Like I said, all that can be taken from that, if Atwater is to be taken at face value, is that the Reagan campaign did not use dogwhistles, and he very much does imply that previous Republican campaigns did.
Anyway, I don’t disagree with @Whack-a-Mole that if bigoted language is found to be publicly unacceptable, the bigots will use coded language, I just disagree that that is a compelling reason to find bigoted language to be acceptable.
There is a difference between being acceptable and it being banned.
I don’t like that language. I very rarely, if ever, use it (here or elsewhere). I have loads of posts on the SDMB and y’all can check me on that if you want (doubtless I have but I think it is very rare).
But I remain a free speech advocate even if you (general “you”) do not like what someone is saying. I do not see how banning speech is better.
I am all for the SDMB mods maintaining decorum and I think they do a great job at it and makes this one of the best forums on the internet.
But, when you have a forum dedicated to insulting other posters I think getting bent out of shape that someone called you stupid using a synonym of that word is weird.
And I maintain that political correctness, of which this falls into IMHO, has been central to spurring on the conservative movement. I don’t see how if the OP got their way the world is better.
For fucks sake… It isn’t just a synonym for stupid and that’s why it’s a problem.
Then your whole Atwater bit was a complete red herring, as these were not banned words, but unacceptable words.
I’m sure if I came into your house, I could make it so that you would ask me to refrain from certain language or to leave.
I don’t know if explaining this for the nth time will make a difference, but it’s not a synonym of stupid, it’s a word that has been used to dehumanize people and harm them.
Is the n-word just a synonym for “black” in your lexicon?
Political correctness is just recognizing the humanity of your fellow human, and acting accordingly. You are not wrong that hate is a big driver of the conservative movement, but accepting hate isn’t going to make them hate any less.
We are not trying to make the world better here, just this board.
The right has done a great job of deminoizing common courtesy by labeling it “political correctness”.
And the example you gave didn’t involve banning anything so was irrelevant.
Good grief.
The thread has a progression. You are picking out a part as a standalone piece without any context as to what came before it.
The Atwater quote was to show that you can ban bad words, or just not say them, and still promote a vile agenda. So, do you think banning or avoiding the bad words achieves anything? Have you made the world a better place by doing so?
I think it is clear Atwater is suggesting the conservatives avoided the “bad” words because it hampered their agenda. The “ok coded words” promoted their agenda. And that worked.
I was responding to it as though you were saying it was relevant to the discussion at hand. Not sure what other context you are looking to put it in.
Haters gonna hate, what can you do?
It make the places where those words are not acceptable more welcoming to the targets of those words.
I think that we will make the board a better place by doing so. Achieving world peace is above our paygrade.
All I get from that is that you think that if hate speech and slurs were acceptable, then that’s what they would have used to promote their agenda.
Once again, I ask you, directly, do you think that the n-word is simply a synonym for the word “black”?
Get from it that hate speech made them obvious and voters steered clear.
Once they sanitized their speech they had much more success. They were still the same hateful fucks they were before.
In the end I guess we will have to disagree. You (and others) think censorship is the path to a better world.
I do not.
So, if the voters had found those words to be acceptable, then they wouldn’t have voted for the people using them?
And once again, this is not about the world, this is about this board.
And once again, I ask, is the n-word just a synonym for the word “black” to you?
The problem is that everyone has different ideas of what constitutes “common courtesy”.
Nope.
Then why do you insist that “retarded” is simply a synonym for “stupid”?
I can insult you up, down, and across, tear you down to your skivvies and leave you a sniveling wreck without using a single slur, but I would be insulting you.
I say that the last episode of Picard was “retarded”, and I just insulted a whole group of people that had nothing to do with it.
Because it literally had a medical definition of a person with an IQ of 70 or less.
Retarded only became bad because when someone wants to insult someone they compare them to a defined group of low intelligence. As has been noted we previously had words like slow and imbecile. You are just stepping from one bad word to the next.
Do you think bad words to refer to black people stopped with the n-word?
And it’s entirely reasonable to assume you in no way intended to insult that group of people, you just picked a word with bad connotations. Being made aware of that fact allows you to go forth and “sin no more”.
Which is why this hi-jack is retarded fucking pointless.
When? “Retarded” was still being used well into my ~60 years on the planet.
Because in that context, you’re not just saying “Well that episode was stupid” (which really just comes down to “I didn’t like it a lot”, you’re saying “This episode was really bad, had a lot of stupid plot holes/issues that should have been immediately apparent to the scriptwriters and showrunners, and this aggravates the issue and means an even stronger word to denote how it’s even worse than stupid is needed”.
I would strongly advise every person in this thread having an attack of the vapours to never, ever go anywhere near gaming communities. Which, like it or not, significantly outnumber SDMB posters by a factor of several dozen million.
The fact that we do not all perfectly agree does not imply that all sets of ethical principles have equal merit. Throughout history, we have conversations like this one, we come to consensus on certain issues and continue to dispute others, sometimes we even fight wars - but we make steady (if not monotonic) ethical progress.
Here:
To be diagnosed as having mental retardation, a person must have an I.Q. below 70-75, i.e. significantly below average. If a person scores below 70 on a properly administered and scored I.Q. test, he or she is in the bottom 2 percent of the American population10 and meets the first condition necessary to be defined as having mental retardation.
And more…
Historically, intellectual disability (previously termed “mental retardation”) has been defined by significant cognitive deficits—which has been established through a standardized measure of intelligence, in particular, with an IQ score of below 70 (two standard deviations below the mean of 100 in the population)—and also by significant deficits in functional and adaptive skills.
Oh look…they used the bad word!
And the n-word litterally had the definition of a black skinned person.
And because the word has been used for people who had their rights stripped away, who were imprisoned in squalor, were often forcefully sterilized, and were treated as subhuman in every way, through no fault of their own.
Not a fan of imbecile either, but it has less loaded connotations.
No, I am not stepping from one to the next, the bigots are. You are directing your complaints in the wrong direction.
Do you think the world would be a better place if we brought it back?