently "retard", and not an unsayable slur within my cultural sphere, to the best of my limited knowledge. True of my cultural sphere as well, but it's considerably more shocking a word than "fuck" is to my teenage daughter.
rovolo 5y ago
I'd like to disagree with the idea of a "treadmill" because it implies that changing language doesn't anything and leaves us where we started. The wikipedia entry mentions "moron", "imbecile", and "retard" as examples which started as medical diagnoses before becoming insults. It implies that the medical community moved away from these terms because they became insults. However, these are all terms derived from IQ testing and the concept of "mental age". IQ has been de-emphasized as the diagnostic criterion for a couple reasons: people with mental disabilities aren't the same as younger people without mental disabilities; the focus should be on what sort of help people need rather than what they can't do. > In current medical diagnosis, IQ scores alone are not conclusive for a finding of intellectual disability. Recently adopted diagnostic standards place the major emphasis on the adaptive behavior of each individual, with IQ score just being one factor in diagnosis in addition to adaptive behavior scales, and no category of intellectual disability being defined primarily by IQ scores. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification#Classification_of_low_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification#Classificati... As for the common use as an insult, you're right that its impact is culturally relative. To me, I would ask why you're using a term which used to be a medical diagnosis as an insult. The wiki section says kids are saying "what are you, 'special'?" in reference to "special needs". Does that mean it's bad to get that medical diagnosis? I'd side-eye someone who says "retard" as an insult because it's not just rude to the insultee.
- speedybird 5y ago
  Fundamentally, impugning somebody's intelligence is an insult. All the side-eyeing and inventive euphemisms in the world won't change this.
  - rovolo 5y ago
    I agree that it's an insult. Some people's actions deserve to be insulted. I'm saying that you may be insulting other people who are not your target.
    - speedybird 5y ago
      I agree that sometimes some people deserve to be insulted; particularly for their own good (for instance they were carelessly doing something risky and need to be reminded to take themselves off autopilot and pay attention to what they're doing.) But I think collateral damage may be unavoidable no matter which word you use for this. Wiktionary tells me that the word 'stupid' comes from the Latin stupidus (“struck senseless, amazed”) So, stupid didn't originate as a medical diagnosis and is ostensibly a 'safe' way to question somebody's intelligence. But I don't think it actually is; when you call somebody 'stupid' you're still framing a lack of intelligence as an undesirable trait. If somebody who earnestly does lack intelligence overhears this, they might be reminded of their own limitation and feel ashamed or inadequate because of it. Any intelligence-impugning insult can have collateral damage, whether or not that word was originally a medical diagnosis. I think the solution to this dilemma is to be aware of who might overhear you. I avoid any intelligence-impugning insult when I'm in a room with people who are actually intellectually disabled. But if nobody like that is in the room to overhear it, then I think any of the common intelligence-impugning insults are fair game if the circumstances justify it.
      - rovolo 5y ago
        > But I think collateral damage may be unavoidable no matter which word you use for this ... they might be reminded of their own limitation and feel ashamed or inadequate because of it. This issue is that when people use "retarded" as an insult, they are saying people with intellectual disabilities should feel ashamed. When they use r- as an insult, they're saying that their target is acting like they have an intellectual disability, and that that's bad. https://www.specialolympics.org/stories/impact/why-the-r-word-is-the-r-slur https://www.specialolympics.org/stories/impact/why-the-r-wor... This is distinct, though related, to criticizing people's intelligence. When you say something is stupid, you claim you're saying it's bad because it's unintelligent. Is that why you're criticizing it? Should you be criticizing things for being unintelligent? This is a more general point than the use of r- as an insult, but it is indeed a topic which is raised by avoiding r-. I don't think the broader topic should be used to avoid talking about r- though. > I think the solution to this dilemma is to be aware of who might overhear you. The type of impacts depend on who hears it, but you don't need a target of the insult for the insult to be bad. You are still perpetuating the idea that people with intellectual disabilities are shameful when you use r-.

by Y_Y 5y ago

aidenn0 5y ago

> The r-word is apparently "retard", and not an unsayable slur within my cultural sphere, to the best of my limited knowledge. True of my cultural sphere as well, but it's considerably more shocking a word than "fuck" is to my teenage daughter.

rovolo 5y ago

I'd like to disagree with the idea of a "treadmill" because it implies that changing language doesn't anything and leaves us where we started. The wikipedia entry mentions "moron", "imbecile", and "retard" as examples which started as medical diagnoses before becoming insults. It implies that the medical community moved away from these terms because they became insults. However, these are all terms derived from IQ testing and the concept of "mental age". IQ has been de-emphasized as the diagnostic criterion for a couple reasons: people with mental disabilities aren't the same as younger people without mental disabilities; the focus should be on what sort of help people need rather than what they can't do. > In current medical diagnosis, IQ scores alone are not conclusive for a finding of intellectual disability. Recently adopted diagnostic standards place the major emphasis on the adaptive behavior of each individual, with IQ score just being one factor in diagnosis in addition to adaptive behavior scales, and no category of intellectual disability being defined primarily by IQ scores. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification#Classification_of_low_IQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_classification#Classificati... As for the common use as an insult, you're right that its impact is culturally relative. To me, I would ask why you're using a term which used to be a medical diagnosis as an insult. The wiki section says kids are saying "what are you, 'special'?" in reference to "special needs". Does that mean it's bad to get that medical diagnosis? I'd side-eye someone who says "retard" as an insult because it's not just rude to the insultee.

speedybird 5y ago
Fundamentally, impugning somebody's intelligence is an insult. All the side-eyeing and inventive euphemisms in the world won't change this.
- rovolo 5y ago
  I agree that it's an insult. Some people's actions deserve to be insulted. I'm saying that you may be insulting other people who are not your target.
  - speedybird 5y ago
    I agree that sometimes some people deserve to be insulted; particularly for their own good (for instance they were carelessly doing something risky and need to be reminded to take themselves off autopilot and pay attention to what they're doing.) But I think collateral damage may be unavoidable no matter which word you use for this. Wiktionary tells me that the word 'stupid' comes from the Latin stupidus (“struck senseless, amazed”) So, stupid didn't originate as a medical diagnosis and is ostensibly a 'safe' way to question somebody's intelligence. But I don't think it actually is; when you call somebody 'stupid' you're still framing a lack of intelligence as an undesirable trait. If somebody who earnestly does lack intelligence overhears this, they might be reminded of their own limitation and feel ashamed or inadequate because of it. Any intelligence-impugning insult can have collateral damage, whether or not that word was originally a medical diagnosis. I think the solution to this dilemma is to be aware of who might overhear you. I avoid any intelligence-impugning insult when I'm in a room with people who are actually intellectually disabled. But if nobody like that is in the room to overhear it, then I think any of the common intelligence-impugning insults are fair game if the circumstances justify it.
    - rovolo 5y ago
      > But I think collateral damage may be unavoidable no matter which word you use for this ... they might be reminded of their own limitation and feel ashamed or inadequate because of it. This issue is that when people use "retarded" as an insult, they are saying people with intellectual disabilities should feel ashamed. When they use r- as an insult, they're saying that their target is acting like they have an intellectual disability, and that that's bad. https://www.specialolympics.org/stories/impact/why-the-r-word-is-the-r-slur https://www.specialolympics.org/stories/impact/why-the-r-wor... This is distinct, though related, to criticizing people's intelligence. When you say something is stupid, you claim you're saying it's bad because it's unintelligent. Is that why you're criticizing it? Should you be criticizing things for being unintelligent? This is a more general point than the use of r- as an insult, but it is indeed a topic which is raised by avoiding r-. I don't think the broader topic should be used to avoid talking about r- though. > I think the solution to this dilemma is to be aware of who might overhear you. The type of impacts depend on who hears it, but you don't need a target of the insult for the insult to be bad. You are still perpetuating the idea that people with intellectual disabilities are shameful when you use r-.