5 ms·

> because those words contribute to a culture that cause actual harm. No it doesn't. Where's your proof? Plenty of people have said plenty of nasty things thr

> because those words contribute to a culture that cause actual harm. No it doesn't. Where's your proof? Plenty of people have said plenty of nasty things throughout the years, and no one died. Yet our empire uses remote control drones to bomb small children, and that's totally OK. (Now there's a real "culture that causes actual harm") What is really harmful, and what isn't? Take a good, hard look around. Sticks and stones (and bombs) will break my bones, but words will never hurt me. Try it. Go on. Call me whatever you want. And watch me not give two fucks what you think.

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
> Sticks and stones (and bombs) will break my bones, but words will never hurt me. I guess you've never experienced school.
- tracker1 11y ago
  that has to be one of the absolute most asinine concepts of insanity ever unleashed on the public. Only someone deprived of all sanity and logic would assume that the censoring of certain words would prevent someone from being subject to abuse. You are obviously incapable of the capacity for such understanding, what with your brain cavity filled with fish entrails and pig excrement. I say the above as a bit tongue in cheek. I've made similar statements in the past regarding being asked to implement a language/bad-word filter on a sight. By contrast, "That is the most fucking bad-ass thing I've ever seen," is a positive statement but uses words that would normally be filtered. While the former statement is completely insensitive and insulting without using any "bad" words.
DanBC 11y ago
There are cases of people who have completed suicide because of bullying based on their LD. There are cases of people who have attempted suicide because of bullying based on their LD. These are significant because people with LD are under-represented in suicide statistics. > Try it. Go on. Call me whatever you want. And watch me not give two fucks what you think. Next time you need medical treatment to keep you alive I'll tell the doctor that you have a severe and profound learning disability, and that will limit the length of your life and severely impairs the quality of your life. I'll argue that we should avoid resuscitation, and maybe even stop food and water. Then I'll see if your corpse gives two fucks. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19570364 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19570364 http://www.learningdisabilities.org.uk/our-news/blog/120919/ http://www.learningdisabilities.org.uk/our-news/blog/120919/
- leereeves 11y ago
  Quite apart from LDs, there's something wrong with a medical system that allows doctors to decide who they want to resuscitate.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    You probably need to investigate whatever your local version of "advance directives" are. Seriously, advance directives give doctors useful information about keeping you alive / letting you die. Don't say things like "no heroic measures", because that's a rare occasion. Be specific. You're right, though. Those doctors were wrong, and that's why it's a thing. They should have involved the patient, and the family, in the decision.
- gambler 11y ago
  There are cases of people who have completed suicide because of bullying based on their LD. You cannot solve bullying by banning words. Especially in cases when those words are used in an entirely different context, having an entirely different meaning, without any profound malevolence.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    The words are malevolent because they contribute to a culture where it is acceptable to treat people with LD as sub-human. You don't get to use a word and deny the long history of that word. This is nothing like, for example, the fake etymology of "nitty gritty", or confusion between the word "niggardly" with "like a nigger". The word retard has a long history and is closely associated with oppression and murder. White people don't get to say "nigga - no, it's okay, I'm not saying nigger!" The other confusing thing here is that people are asking for the freedom to do what they like with someone else's property, and when that person asks them to modify their behaviour they lose their shit. This is just github saying "no shirt, no service". What happened to "their servers, their rules"?

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago

> Sticks and stones (and bombs) will break my bones, but words will never hurt me. I guess you've never experienced school.

tracker1 11y ago
that has to be one of the absolute most asinine concepts of insanity ever unleashed on the public. Only someone deprived of all sanity and logic would assume that the censoring of certain words would prevent someone from being subject to abuse. You are obviously incapable of the capacity for such understanding, what with your brain cavity filled with fish entrails and pig excrement. I say the above as a bit tongue in cheek. I've made similar statements in the past regarding being asked to implement a language/bad-word filter on a sight. By contrast, "That is the most fucking bad-ass thing I've ever seen," is a positive statement but uses words that would normally be filtered. While the former statement is completely insensitive and insulting without using any "bad" words.

DanBC 11y ago

There are cases of people who have completed suicide because of bullying based on their LD. There are cases of people who have attempted suicide because of bullying based on their LD. These are significant because people with LD are under-represented in suicide statistics. > Try it. Go on. Call me whatever you want. And watch me not give two fucks what you think. Next time you need medical treatment to keep you alive I'll tell the doctor that you have a severe and profound learning disability, and that will limit the length of your life and severely impairs the quality of your life. I'll argue that we should avoid resuscitation, and maybe even stop food and water. Then I'll see if your corpse gives two fucks. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19570364 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19570364 http://www.learningdisabilities.org.uk/our-news/blog/120919/ http://www.learningdisabilities.org.uk/our-news/blog/120919/

leereeves 11y ago
Quite apart from LDs, there's something wrong with a medical system that allows doctors to decide who they want to resuscitate.
- DanBC 11y ago
  You probably need to investigate whatever your local version of "advance directives" are. Seriously, advance directives give doctors useful information about keeping you alive / letting you die. Don't say things like "no heroic measures", because that's a rare occasion. Be specific. You're right, though. Those doctors were wrong, and that's why it's a thing. They should have involved the patient, and the family, in the decision.
gambler 11y ago
There are cases of people who have completed suicide because of bullying based on their LD. You cannot solve bullying by banning words. Especially in cases when those words are used in an entirely different context, having an entirely different meaning, without any profound malevolence.
- DanBC 11y ago
  The words are malevolent because they contribute to a culture where it is acceptable to treat people with LD as sub-human. You don't get to use a word and deny the long history of that word. This is nothing like, for example, the fake etymology of "nitty gritty", or confusion between the word "niggardly" with "like a nigger". The word retard has a long history and is closely associated with oppression and murder. White people don't get to say "nigga - no, it's okay, I'm not saying nigger!" The other confusing thing here is that people are asking for the freedom to do what they like with someone else's property, and when that person asks them to modify their behaviour they lose their shit. This is just github saying "no shirt, no service". What happened to "their servers, their rules"?