I am not fully committed to this position. That said, I just think we disagree on the extent to which intention and context matters when measuring blameworthiness for language acts. For instance, the n-word as repeated by black people might be harmless, whereas its utterance by anyone else is unacceptable. Similarly, using the word “idiot” against a neurodivergent person is very bad. If used against me, though, that’s fair game.
I also don’t know the extent to which people are entitled to control what others say because they’re offended. Christians are constantly offended, Muslims are offended, apparently some folks in the special Olympics are offended.
Look, unless a word is linked to a hateful ideology, I see no reason to be scared of it quite so categorically.
Again, two main questions I need to figure out (believe it or not, I don’t use “retard” in my everyday speech — which is hard for me because like 80% of the human population is retarded):
Are we really blameworthy for speech acts independent of our intention and context?
Right now, I’m leaning no but maybe.
To what extent are others entitled to control our personal, private speech on the basis of their own internalized (and possibly neurotic) offense to it? I.e., religious groups getting mad, or autistic people being offended when people call each other “retarded.”
We also disagree on the facts I think. You have once again, without a morsel of empirical evidence, equated “retard” with the n-word, which is totally preposterous. So I think we are at an impasse.
A slur is an insulting or disparaging remark (according to the dictionary). Our contention is not over the definition of that word (I hope), but over whether the use of offensive language (such as slurs) is categorically unacceptable.
There are lots of slurs, but only a handful cross the line (for me at least), because I consider them to exclusively and belligerently perpetuate some evil ideology (usually racism). I don’t want to list these words here, but I can think of maybe 3 or 4.
There is no such thing as empirical evidence for an emotionally qualitative claim.
Well, history is not a matter of emotion. It is a matter of empirical fact. We can trace the origins and common usage of words, and the n-word is no exception. That body of knowledge is the product of research (historical data). The (mis)use of the medical term “retard” is also well understood. Its transference to colloquial slang is actually unexceptionable. Consider “psycho” or “cretin.” In the same vein, the word “autist” is now being used disparagingly among teenagers being goofy or weird, and so on.
“Autist” may not be sticky enough to require the medical community to come up with an alternative, more technical (and therefore less appealing) term for that mental disorder.
Regardless, people will continue to look for ways to call each other stupid, and the best thing we can do is encourage researchers to come up with long and convoluted names for medical conditions so they don’t get co-opted by teenagers looking for creative ways to insult each other.
The unfortunate truth is, yes. We are blameworthy for all acts independent of intention or context, because we have to be responsible for everything we do.
Well, yes and no. You have a responsibility to be mindful of those around you. But they also have a responsibility to at least attempt to understand what you’re trying to say. If we ignore your intentions, the result is tantamount to willful misunderstanding.
Remember, we are apes. Nothing more. Language is complex, and the average person is painfully, animalistically stupid. That’s why we have to be charitable to one another and give folks leeway to communicate without losing our shit over misunderstandings.
But “autist” is used colloquially — all the time. That’s my point. I mean that it hasn’t entered wider usage outside of high schools, twitch, and discord. Boomers don’t use it as an insult (yet).
I didn’t say “autistic” is synonymous with stupid. Usually it’s used to mean you’re excessively or neurotically detail-oriented.
deleted by creator
I am not fully committed to this position. That said, I just think we disagree on the extent to which intention and context matters when measuring blameworthiness for language acts. For instance, the n-word as repeated by black people might be harmless, whereas its utterance by anyone else is unacceptable. Similarly, using the word “idiot” against a neurodivergent person is very bad. If used against me, though, that’s fair game.
I also don’t know the extent to which people are entitled to control what others say because they’re offended. Christians are constantly offended, Muslims are offended, apparently some folks in the special Olympics are offended.
Look, unless a word is linked to a hateful ideology, I see no reason to be scared of it quite so categorically.
deleted by creator
Again, two main questions I need to figure out (believe it or not, I don’t use “retard” in my everyday speech — which is hard for me because like 80% of the human population is retarded):
Are we really blameworthy for speech acts independent of our intention and context? Right now, I’m leaning no but maybe.
To what extent are others entitled to control our personal, private speech on the basis of their own internalized (and possibly neurotic) offense to it? I.e., religious groups getting mad, or autistic people being offended when people call each other “retarded.”
We also disagree on the facts I think. You have once again, without a morsel of empirical evidence, equated “retard” with the n-word, which is totally preposterous. So I think we are at an impasse.
deleted by creator
A slur is an insulting or disparaging remark (according to the dictionary). Our contention is not over the definition of that word (I hope), but over whether the use of offensive language (such as slurs) is categorically unacceptable.
There are lots of slurs, but only a handful cross the line (for me at least), because I consider them to exclusively and belligerently perpetuate some evil ideology (usually racism). I don’t want to list these words here, but I can think of maybe 3 or 4.
Well, history is not a matter of emotion. It is a matter of empirical fact. We can trace the origins and common usage of words, and the n-word is no exception. That body of knowledge is the product of research (historical data). The (mis)use of the medical term “retard” is also well understood. Its transference to colloquial slang is actually unexceptionable. Consider “psycho” or “cretin.” In the same vein, the word “autist” is now being used disparagingly among teenagers being goofy or weird, and so on.
“Autist” may not be sticky enough to require the medical community to come up with an alternative, more technical (and therefore less appealing) term for that mental disorder.
Regardless, people will continue to look for ways to call each other stupid, and the best thing we can do is encourage researchers to come up with long and convoluted names for medical conditions so they don’t get co-opted by teenagers looking for creative ways to insult each other.
Well, yes and no. You have a responsibility to be mindful of those around you. But they also have a responsibility to at least attempt to understand what you’re trying to say. If we ignore your intentions, the result is tantamount to willful misunderstanding.
Remember, we are apes. Nothing more. Language is complex, and the average person is painfully, animalistically stupid. That’s why we have to be charitable to one another and give folks leeway to communicate without losing our shit over misunderstandings.
deleted by creator
I really like your response and I needed a minute to read it. Let me reply later.
But “autist” is used colloquially — all the time. That’s my point. I mean that it hasn’t entered wider usage outside of high schools, twitch, and discord. Boomers don’t use it as an insult (yet).
I didn’t say “autistic” is synonymous with stupid. Usually it’s used to mean you’re excessively or neurotically detail-oriented.
deleted by creator