Because that “not being as smart as the rest of us” line of yours makes me wonder what happens when someone (a) agrees with you about the rest, but (b) explicitly says they’re talking about humans. “Yes,” they say, “I’m talking about humans who aren’t ‘as smart as the rest of us’, as you just put it.” Yes, they say: they believe the humans riding the short bus are — as you just explained — not “as smart as the rest of us.” Yes, they say: they agree with your word-for-word description of exactly how smart those humans are; and they take pains to emphasize the word “humans” while they’re doing it.
What happens if, while they’re simply agreeing with you about them “not being as smart as the rest of us”, they likewise agree with you about them being human?
No it’s not. Being accessible to the public does not make something owned by the public.
It is not owned, operated, or maintained by public funds. It is not administered by a government body.
Not everyone who shows up to a shindig are friends. When I have a party of only friends, I don’t need to worry about people using dehumanizing language, as I don’t count those as people I would invite to a gathering of friends.
But, as you say, this is more than a get together of a handful of people, and not all of us are friends.
If someone is not able to express themselves without using hateful and dehumanizing language, then I don’t count it as a loss when they find their way out.
No, they wouldn’t. It’s absolutely possible to believe (or know, or have proof) someone “isn’t as smart as the rest of us”, believe that’s a bad thing, and still acknowledge they are a human being.
If they are claiming that the less smart people are humans but are still using dehumanizing language to describe them, then the dichotomy suggests that they’re simply lying.
There are lots of things that are bad things. If I fall down and break my leg, that’s a bad thing. If someone is born with poor mental capabilities, that can be a bad thing.
But what is being said when using slurs is that they are bad people.
It’s also possible to drive home, on busy roads, when you’re absolutely piss drunk, without killing anybody.
Or to go to work in your crowded office, seriously ill with COVID, without telling anybody, without wearing a mask, and without isolating yourself, and not infect, hospitalize, or kill any of your cow-orkers.
But it creates an unnecessary risk to others … for the sake of (nothing more than) your narcissism and sociopathy. You’re just gambling with other people’s money.
[the collective ‘you,’ not you specifically]
“The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.”
It doesn’t just bend by itself. We push it that way.
The SDMB, regardless of the desires of a privileged few, isn’t analogous to a private party at a private house. Additionally, we have a forum specifically designed where users are encouraged to spew invectives at other users. So, you don’t like the word retard or a ban worthy word like harpy. I’m sure others don’t like reading about sexual perversions directed at other users such as bestiality, pedophilia or sodomy with plants.
I think I’ve said my piece, and I see that there is no changing your mind on this subject. But, it’s not your mind I need to change, so I think that further exchange in answering your politely asked questions serves little if any purpose.
If mods have further questions or concerns, I will be happy to address those, but other than that, I think that I am done with this thread.
FWIW the euphemism treadmill is already well underway on this word. Due to playing various computer and video games I have exposure to communities of people much, much younger than myself and sometimes (unfortunately) am exposed to their speech. It is very common for people in such communities in their late teens and 20s to use the word “autism” or “autistic” the way “retard” and “retarded” were used as a “commonly accepted pejorative” say, 25-30 years ago. This is likely to eventually make using the term autism “problematic” even for its intended use (which is also what happened with the word retarded.)
Have read part of it so far. Haven’t seen anything about it that diminishes or changes my point.
It is, nevertheless, who many people are. And many of them are in some ways better people than some who have lots of intellectual ability. It’s possible, for instance, to have lots of brains by any of the standard measures, but to insist that it’s perfectly fine to go around insulting random strangers.
Not if one thinks that being not “as smart as the rest of us” makes them a bad person.
And using insulting terms, or even using neutrally descriptive terms as insults, is saying one thinks the people themselves don’t matter, and/or thinks they’re essentially bad people.
The brain is a physical organ. Making fun of someone’s brain or insulting it is insulting what is basically an immutable organ. No amount of practice, training, or studying is going to turn any of us into a Von Neumann. So insults directed at intelligence aren’t very nice I’m not sure why we’d single out only this one word at this point in time.
A reminder, if someone does use the word retard the posters are allowed to reply/comment in threads anywhere on the board that the word is offensive, punches down and demeans and belittles an entire class of marginalized and often abused people who did nothing to deserve it.
Everyone has permission to address the post, just not to insult the poster except for in the pit.