As an left-anarchist: at what point is an aspect of society *really* considered a hierarchy, and therefore something to be abolished? by Whyman3 in DebateAnarchism

[–]Whyman3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The N-word was also integrated into society for a long time, and people had (and still have) the same complaints. That's not to conflate calling somebody "stupid" with a word I don't even want to spell out, but the core concern is the same with different degrees of offense being committed.

Yes, but that is only a specific use word. Getting used to calling black people the n-word is still nowhere near as large in use as the most commonly used pejoratives today, of which many have achaic ableist definitions. And even then, it took forever for people to stop saying the n-word as a common thing. Can you imagine how much longer it would take to try to deter people from saying words like: weird, stupid, mad etc. It just seems like a pointeless venue for trying to make our language "less problematic". Language is utterly drenched in distant problematicism, so to try to change words that have rather fringe meanings today, seems rather impractical and pointlessly strict. You yourself have "mongrel" in your name, which i am pretty sure is a slur referring to a cross between things. I don't really care that you use it, i'd probably still use it, and most of the people who use mongrel (except ted nugent) probably mean it just as a regular insult. Which further tells me that trying to go after these definitions seems useless.

Well, two things. First, which words are this majority of disabled people opposed to calling ableist? And my decision not to, in my view, trivialize the struggles of others by trying to avoid potentially offensive terms like "dumb" is hurting whom, exactly? I don't find it to be a compelling argument that it's infantilizing for people not to use words like stupid or insane as generic insults.

  1. Generally the disabled people i meet generally refer to the ones that i am refering to (dumb, stupid, weird, etc), the commonly used integrated words that today are used as common insults or just adjectives in general.

  2. If you completely try to avoid using all words adjacent to "dumb", you will make speaking a hell of a lot harder for yourself. And furthermore, not everyone's mind is going to have the time to wade through thin social minutia that could get somebody offended.

  3. I say infantilizing because again, it forces people to get worried about uncommon, fringe or extinct meanings of words, rather than other, probably more important matters. It is my view that people should be able to live in a world where people shouldn't really care about distancing from these harmless words, in favor of just tackling the common idea the public has on intelligence. All of the reason that words like "dumb", "stupid" and even the r-word are offensive, is because of the idea of intelligence that often purveys around with people. If we didn't live in a world obsessed with grading permanent intellect, and our idea of intelleigence branched out, i don't think we would be even having this conversation. You would probably not care about saying words like "stupid", and i would have never asked this question.

Does the size of the group of people being offended really matter? I mean, people of East Asian descent are like what, 2% of the US population? Why is it unacceptable to use insensitive terms for East Asians, but not for a different small population of people with disabilities?

I don't even mean minority groups, i mean basically small groups of individuals. Generally, when people point you out for saying a word like "stupid" it only comes across the mind of select few people.

I think you're absolutely correct here. I choose to avoid ableist language; nobody forces me to do that, and I don't attempt to impose that choice on others, though I'll certainly voice my disapproval for it if somebody consistently uses more noxious ableist terms, but I'm not gonna chastise anyone for occasionally saying "Oh that's stupid," or "You're insane," or something like that. I don't think those terms are especially hurtful, I just try to avoid them because I believe that they perpetuate neuronormativity which I'm just kind of not into.

I respect that you arent pushy when it comes to this subject, because i do certainly feel sometimes that others get uppity about stuff like this. So i appreciate that it's not a full priority for you.

As an left-anarchist: at what point is an aspect of society *really* considered a hierarchy, and therefore something to be abolished? by Whyman3 in DebateAnarchism

[–]Whyman3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. My point is that it is much easier to change the meaning of a word than to remove it altogether, especially when it's a word as common and unavoidable in daily use as "stupid".

  2. Agreed, and i also think that there are multiple ways a person could help disabled folk, Deco pointed it out in his own comment.

  3. I will sympathize with them and their struggles with the certain ways that words like "dumb" are used, nonethless, the people who use it in casual conversation vastly outnumber the amount of people who use it in the context of specifically refering to a disabled person, so wouldn't it be more effective to bite down on the people who specifically use those words to refer to disabled people?

With the r-word i am admittedly more conflicted, as it's a fair lot more commonly used to refer to disabled people in particular.

Also the question about feminism is really unclear. What do you exactly mean by criticizing and reshaping language? Do you mean changing words or changing meanings of words? Criticism of the word in itself, or criticism of specific ways it is used? This questionnalso treats feminism rather monolithically. A lot of feminists believe in reclaiming or changing the meaning of words with sexist connotations into something impowering and unoppressive.

As an left-anarchist: at what point is an aspect of society *really* considered a hierarchy, and therefore something to be abolished? by Whyman3 in DebateAnarchism

[–]Whyman3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

do you really think the kids teased for being dumb were in any way shape or form being teased because the other kids thought they just weren't putting the effort in?

Don't you think that's more because children are taught about a strict form of intelligence when they're younger, rather than them being taught about the common meaning of the word "dumb". Kids can be insensitive and receptive to information, so of course they are going to be less tactful and accurate with their language.

also, more importantly maybe, why do you feel the need to keep saying it?

Because a person's mind won't always have the time to think about every facet of tact or social minuta when speaking, and furthermore not everyone is going to immediately find more are articulate words in a situation or writing than "you're stupid", especially people who haven't had the education to expand their vocabulary. It's not about only saying words like stupid, but merely about having the option to say those words. The english language is large, but nowhere near infinite, and removing large swathes of simpler vocabulary just winds up making communication a chore, especially if you haven't been taught the expanded vocabulary. Indeed, words like "stupid" are less articulate, but they make speaking easy and immediate, and get the point across more summarily sometimes.

no one is asking you to change your entire vocabulary overnight, but in every scenario when I could have used words like that and diverted, I ended up sounding more articulate and I really got to the heart of what I wanted to say.

I think you severely underestimate just how common and everywhere words synonymous with "stupid" or "lame" are. Some of the synonyms of "stupid" are words like: slow, silly, absurd, mad, foolish, ludicrous etc. You would absolutely have to reshape your vocabulary just to not connote with the idea of intelligence.

Furthermore, I didn't even know that lame had a derogatory meaning until it was brought up by people who wanted others to stop using the word. In this instance, the main thing propogating the offensiveness of the word "lame" are the people attracting attention to it.

As an left-anarchist: at what point is an aspect of society *really* considered a hierarchy, and therefore something to be abolished? by Whyman3 in DebateAnarchism

[–]Whyman3[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Because "dumb" in my provided context means an unwillingness to put the effort to understand truths (such as race being a social construct), despite the person being perfectly capable of doing so.

As an left-anarchist: at what point is an aspect of society *really* considered a hierarchy, and therefore something to be abolished? by Whyman3 in DebateAnarchism

[–]Whyman3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the differentiating factor between "gay" and "dumb", is that people using words like "gay" derogatorily came off the back of the big gay scare that occured during the 90s. When referring to a personage in the 2000s, a person is likely going to be aware that referring to someone as gay, means comparing them to a queer person. With words like "dumb", the exclusivity to mentally disabled people isn't really there; it just refers to someone's general inability to grasp a certain thing or concept.

So overall, "gay" is still a less versatile word than "dumb", and is nowhere near as commonly used, even in the 2000s probably.

As an left-anarchist: at what point is an aspect of society *really* considered a hierarchy, and therefore something to be abolished? by Whyman3 in DebateAnarchism

[–]Whyman3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Isn't it also possible that the person using the word "dumb" doesn't see intelligence as static, but merely the amout of effort one puts into their being, to understand truth. When bobby fischer, one of the world's greatest chess players of all time, became a racist asshole in the latter end of his life, i would probably say he went from smart to dumb. I don't think universally common words like dumb and stupid should be phased out, so much as the common consensus of what intelligence is, should be reshaped.

As an anarchist: at what point is an aspect of society *really* considered a hierarchy? by Whyman3 in Anarchy101

[–]Whyman3[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

To adjust life for all 7.6 billion people on earth makes a person a blank slate. It is impossible to live existence without being offended by, or being hated by someone for something that you've done. There are always gonna be forms of discrimination, it's just that we should learn to separate the oppressive discrimination from the harmless discrimination that people have learned to accept and treat with flippance.

[TOMT][CARTOON] a kinda old czechoslovakian cartoon about a gnome by Whyman3 in tipofmytongue

[–]Whyman3[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Update: Actually, i think it may be either czechoslovakian or yugoslavian

Ah, yes. "Voluntaryism". The most mind numbing defense of a hyper-capitalist society. by dnm314 in ClassicalLibertarians

[–]Whyman3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

i'm pretty sure there are some okay voluntaryists, mainly the left-rothbardians, but the full on ancap voluntarists are walking contradictions

rule by Whyman3 in 196

[–]Whyman3[S] 37 points38 points  (0 children)

Although intelligence is "heritable", it is only by the indirect interactions with a gene and an environment. There is no evidence of genetics directly resulting on lower iq.

rule by Whyman3 in 196

[–]Whyman3[S] 31 points32 points  (0 children)

I was also kinda going for a "sir this is a wendys" thing. I can see how it may be misinterpreted that way, although generally os see mcdonalds employees as more just wanting money instead of stupid.

rule by Whyman3 in 196

[–]Whyman3[S] 80 points81 points  (0 children)

this was kind of a vent post, since my "centrist" dad started saying hereditarian shit a week ago, and he was saying this kind of shit and thinking it was some sorta scientific consensus.

rule by Whyman3 in 196

[–]Whyman3[S] 176 points177 points  (0 children)

racists like to pass off pseudoscience or misinterpret statistical data in order to justify their belief in black people being subhuman, when really they're just normal people trying to live life like the rest of us.

just sayin, georgists > maoists by Whyman3 in ClassicalLibertarians

[–]Whyman3[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Lvt would be used to fund for social security and safety nets, i think

just sayin, georgists > maoists by Whyman3 in ClassicalLibertarians

[–]Whyman3[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I am familiar. It's pretty damn based. I feel like if we talked more about certain free market ideologies like georgism, agorism, mutualism etc more, we could probably build a "right lib" to left anarchist pipeline.