Bad news everybody

[IntellectualNinja]

So, if there is a bucket of shit setting in the corner and it's all crusted over and not bothering anybody and if a either a high IQ or a low IQ person goes over and stirs it up with a stick and the stench takes over the place, is it now acceptable to tell them that was a stupid thing to do? Or just the high IQ person?
Please clarify.

If I understand the rules, you should call neither a slur on low IQ. Just tell them they f'ed up or spilled the shit. You can still use foul language but refrain from words that slur disabilities such as "lame" or "moron."

[IntellectualNinja]

Kait, don't get me wrong- I don't advocate mocking people for their disabilities any more than you do. But going out of your way to avoid using words like "stupid" is no substitute for compassion.

Who said I was being pcompassionate? The disabled rights movement makes a good point about language and how it stigmatizes disabilities. When you slur someone by calling them stupid, you're sending a clear ableist message that not being intelligent is frowned upon instead of accepted as a condition that helps define their character.

[nemesis]

Why should we mock someone for having a low IQ? Would you go up to a kid with cerebral palsy and call them stupid? No? Then don't call anyone else stupid either.

I am not in the habit of going up to people and calling them anything at all, but calling a kid with cerebral palsy stupid, just based on the fact that he looks like he might be mentally deficient, is a different argument. Prof Stephen Hawking has cerebral palsy for example.

Anyway your post reminded me:

Otto West: Don't call me stupid.

Wanda: Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep that could outwit you.

[E-lad]

Being the stupid reductionist that I am, acting stupid is still being stupid, and it remains my right to make that reference, unless, of course, the first amendment to the Bill of Rights has been modified without my knowledge.
The moment that someone makes a rule is the moment that particular rule must be broken to perpetuate our freedom of speech.

That process is far from perfect, but it is the best way we've found to keep us free to express our personal convictions so far.

Respectfully submitted,

The Frog-O-Matic

[IntellectualNinja]

Being the stupid reductionist that I am, acting stupid is still being stupid, and it remains my right to make that reference, unless, of course, the first amendment to the Bill of Rights has been modified without my knowledge.
The moment that someone makes a rule is the moment that particular rule must be broken to perpetuate our freedom of speech.

That process is far from perfect, but it is the best way we've found to keep us free to express our personal convictions so far.

Respectfully submitted,

The Frog-O-Matic

Alright, fine, don't hang out with the cool kids.

[E-lad]

Being the stupid reductionist that I am, acting stupid is still being stupid, and it remains my right to make that reference, unless, of course, the first amendment to the Bill of Rights has been modified without my knowledge.
The moment that someone makes a rule is the moment that particular rule must be broken to perpetuate our freedom of speech.

That process is far from perfect, but it is the best way we've found to keep us free to express our personal convictions so far.

Respectfully submitted,

The Frog-O-Matic

Alright, fine, don't hang out with the cool kids.

I have never, and will never, hang out with the 'cool kids.' I hang out with the kids that perpetuate logic and freedom. It's rarely the popular route, by the way.,....but I am accustomed to being vilified by those who defer to platitudes and empty exhortations.

[zilch]

Kait- as froggie points out, "stupid" is a perfectly good word to define some actions and states of being. The trouble with promoting a politically correct lexicon is that it's not the words that are the problem, but the attitudes behind them, when they are used to hurt those who don't deserve being hurt. As you might probably guess, neither froggie nor I, nor probably any other smrtie, is going to use the word "stupid" (or "derp", or "crip", or whatever) to make fun of the handicapped. But I have no compunction against using these words in appropriate contexts: for instance, in making fun of someone like Ray Comfort, who is willfully ignorant and fleeces the even more ignorant for his personal profit. Much of what he says is stupid, and he's willfully stupid to say it, and I don't see what's wrong with saying so.

Steven Pinker points out (in, I think, The Language Instinct) that when a word becomes derogatory and is shot down by the political correctness folks, all that happens is that the new, "nice", term eventually also becomes derogatory and is in turn shot down, which leads to what he calls the "euphemism treadmill". His example is the progression from "black", to "Negro", to "Afro-American", to "black" again, etc. The same is true of the series "crippled", "disabled", "handicapped", "otherly abled", etc. The problem is not the words themselves, but the attitude: as long as there's racism, or ableism, or whatever other -ism, the negative attitude will glom onto the current word and eventually make it derogatory. So trying to police the language is a vain attack on the symptom, not on the disease, and won't help anyone.

[IntellectualNinja]

This really isn't abut taking bad words out of the lexicon. "Lame, imbecile, etc..." are fine words, but when you use a disability to insult someone, you're making a clear statement that disabilities are stigmatized. I admit, "stupid" is an iffy word, but what I was told is to just never demean other people's .intelligence. Think about it this way, let's say some guy trips and falls down, would it be okay to say, "That's so black?" Or what if someone loses a game, is it okay to say, "That's so gay?" So why is it acceptable when Ray says something from his out-of-touch mind can we say, "That's so moronic?" It's not that I'm big on being offended--in fact I'm not offended--but this makes a lot of sense to me. In other words, you can still use the words, just don't hurl other people's conditions as insults.

[zilch]

So why is it acceptable when Ray says something from his out-of-touch mind can we say, "That's so moronic?" It's not that I'm big on being offended--in fact I'm not offended--but this makes a lot of sense to me. In other words, you can still use the words, just don't hurl other people's conditions as insults.

But kait, as I said, it's the attitude, or the intent, that counts, not the particular words. I can't imagine any mentally handicapped persons taking offense if I call Ray moronic- if they do, they are being oversensitive, as Opus opines above. Should I take offense when others talk about "old" people? Being old is definitely a disability, and it is incurable and terminal. It seems to me that it would be more useful to target the stereotypes, by doing things like, for instance, as we have here in Vienna, a Down's Syndrome theater. Another good thing we have here in Austria (and most European countries) is civil service, just for men unfortunately, in lieu of military service, and most of the jobs involve caring for people disadvantaged in one way or another. If they'd had that in the States back in the day, I would have done it gladly.

[rufustfirefly]

I'm confused; is this a serious thread?