Are you suggesting that if we language police enough we can have 20-30 years of polite discourse until the next intervention?
I’m curious (really asking):
Is calling anyone “retarded” or “mentally deficient” (and so on) ever ok on the SDMB outside of The Pit?
I’m suggesting that anyone who actually desires polite discourse will pay attention to the words they use, and how they are used to denigrate and dehumanize.
And that sometimes, there are some people cannot be relied upon to choose polite discourse, and so need to be told what is not acceptable to those who do.
I’m more interested in not dehumanizing people, but I guess we all have our priorities.
Towards a poster, generally not. Off board people, most of the time, with the current rules, it would be acceptable.
And even in the pit, there are rules about using words that are used to dehumanize and denigrate.
I’m more interested in why you think a euphemism changes things.
E.G. You are not “retarded”. You are “mentally deficient”.
You’ve been told. Read the thread.
Twice now you have not answered the question posed.
You keep asking the same question despite it having been answered in full repeatedly.
We’re done.
Thank you, you said that really well.
And to those who want to be able to use slurs: the problem with slurs isn’t that you are insulting the target of your verbal assault. There are plenty of good at valid reasons to verbally assault particular individuals. The problem with slurs if that you are insulting lots of innocent bystanders.
If you insult someone by calling him a faggot, you are insulting every gay person with the implication that it’s horrible to be gay. If you insult someone by calling them a cunt you are also saying that there’s something horrible about being female. If you insult someone by calling them a retard, or saying they ride the short bus, you are saying that it’s horrible to have mental or emotional disabilities.
@gdave , thanks for giving us your last couple of posts.
Someone answered me.
I asked a follow-on question for clarification.
Your belief is I was answered and that’s the end of it.
In which case, I have answered you in full and you are wrong.
We’re done. (I like how this works)
It’s not a good thing, though, is it? Like, even taking away the “people disliking you for being the way you are” thing, it’s objectively not a desirable state of affairs - which is what differentiates that insult from ones about being gay or ethnic, where there’s nothing objectively wrong with those things except in the outdated social attitudes sense.
I’d say that demeaning somebody who is already burdened with a bad thing that is outside of their control is a shitty thing to do.
Are you saying that someone with a learning disability should be dehumanized?
How is it dehumanizing? There are plenty of reasons to rail against it; why that one?
How is nigger dehumanizing?
There seems to be a utopian ideal running through this thread but with no sense of how it is supposed to work (beyond the mods chasing bad words on this board).
Free speech is perhaps our most coveted right in the US but that only means something when you let someone say something that makes your blood boil and infuriates you. Free speech has never meant only inoffensive speech. The upside is you can speak against the person who infuriated you.
In the past, when someone said something vile or offensive, social opprobrium generally beat them back.
Then we got the notion of political correctness and what you can and cannot say for fear of offending someone in some way. There are abundant examples of this running amok.
What happened? We got “dog whistles” and a huge conservative backlash against political correctness. The social opprobrium weakens because now those vile people are hiding behind euphemistic language.
Which brings us to today. Has public discourse improved since the advent of banning “bad words” (political correctness in the 90s)? I’d say it has coarsened…a lot. More and more seem to revel in demeaning people. I do not think you and others who have been demeaned are now living in a better society because certain words were deemed to be unspeakable. I’d say it is arguably worse now than it was 30 years ago.
Because it has been used to dehumanize people. To strip them of their rights, to imprison them in squalor, to even sterilize them, all for the crime of not being as smart as the rest of us.
How is that not dehumanizing?
So, you throw a party, everyone’s having a good time.
Then this one guy starts calling other people out by various slurs. People “show him opprobrium”, but he continues.
People at your party stop having a good time. Some people start heading out the door. How much of your party are you willing to sacrifice in order to allow this person to continue before you ask them to either watch their language or to leave?
The social opprobrium that is being shown right now is people leaving the board and shunning it for allowing such language.
No one has to be here. And if you get your way, the only ones who will want to be here are those who use or accept such language.
Social opprobrium in your case means he is show the door. Your friends getting on his case the next day and telling him no more party invites if he continues.
And the SDMB can do likewise.
But the SDMB is a public forum. More akin to the town square (with global reach) than your living room.
The SDMB is here to be a place for the exchange and discussion of ideas and not a party of your friends.
Big difference I think.
How many conservative posters have left the board because of restrictions?