118
It do be like that (thelemmy.club)
submitted 2 days ago by to c/disabled@hexbear.net
47 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 1 day ago (3 children)

But by your logic, it's okay for me to call someone a removed if they're a bad person,

This whole thread sounds like you just want permission to call people slurs that the auto-mod deletes, which I am not interested in at all.

you cannot insult someone without it being a slur

This argument is not about how slurs are bad. It's about how ablism is bad. Calling someone a "fucking asshole" or a "piece of shit" is a slur and is not ableist. And I encourage you to call shitty people shitty.

We are already talking about a counter-example. "Chud" is a fictional, non-human creature that lives underground and eats people. People in your online circle have used to it be a synonym of "ugly" but that doesn't make the term ableist. It just makes your friends ableist assholes.

I don't know what word of yours keeps getting removed and really don't want to know. I assume it is the r-slur, which, you need to stop using and if you don't stop using it, you are a human sized piece of shit.

(above is a great example of how to be mean to someone without being ableist).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago* (2 children)

    The entire reason I write it out is so that it gets censored and you don't have to see it, if I had written r-slur it would be less censored. I've never used it outside of as an example. Clearly here saying "the r-slur" is preferred so I'll do that from now on.

    I am saying it is kind of silly to say that anything that can be called ableist should be avoided, for the same reason you can't see the problem with "chud", like you said, the usage of the word by itself isn't ableist, it's how people use it. My point is that extends to stuff you find ableist.

    I concede that shitty or asshole is an insult that isn't a slur, but they also have no bite, hence why people invent words like "chud".

    If, to you, saying chud is okay since you don't mean it in the '=ugly' way, why is the r-slur unnacceptable, if it originated from an equally unoffensive definition, or why is 'dipshit' okay if the original definition was ableist?

    To be clear, I don't think calling people the r-slur is okay, I'm asking you what you think the difference is. To me, it's contextual, and the "wrongness" of language depends on how it's used, and so saying that words like idiot, crazy or expressions like jobless are inherently ableist is wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    If, to you, saying chud is okay since you don't mean it in the '=ugly' way, why is the r-slur unnacceptable, if it originated from an equally unoffensive definition

    This is where the breakdown is happening. Chud's origin is not "chud means ugly person, so when I call someone a chud, it is identifying ugly as bad." "Chuds" were monsters in an '80s movie who lived underground and ate people and people started calling people "chuds" from that movie and they might have used it to insult all sorts of people. When Homer Simpson says "and that's when the Chuds came at me", he isn't talking about people with disabilities. He is talking about the monsters from the movie, which was much more in the zeitgeist in the '90s when that episode came out. And given the social impact the Simpsons had, my guess is that chud's prominence in the lexicon is largely a result of the Simpsons using it, just like "meh" and "yoink."

    You can be ableist using non-ableist terms. Some of the examples are elsewhere in this thread where people say people treat them badly, and hurl insults at them, because they do not process social queues in normative ways. So if I call an autistic person an asshole because they don't pick up on my sarcasm, maybe I am being ableist because they might not be able to identify sarcasm and irony very well. They have no malice, it's just how their brain works. So you can be ableist towards people using non-ableist slurs. In this example, "asshole" does not become an ableist slur whenever it is used just because some asshole used it in an ableist way. This is like chud=ugly. Some people use chud to call people ugly, which is mean. But if I call [pick your favorite billionaire] a chud for trying to destroy society, it is not ableist.

    The r-slur's origins are arcane medical terminology used to describe people with a wide range of developmental disabilities. When you call someone the r-slur, you are invoking outdated medical terms and then identifying the subject as "bad" because they resemble people with developmental disabilities. That's what makes it inherently ableist. The implicit assumption that the type of person that word was associated with is inherently bad and that being labelled as developmentally disabled is an insult is ableist. Just like calling someone the f-slur to mean "bad" is inherently homophobic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •