4 ms·

Where should the line be drawn? Are terms like stupid, idiot or moron also unacceptable? All of these words have very similar origins.

by rosndo 5y ago

pasabagi 5y ago
Intuitively, I'm sympathetic, then I backdate your argument by, say, 50 years, and wonder what words I'd find myself defending...
eganist 5y ago
As another commenter stated, there's a good argument against all of these words too. More on the regulatory and medical usage 'moron' once had: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron_(psychology) Pejoration is common; it's just something we have to continue to stay ahead of as people negatively adapt language to suit their own short term ends.
- noptd 5y ago
  >as another commenter stated, there's a good argument against all of these words too. As far as I can tell, the other commenter was actually making the opposite point (reducto ad absurdum).
- nobody9999 5y ago
  - eganist 5y ago
    > It is. And always will be, no matter how much or how little the "vocabulary police" like you (is that acceptable or is that, in your small mind, (incorrectly) an ad-hominem too?) decide what language is "acceptable" and what is "unacceptable." > I'll decide for myself (and accept the judgement/consequences of my peers -- of whom you are not) what is appropriate to say in a particular context. > I don't need you or anyone else to tell me what words I should or shouldn't use. And I'll say what I want, when I want. Deal with it -- or don't and just ignore what I say, my username is at the top of all my posts. > Or blather on about why I'm a terrible person because I don't specifically subscribe to the idea that restricting the speech of others, in exactly the way you want is a good idea. > I can make my own decisions as to how to interact with others and don't need you (or anyone else) telling me what's acceptable or unacceptable. > All that said, I have no problem with you spouting off about language and I didn't even downvote you. Perhaps my example could inspire you to do the same? I won't hold my breath. It's just about being kind to people, nobody9999. That's why I submitted my original comment for awareness; it was a request, not an instruction. Given this, I can't say I understand why you're taken aback. I don't understand your sense of violation at a mere suggestion to show kindness, basically. I'm not sure I'll ever understand either, and that's okay. I wish you the best.
    - gjs278 5y ago
    - nobody9999 5y ago
      [flagged]
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
DHPersonal 5y ago
Yes, some have encouraged people to stop using those for similar reasons. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/words-and-phrases-commonly-used-offensive-english-language-1.6252274 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/words-and-phrases-comm...
ruined 5y ago
generally, yeah. it's always better to criticize some actual property of what you're talking about rather than try to make derogatory associations with some totally unrelated thing. people pushing these ideas aren't "stupid", they have goals you disagree with. explain why the goals are harmful and the arguments are misleading. in a more familiar context, if you are working with someone and they are making bad design decisions, calling them names isn't likely to be well received, but providing a better design is helpful. here, in online-debate-speak: "stupid" is an ad-hominem
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  At some point there are people in the world who are stupid, there are people whose goals are stupid, at some point one must be able to describe things as they are. on edit: not necessarily so that these people are stupid, but I think vanishing the concept of stupidity is a worse result than just sometimes mistakenly describing people as stupid.
  - andrewaylett 5y ago
    Lacking intelligence is not a moral failing. Using words that imply lack of intelligence to describe moral failings associates those lacking intelligence with those lacking morals, to the detriment of those lacking intelligence.
- mannerheim 5y ago
  > people pushing these ideas aren't "stupid" GGGP was not calling these individuals stupid, rather, their interpretations of the law. And while they're not argued by stupid people, you would certainly have to be stupid to believe such arguments, e.g. the one at issue in this case. I don't think Axel Springer's lawyers are stupid. I think they're malicious. I think their argument is stupid and one should have to be stupid to believe it. > in a more familiar context, if you are working with someone and they are making bad design decisions, calling them names isn't likely to be well received, but providing a better design is helpful. I work with reasonable people. Entities like Axel Springer are not reasonable because they have a vested financial stake in the matter. Reason and debate won't change the money at stake for them.

Where should the line be drawn? Are terms like stupid, idiot or moron also unacceptable? All of these words have very similar origins.

by rosndo 5y ago

Where should the line be drawn? Are terms like stupid, idiot or moron also unacceptable? All of these words have very similar origins.

pasabagi 5y ago

Intuitively, I'm sympathetic, then I backdate your argument by, say, 50 years, and wonder what words I'd find myself defending...

eganist 5y ago

As another commenter stated, there's a good argument against all of these words too. More on the regulatory and medical usage 'moron' once had: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron_(psychology) Pejoration is common; it's just something we have to continue to stay ahead of as people negatively adapt language to suit their own short term ends.

noptd 5y ago
>as another commenter stated, there's a good argument against all of these words too. As far as I can tell, the other commenter was actually making the opposite point (reducto ad absurdum).
nobody9999 5y ago
- eganist 5y ago
  > It is. And always will be, no matter how much or how little the "vocabulary police" like you (is that acceptable or is that, in your small mind, (incorrectly) an ad-hominem too?) decide what language is "acceptable" and what is "unacceptable." > I'll decide for myself (and accept the judgement/consequences of my peers -- of whom you are not) what is appropriate to say in a particular context. > I don't need you or anyone else to tell me what words I should or shouldn't use. And I'll say what I want, when I want. Deal with it -- or don't and just ignore what I say, my username is at the top of all my posts. > Or blather on about why I'm a terrible person because I don't specifically subscribe to the idea that restricting the speech of others, in exactly the way you want is a good idea. > I can make my own decisions as to how to interact with others and don't need you (or anyone else) telling me what's acceptable or unacceptable. > All that said, I have no problem with you spouting off about language and I didn't even downvote you. Perhaps my example could inspire you to do the same? I won't hold my breath. It's just about being kind to people, nobody9999. That's why I submitted my original comment for awareness; it was a request, not an instruction. Given this, I can't say I understand why you're taken aback. I don't understand your sense of violation at a mere suggestion to show kindness, basically. I'm not sure I'll ever understand either, and that's okay. I wish you the best.
  - gjs278 5y ago
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

DHPersonal 5y ago

Yes, some have encouraged people to stop using those for similar reasons. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/words-and-phrases-commonly-used-offensive-english-language-1.6252274 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/words-and-phrases-comm...

ruined 5y ago

generally, yeah. it's always better to criticize some actual property of what you're talking about rather than try to make derogatory associations with some totally unrelated thing. people pushing these ideas aren't "stupid", they have goals you disagree with. explain why the goals are harmful and the arguments are misleading. in a more familiar context, if you are working with someone and they are making bad design decisions, calling them names isn't likely to be well received, but providing a better design is helpful. here, in online-debate-speak: "stupid" is an ad-hominem

bryanrasmussen 5y ago
At some point there are people in the world who are stupid, there are people whose goals are stupid, at some point one must be able to describe things as they are. on edit: not necessarily so that these people are stupid, but I think vanishing the concept of stupidity is a worse result than just sometimes mistakenly describing people as stupid.
- andrewaylett 5y ago
  Lacking intelligence is not a moral failing. Using words that imply lack of intelligence to describe moral failings associates those lacking intelligence with those lacking morals, to the detriment of those lacking intelligence.
mannerheim 5y ago
> people pushing these ideas aren't "stupid" GGGP was not calling these individuals stupid, rather, their interpretations of the law. And while they're not argued by stupid people, you would certainly have to be stupid to believe such arguments, e.g. the one at issue in this case. I don't think Axel Springer's lawyers are stupid. I think they're malicious. I think their argument is stupid and one should have to be stupid to believe it. > in a more familiar context, if you are working with someone and they are making bad design decisions, calling them names isn't likely to be well received, but providing a better design is helpful. I work with reasonable people. Entities like Axel Springer are not reasonable because they have a vested financial stake in the matter. Reason and debate won't change the money at stake for them.