Greentext

6596 readers

633 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

Anon is often crazy.
Anon is often depressed.
Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works

743

Based Red Dead (lemmy.world)

submitted 5 months ago by PugJesus@lemmy.world to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works

161 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I agree with everything you’ve written, but we are sort of going in a big circle. Earlier I wrote that

using the r-word to insult someone autistic is cruel and unacceptable.

For that reason, I can endorse everything you’re saying. However, I thought our disagreement was over whether there should be a concerted effort to banish a particular pejorative term from our vocabularies (namely the r-word). I had argued no, since it seemed like an overreaction, whereas you were in the affirmative, since groups of people were being offended/hurt by the casual use of that term.

So then the question becomes:

To what extent are we responsible for moderating our private speech in order to appease people we’ve never met?

My intuition is that the answer is never. I think words should be struck from our vocabulary for a very different reason. Namely, when they represent an evil ideology. That is to say, I think that removing words from our vocabulary is a drastic thing to do and should be reserved for truly heinous verbiage (the sort of language that, if repeated, the only possible outcome between us would be violence). Some of these words are worse than the n-word. They are so evil, I can’t even euphemize them in good conscience.
My understanding is that you have looser parameters for unacceptable language, which must meet a certain thresholds of causing offense to be candidates for censorship. Is that right? It’s a reasonable position, I’m just clarifying.

[+] Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I think that there are a lot of good reasons not to use the word "retard". And there aren't many good reasons to use it. I know of plenty of alternatives.

I totally agree when it comes to any public discourse.

But how often do people use the word cretin?

Most people have no clue what that word means or how it originated. I certainly don’t use “cretin,” since I have no use for disparaging someone as diseased and crippled. Maybe that’s your point, that properly understanding the genesis of some term can undermine your desire to use it? And you’re right. Cretinism, the disease, makes me really sad, as does the fact that assholes chose to turn it into a pejorative. So maybe that has something to do with my unwillingness to ever use the word.

In my mind, “retard” was more of a vague diagnosis of mental slowness, so it makes it less real as an actual medical condition. Like when you say “retard” I think “Republican.” Those are the people who need diagnosing. Still, I’m less willing to use the r-word than alternatives like “idiot” whose meaning is totally divorced in my imagination from any origin story.

After all, once you use a word (a bunch of sounds) to mean something long enough, it eventually makes no difference what the word used to mean. That said, I can see your point. The cretin example is a good one. Very persuasive.