3 ms·

The thing is, nobody wants to be crippled (sorry, disabled): as the saying goes, it's better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick, you know. Similarly, nob

The thing is, nobody wants to be crippled (sorry, disabled): as the saying goes, it's better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick, you know. Similarly, nobody wants to be stupid. Or unable to navigate social interactions in the current socially acceptable way. While one can adopt to being any of those things, it's additional (sometime herculean) effort which only brings you back to the baseline. And things people don't like to be, they don't like to be called/implied that they are either: so e.g. every time there is a new euphemism for stupidity or mental disability, it inevitably, as it becomes wider known, starts being used as an insult. Which is the root problem IMHO: people often insult each others, fully intentionally. Remove that human trait, and the need for euphemisms will evaporate. But that'll never happen, of course.

amiga386 2y ago
It seems to be the dynamic between two entirely different sets of people, with diametrically opposed aims. One group wishes to spread awareness of afflicted people, in the belief they can improve the empathy shown to such people by society, even though it's at odds with human fear of disease and disfigurement. It's one thing to be crippled, it's another to crippled and society finds you repulsive and treats you like shit. This group reckon that the afflicted need a good marketing campaign. This is why they're coming up with media strategies, slogans, and of course euphemisms. Why it's National Unfortunate Bugger Day today! Let's take a look at the plight of these poor bastards and be quietly relieved we don't have their problems. The other group is the rest of humanity, and when they feel the need to insult their peers, they reach for the strongest words they can muster. As you say, it's inevitable. In the words of Professor F. J. Lewis: See that <horrible thing>? That's you, that is. That's you trying your best. The UK's Blue Peter and the National Spastics Society found this out the hard way when in 1981 they broadcast a story on Joey Deacon, a man with cerebral palsy. Blue Peter wanted children to learn about how Joey was intelligent, but his condition made it very hard to communicate that. What actually happened after the broadcast is that "joey" and "spastic" became the hot new playground insults, along with impersonating Joey's speech mannerisms. It was so bad that the National Spastics Society renamed itself to "Scope" to avoid the negative connotations the word had picked up. Of course, UK children then adopted "scoper" as an insult too. This didn't reach the USA at all, which is why "spaz" is a mild insult in US English, while in the UK it's a grave insult.
- smeej 2y ago
  I think the desire to insult comes from the unwillingness to take responsibility for one's own reactions. If I'm upset, I want it to be your fault. I want you to be in the wrong. I don't want to admit that I'm responsible for my reactions even when you are doing something wrong. It's much harder work to master myself than to complain that you haven't mastered yours. I know someone who has resorted to, "This displeases me," as his condemnation of choice to combat this tendency, to keep right in front of himself the reality of the situation, that he doesn't like something, but his displeasure is his responsibility. I think that recognition has to happen to make space for a response to the situation, rather than a reaction to it. Does my displeasure motivate me to take action? If so, what kind? Are other people pleased by the situation? Can I see it their way? Is their response measured, or reactionary? It buys time, and inserting a beat between the event and the response makes all the difference.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > the desire to insult comes from the unwillingness to take responsibility for one's own reactions. If I'm upset, I want it to be your fault If someone does something blazingly stupid, I should be able to calmly and legitimately point that out.
    - groby_b 2y ago
      It is worth keeping in mind that "insult" is fairly opposite to "calmly and legitimately pointing something out". You can highlight why an idea was bad without insulting.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > can highlight why an idea was bad without insulting Sometimes you want to speak not to the idea but the person. “XYZ has an unbroken track record of coming up with flagrantly stupid ideas and then acting on them with zero thought to their obviously-foreseeable consequences” is a mouthful beginning to cross, itself, into euphemistic territory.
everdrive 2y ago
This is close to a point I've been making for a while. I think we could all agree that being White vs. Asian should not matter in a properly-functioning society, it's impossible to imagine the mentally retarded ever being able to lead the same quality of life (job prospects, marriage prospects, social life, etc.) as someone who is relatively intelligent. It seems like a complete impossibility. In other words, whether or not it's considered to be White or Asian could equalize or flip over time, there seems to be no world where one would equally not mind being either "above average intelligence" vs. "mentally retarded." In other words, you're never going to land on a purely positive term for "mentally retarded" because of the harsh reality of the situation. (it's worth reminding folks that "mentally retarded" previously was the polite euphemism.)
- chrisweekly 2y ago
  It can be really difficult to keep up, even if you're well-intentioned / sensitive / progressive. Where I live, MR is considered a slur, not an objective descriptor of a biological fact.

amiga386 2y ago

It seems to be the dynamic between two entirely different sets of people, with diametrically opposed aims. One group wishes to spread awareness of afflicted people, in the belief they can improve the empathy shown to such people by society, even though it's at odds with human fear of disease and disfigurement. It's one thing to be crippled, it's another to crippled and society finds you repulsive and treats you like shit. This group reckon that the afflicted need a good marketing campaign. This is why they're coming up with media strategies, slogans, and of course euphemisms. Why it's National Unfortunate Bugger Day today! Let's take a look at the plight of these poor bastards and be quietly relieved we don't have their problems. The other group is the rest of humanity, and when they feel the need to insult their peers, they reach for the strongest words they can muster. As you say, it's inevitable. In the words of Professor F. J. Lewis: See that <horrible thing>? That's you, that is. That's you trying your best. The UK's Blue Peter and the National Spastics Society found this out the hard way when in 1981 they broadcast a story on Joey Deacon, a man with cerebral palsy. Blue Peter wanted children to learn about how Joey was intelligent, but his condition made it very hard to communicate that. What actually happened after the broadcast is that "joey" and "spastic" became the hot new playground insults, along with impersonating Joey's speech mannerisms. It was so bad that the National Spastics Society renamed itself to "Scope" to avoid the negative connotations the word had picked up. Of course, UK children then adopted "scoper" as an insult too. This didn't reach the USA at all, which is why "spaz" is a mild insult in US English, while in the UK it's a grave insult.

smeej 2y ago
I think the desire to insult comes from the unwillingness to take responsibility for one's own reactions. If I'm upset, I want it to be your fault. I want you to be in the wrong. I don't want to admit that I'm responsible for my reactions even when you are doing something wrong. It's much harder work to master myself than to complain that you haven't mastered yours. I know someone who has resorted to, "This displeases me," as his condemnation of choice to combat this tendency, to keep right in front of himself the reality of the situation, that he doesn't like something, but his displeasure is his responsibility. I think that recognition has to happen to make space for a response to the situation, rather than a reaction to it. Does my displeasure motivate me to take action? If so, what kind? Are other people pleased by the situation? Can I see it their way? Is their response measured, or reactionary? It buys time, and inserting a beat between the event and the response makes all the difference.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > the desire to insult comes from the unwillingness to take responsibility for one's own reactions. If I'm upset, I want it to be your fault If someone does something blazingly stupid, I should be able to calmly and legitimately point that out.
  - groby_b 2y ago
    It is worth keeping in mind that "insult" is fairly opposite to "calmly and legitimately pointing something out". You can highlight why an idea was bad without insulting.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > can highlight why an idea was bad without insulting Sometimes you want to speak not to the idea but the person. “XYZ has an unbroken track record of coming up with flagrantly stupid ideas and then acting on them with zero thought to their obviously-foreseeable consequences” is a mouthful beginning to cross, itself, into euphemistic territory.

everdrive 2y ago

This is close to a point I've been making for a while. I think we could all agree that being White vs. Asian should not matter in a properly-functioning society, it's impossible to imagine the mentally retarded ever being able to lead the same quality of life (job prospects, marriage prospects, social life, etc.) as someone who is relatively intelligent. It seems like a complete impossibility. In other words, whether or not it's considered to be White or Asian could equalize or flip over time, there seems to be no world where one would equally not mind being either "above average intelligence" vs. "mentally retarded." In other words, you're never going to land on a purely positive term for "mentally retarded" because of the harsh reality of the situation. (it's worth reminding folks that "mentally retarded" previously was the polite euphemism.)

chrisweekly 2y ago
It can be really difficult to keep up, even if you're well-intentioned / sensitive / progressive. Where I live, MR is considered a slur, not an objective descriptor of a biological fact.