This is fucking killing me right now. Same with “we get to say the F slur again” like…you were never not allowed to say it. The only repercussion was some people fucked with you less, and that’s still the case. Y’all just use it as a battle cry now.
Same mfs were mad that Bud Light made a few cans of gay beer haven’t let go either, but their rules say they get to hold the grudge but Dems can’t be mad at Chic Fil A.
LOL, I do think we can both agree that “conservative” is the best approach to belittling someone’s intelligence. It also carries with it a number of other connotations, though (crazy comes to mind.)
As for the “r-word” being “flagged” by “that community”. That’s quite the overreaching statement. There is no single community to speak of here, and there was absolutely never a true consensus on this word by our society as a whole.
The reality is that the “r-word” campaign was a heavily monied thing pushed on billboards, tv ads, and online ads over the last 20 or so years. If you ask me, someone who is literally part of “that community”, I think it was a bunch of Karen’s behind the entire thing.
The word “retard” was clinical when I was growing up. People quite literally referred to mentally challenged individuals as “mentally retarded”, and it was not an insult in any way. There is the core definition to this word, and it has a lot of other scientific and industry-based definitions. The fact it was separated from “mental” and then ostracized as a “bad word” by certain groups of people is downright ludicrous.
You could say “this process has been retarded to the point of complete failure”, and it would (should) have no negative connotation targeting individuals who were born with “deficiencies” in the area of intellect. Instead, it uses the definition of the word: “To delay or hold back in terms of progress, development, or accomplishment.”
This crusade against this single word in 2025 is simply asinine. We have huge problems to tackle in this world, and I really don’t believe anyone of substance should care about this. I’ve never met an actual, neurodivergent individual that takes offense to it being used in a way that doesn’t directly target them, or someone like them. That is to say, we’re talking about the Michael Scott usage.
You don’t call a paraplegic person “lame” because “oops”, that’s pretty messed up even if you didn’t mean it that way. This said, I doubt that person would take offense in a situation like this. This is where we should be with the “r-word”. There is simply no justification for making this word synonymous with a word like the n-word. It does not have that power, and I reject the monied campaigns trying to spread a narrative that it should.
i’ve been censored as ableist for saying idiot, moron and stupid
Not by me. Words change meaning (both connotation and denotation) over time and right now, the R word in relation to humans is considered a no no. This might change, the word might change its connotation again or might disappear completely and another word takes its place, who knows. This isn’t about what words could mean or used to mean or mean in very different contexts but what they mean here and now.
But maybe the problem about the meme is that it makes fun of “very not intelligent” people, as you put it. Maybe it’s not cool to portray them in such a way, with such a face. As you said, things come across differently within different people groups and there are many people on the internet so maybe be a little more cautious there.
the R word in relation to humans is considered a no no.
This isn’t accepted by everyone, though. In fact, I’d argue that it’s really only accepted by “polite society” at this point. This means that even in left-leaning communities like Lemmy, we’re seeing a majority of individuals speak out and very clearly say “This does not offend me.”
I avoid the use of the word typically because I aim to achieve something when I speak. By using a word that’s being actively burned by part of a community, you risk being selectively censored. This said, I think those who might censor others for the use of this word are doing the people they censor a massive disservice. I think a lot of the people practicing this are younger, and they were taken in strongly by the monied campaigns to push this word over the last 20 years. People paid to change their minds, and it worked.
At the end of the day, however, we’re looking at a word that means the exact same thing as a number of other words nobody cares to censor. This makes the entire ordeal nothing more than a mechanism to divide people who would otherwise get along. The world is becoming too small a place to allow for this sort of division, so I oppose this witch hunt. The word should either be tolerated, or we should see a true approach to protect disabled individuals - not this half-assed, virtue-signaling approach being enacted today.
we’re looking at a word that means the exact same thing as a number of other words nobody cares to censor.
So why not use them instead? Why insist on this one word when there are enough to choose from?
And is this really the case? I’m not a native speaker but I consume a lot of English media, including old books, and never have I encountered it as anything other than a derogatory term to mentally disabled people. And let me remind you that you made this convention about censorship, I didn’t. I just wrote a short comment, ready to move on, you bombarded me with paragraphs of comments. I’m just feeding the troll at this point and maybe I shouldn’t.
So you are much more part of the mechanism that divides people which is a poor argument in my opinion anyway. It’s often used to silence people who fight for marginalized groups and “divide the working class”. I’m not saying that you used it that way, but neither am I part of a witch hunt for suggesting not to use that word.
And what is all the talk about “monied campaigns”? Who has the monetary interest to cancel this word? I really don’t get this point.
This means that even in left-leaning communities like Lemmy, we’re seeing a majority of individuals speak out and very clearly say “This does not offend me.”
Has that been by people who are mentally disabled, though?
And that leftist spaces struggle with meaningfully engagement with systems of ablism has been a point of contention for…decades, now.
Maybe don’t use the R word?
Didn’t you hear? The alt right said it’s cool to use the r slur online again!
This is fucking killing me right now. Same with “we get to say the F slur again” like…you were never not allowed to say it. The only repercussion was some people fucked with you less, and that’s still the case. Y’all just use it as a battle cry now.
Same mfs were mad that Bud Light made a few cans of gay beer haven’t let go either, but their rules say they get to hold the grudge but Dems can’t be mad at Chic Fil A.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I think the accepted term is “conservative”.
The R word has been flagged by that community as hurtful, and when people who are in the group say “ouch”, we listen.
I don’t think they care about the terms stupid, idiot, moron, dummy, fool, or dunce.
LOL, I do think we can both agree that “conservative” is the best approach to belittling someone’s intelligence. It also carries with it a number of other connotations, though (crazy comes to mind.)
As for the “r-word” being “flagged” by “that community”. That’s quite the overreaching statement. There is no single community to speak of here, and there was absolutely never a true consensus on this word by our society as a whole.
The reality is that the “r-word” campaign was a heavily monied thing pushed on billboards, tv ads, and online ads over the last 20 or so years. If you ask me, someone who is literally part of “that community”, I think it was a bunch of Karen’s behind the entire thing.
The word “retard” was clinical when I was growing up. People quite literally referred to mentally challenged individuals as “mentally retarded”, and it was not an insult in any way. There is the core definition to this word, and it has a lot of other scientific and industry-based definitions. The fact it was separated from “mental” and then ostracized as a “bad word” by certain groups of people is downright ludicrous.
You could say “this process has been retarded to the point of complete failure”, and it would (should) have no negative connotation targeting individuals who were born with “deficiencies” in the area of intellect. Instead, it uses the definition of the word: “To delay or hold back in terms of progress, development, or accomplishment.”
This crusade against this single word in 2025 is simply asinine. We have huge problems to tackle in this world, and I really don’t believe anyone of substance should care about this. I’ve never met an actual, neurodivergent individual that takes offense to it being used in a way that doesn’t directly target them, or someone like them. That is to say, we’re talking about the Michael Scott usage.
You don’t call a paraplegic person “lame” because “oops”, that’s pretty messed up even if you didn’t mean it that way. This said, I doubt that person would take offense in a situation like this. This is where we should be with the “r-word”. There is simply no justification for making this word synonymous with a word like the n-word. It does not have that power, and I reject the monied campaigns trying to spread a narrative that it should.
Not by me. Words change meaning (both connotation and denotation) over time and right now, the R word in relation to humans is considered a no no. This might change, the word might change its connotation again or might disappear completely and another word takes its place, who knows. This isn’t about what words could mean or used to mean or mean in very different contexts but what they mean here and now.
But maybe the problem about the meme is that it makes fun of “very not intelligent” people, as you put it. Maybe it’s not cool to portray them in such a way, with such a face. As you said, things come across differently within different people groups and there are many people on the internet so maybe be a little more cautious there.
This isn’t accepted by everyone, though. In fact, I’d argue that it’s really only accepted by “polite society” at this point. This means that even in left-leaning communities like Lemmy, we’re seeing a majority of individuals speak out and very clearly say “This does not offend me.”
I avoid the use of the word typically because I aim to achieve something when I speak. By using a word that’s being actively burned by part of a community, you risk being selectively censored. This said, I think those who might censor others for the use of this word are doing the people they censor a massive disservice. I think a lot of the people practicing this are younger, and they were taken in strongly by the monied campaigns to push this word over the last 20 years. People paid to change their minds, and it worked.
At the end of the day, however, we’re looking at a word that means the exact same thing as a number of other words nobody cares to censor. This makes the entire ordeal nothing more than a mechanism to divide people who would otherwise get along. The world is becoming too small a place to allow for this sort of division, so I oppose this witch hunt. The word should either be tolerated, or we should see a true approach to protect disabled individuals - not this half-assed, virtue-signaling approach being enacted today.
So why not use them instead? Why insist on this one word when there are enough to choose from?
And is this really the case? I’m not a native speaker but I consume a lot of English media, including old books, and never have I encountered it as anything other than a derogatory term to mentally disabled people. And let me remind you that you made this convention about censorship, I didn’t. I just wrote a short comment, ready to move on, you bombarded me with paragraphs of comments. I’m just feeding the troll at this point and maybe I shouldn’t.
So you are much more part of the mechanism that divides people which is a poor argument in my opinion anyway. It’s often used to silence people who fight for marginalized groups and “divide the working class”. I’m not saying that you used it that way, but neither am I part of a witch hunt for suggesting not to use that word.
And what is all the talk about “monied campaigns”? Who has the monetary interest to cancel this word? I really don’t get this point.
Has that been by people who are mentally disabled, though?
And that leftist spaces struggle with meaningfully engagement with systems of ablism has been a point of contention for…decades, now.
Asinine, fatuous, inane…
deleted by creator
It’s okay, I’m autistic and I’m giving this guy the pass.