5 ms·

He's fine. Perhaps you shouldn't police people's language whether it takes 5 seconds or not.

by pb7 4y ago

mynameisvlad 4y ago
Who are you to say they're fine or not? It's clearly controversial, and the commenter very well knew it would be before they commented, and after they got the replies they did. It takes less time than it took for them to reply justifying their choice. As I said, be better.
- pb7 4y ago
  Who are you to say to be better? Policing people's language doesn't make you better, it just makes you feel better. Entirely performative just like woke people using "Latinx" when 90% of Hispanic people preferring they didn't[0]. [0] https://archive.ph/UONL2 https://archive.ph/UONL2
- jesuscript 4y ago
  I’m officially an adult, not a young adult, definitely not a kid. I’d be a little careful around kids with that word, and certainly parents with children that may be dealing with it. Kids struggling with a shortcoming and having other kids attack it can be hard. I like to think we’re not kids here, and some level of off color talk can be somewhat interpreted as humor at best, sardonic, sarcastic, dark humor, and at worst, appropriately inappropriate - as in, we aren’t kids, and I hope you got me. So for example, let’s not worry that I used the word, because those who are truly retarded are actually retarded enough to not be offended. Imagine if you took what I just literally. Or did I say it to make a point? What is adult levity, I guess, is my question? What is non pc, non safe for work (within reason) conversation, among adults? Is it a constant “watch what you just said, but I won’t even consider the context of it”.
  - mynameisvlad 4y ago
    Adults also know what tact is and what is considered socially appropriate and not. You don't have to be a kid to not be needlessly insulting to a wide swath of people just to show it to a company who isn't going to read or care about what you said.
rgifford 4y ago
This always cracks me up. Handicap, disabled, retard, and on and on. The origins of the latest epithet in vogue are harmless. But as soon as a term gets co-opted as an insult, we all agree to ditch it. And why? From what I can tell it's just to placate, to pretend Darwin doesn't exist. Reminds me of my two favorite quotes from The Office: "There is one person in charge of every office in America, and that person is Charles Darwin..." "You don’t call retarded people retards. It’s bad taste. You call your friends retards when they are acting retarded." Is it worse to have some condition of your birth used as a casual insult -- a reminder of your misfortune? Or is it worse to be constantly patronized, often behind your back by throngs offended on your behalf? The answer depends on your culture and outlook on life I suppose.
- diydsp 4y ago
  > the latest epithet in vogue These don't happen because they're fun fashion choices. They happen because people are becoming aware. The dynamics may resemble whimsy, but it's more than aesthetics underlying.
  - rgifford 4y ago
    Can we abstractly use the terms "bald," "stupid," "fat," "anemic," or "impotent" abstractly and negatively? All describe generally disfavored conditions folks don't have much control over. Referencing that disfavor abstractly doesn't bring it into being. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. This isn't about awareness in my opinion. We're pretending status doesn't exist. We're assuming folks with some condition will be offended and won't be able to handle those emotions with their own agency, so we're patronizing them by carefully policing language. That is, in my opinion, as ableist as it gets.
- jasonshaev 4y ago
  "The origins of the latest epithet in vogue are harmless." The origin of the word is irrelevant. Words mean things and can be harmful, regardless of the origin of the word. The meaning and context of words can change over time, regardless of the origin of the word. Bringing Charles Darwin into the conversation does not help your point. "Is it worse to have some condition of your birth used as a casual insult -- a reminder of your misfortune? Or is it worse to be constantly patronized, often behind your back by throngs offended on your behalf?" This is a false trade-off. The whole conversation started because someone used a harmful word, knowing full well it was harmful. If they refrained from using the offensive word they knew was offensive neither condition would have happened (casual insult or patronization).

He's fine. Perhaps you shouldn't police people's language whether it takes 5 seconds or not.

by pb7 4y ago

He's fine. Perhaps you shouldn't police people's language whether it takes 5 seconds or not.

Who are you to say they're fine or not? It's clearly controversial, and the commenter very well knew it would be before they commented, and after they got the replies they did. It takes less time than it took for them to reply justifying their choice. As I said, be better.

pb7 4y ago
Who are you to say to be better? Policing people's language doesn't make you better, it just makes you feel better. Entirely performative just like woke people using "Latinx" when 90% of Hispanic people preferring they didn't[0]. [0] https://archive.ph/UONL2 https://archive.ph/UONL2
jesuscript 4y ago
I’m officially an adult, not a young adult, definitely not a kid. I’d be a little careful around kids with that word, and certainly parents with children that may be dealing with it. Kids struggling with a shortcoming and having other kids attack it can be hard. I like to think we’re not kids here, and some level of off color talk can be somewhat interpreted as humor at best, sardonic, sarcastic, dark humor, and at worst, appropriately inappropriate - as in, we aren’t kids, and I hope you got me. So for example, let’s not worry that I used the word, because those who are truly retarded are actually retarded enough to not be offended. Imagine if you took what I just literally. Or did I say it to make a point? What is adult levity, I guess, is my question? What is non pc, non safe for work (within reason) conversation, among adults? Is it a constant “watch what you just said, but I won’t even consider the context of it”.
- mynameisvlad 4y ago
  Adults also know what tact is and what is considered socially appropriate and not. You don't have to be a kid to not be needlessly insulting to a wide swath of people just to show it to a company who isn't going to read or care about what you said.

rgifford 4y ago

This always cracks me up. Handicap, disabled, retard, and on and on. The origins of the latest epithet in vogue are harmless. But as soon as a term gets co-opted as an insult, we all agree to ditch it. And why? From what I can tell it's just to placate, to pretend Darwin doesn't exist. Reminds me of my two favorite quotes from The Office: "There is one person in charge of every office in America, and that person is Charles Darwin..." "You don’t call retarded people retards. It’s bad taste. You call your friends retards when they are acting retarded." Is it worse to have some condition of your birth used as a casual insult -- a reminder of your misfortune? Or is it worse to be constantly patronized, often behind your back by throngs offended on your behalf? The answer depends on your culture and outlook on life I suppose.

diydsp 4y ago
> the latest epithet in vogue These don't happen because they're fun fashion choices. They happen because people are becoming aware. The dynamics may resemble whimsy, but it's more than aesthetics underlying.
- rgifford 4y ago
  Can we abstractly use the terms "bald," "stupid," "fat," "anemic," or "impotent" abstractly and negatively? All describe generally disfavored conditions folks don't have much control over. Referencing that disfavor abstractly doesn't bring it into being. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away. This isn't about awareness in my opinion. We're pretending status doesn't exist. We're assuming folks with some condition will be offended and won't be able to handle those emotions with their own agency, so we're patronizing them by carefully policing language. That is, in my opinion, as ableist as it gets.
jasonshaev 4y ago
"The origins of the latest epithet in vogue are harmless." The origin of the word is irrelevant. Words mean things and can be harmful, regardless of the origin of the word. The meaning and context of words can change over time, regardless of the origin of the word. Bringing Charles Darwin into the conversation does not help your point. "Is it worse to have some condition of your birth used as a casual insult -- a reminder of your misfortune? Or is it worse to be constantly patronized, often behind your back by throngs offended on your behalf?" This is a false trade-off. The whole conversation started because someone used a harmful word, knowing full well it was harmful. If they refrained from using the offensive word they knew was offensive neither condition would have happened (casual insult or patronization).