I think calling someone “mentally deficient” is more on point.
I’ll have to think on how I feel about that one.
Describing a person as lame due to their argument is certainly a form of slur, in that it is saying that there is something inherently wrong with them, that is extended to people who have mobility issues. But an argument, hard to say, as there are many words to describe an argument that could be used to describe people as well. “Weak” or “Old” could also describe an argument or a person, but I don’t know they should be verboten.
No. Nor would I, as long as we’re engaging in total non sequiturs, require everyone to eat olives on their pizza, advocate removing the “k” from “kindergarten,” or require every pair of blue jeans to have a daisy sewn on the butt.
I’d almost argue that “lame” has transcended(?) the original meaning. I mean, when was the last time you heard someone with mobility issues described as “lame”, or even “crippled”? I think the only usage I’ve actually heard it for beyond describing something as being uncool or undesirable is with respect to horses.
But your last sentence gets to the meat of the whole argument about terms like “retard”, “cripple”, etc… and it’s about the acceptability of comparing someone negatively to some other group that has some sort of deficiency versus the population in general. It’s really just a matter of degree whether you call someone a retard/idiot/moron/imbecile or whether you call them stupid/slow/dumb. Either way, you’re implying that they’re somehow less than normal in mental capacity, and so is whatever they’re saying.
And it’s also why people get annoyed with the euphemism treadmill, because ultimately as long as people are going to make that sort of comparison as an insult, what does it matter what words you use to do it?
Well, yes, that would be insulting their mental capabilities, usually based on little more to go on but their knowledge and analysis of some topic or other, and your opinion of the capabilities of one who would make a particular argument.
As stated earlier it is, at best ad-hominem (or ad-hoc for the editorially deficient), and is simply a way to make yourself feel better by putting someone else down.
I don’t know that it should be banned, especially from the pit, but I do know that I would judge most uses of it to be made by someone morally deficient.
That’s my feeling, as well. Except maybe for horses, the meaning has shifted away from mobility issues.
When a particular word has been used to harm a group of people for a long time, it’s time to retire the word because even the mention of it as an insult continues to harm that group of people.
Eh, I hear it everytime I go to church and hear about how Jesus healed the lame. But outside that context, it’s pretty rare.
I think it depends on whether that insult is or has been used to justify dehumanizing and harming people described by those words. “Lame”, I would have to see some examples, but I could be persuaded if there are relevant ones. “Retarded” has been used to justify stripping people of their rights and their humanity and imprisoning them against their will, for no crime but for how they were born.
What productive use is there in doing so?
I don’t think “lame” is used to insult people with mobility issues. Maybe it was once upon a time, but I’ve never heard it used that way. In college, i had an acquaintance with serious mobility issues who used to joke that she wasn’t “lame” she was “halt”, and that only worked as a joke because the words were already effectively obsolete in those meanings.
So I don’t have a problem with people saying an idea is lame.
I do have as problem with people using “retard” and “___tard” as an insult.
I think there’s a very large difference.
The first carries a strong connotation that the idea can’t ever become fully developed; that the thinking behind it is essentially lacking. The second reads to me as referring to something like an early draft, that needs more work but could potentially become fully developed.
Plus which, of course, the first carries a clear insult, while the second is the sort of comment that might be made by a helpful editor.
And plus which, the clear insult in the first also insults a whole lot of other people.
Yeah. I thought we’d already gotten rid of “retard” (except in the senses given as exceptions in the OP), and am disappointed to discover that it’s considered debatable.
Problem is, if it’s legitimate to be angry at the person for being that way, then they’re not actually stupid. If they genuinely can’t comprehend whatever’s going on about an issue that’s bringing on that reaction, it’s not legitimate to be angry at them.
We could certainly use a short, pithy word for “you are being willfully ignorant”. But the fact that the language has been using terms meaning genuine incapacity for the purpose doesn’t mean that that’s not a problem.
I don’t think there are a lot of words like that. Words become slurs. People don’t usually make them up out of nowhere.
Agreed.
Do we have any evidence that they aren’t?
There are plenty of people with Down’s who are entirely capable of using a computer and of reading a message board.
In addition, it doesn’t become acceptable to use insulting language just because you think the people being insulted aren’t there at the moment.
Quoted for truth. Being willfully ignorant, in a fashion that causes others problems, is wrong. But absolutely everybody is ignorant of all sorts of things. It’s unavoidable. There is, and always has been, more information available than fits in any one person’s head.
Does anyone genuinely associate “lame” with mobility issues? It’s one of those things that sounds like it belongs in an Edwardian novel, not a current term for mobility impairment.
I honestly can’t recall ever hearing the term outside a veterinary context to mean anything except that a concept or action is not good in a sad, slightly pitiable or pathetic way.
Heh, whenever I’ve gone to the track, it’s a term I associate with whichever horse my money is on.
It is a slur entirely on the level of “the n-word” and “the c-word”. Not only should it be a moddable offense, it should be a potentially bannable one.
I agree. No one thinks of “similar to people who have mobility challenges” if you say, “dude, that movie was lame!,” but most people (I’d wager) do think of “mentally deficient” (if only subliminally) when they hear “dude, that op-ed is retarded!”
I think this would be going too far, because:
- It was an acceptable descriptor — both literally, and, in certain social circles, in its extended sense (though never NICE) — not THAT long ago, so older posters especially might do better with a warning;
- As others have said, it’s such a useful, quick tool for knowing which posters (or at least which posts) to ignore.
Anyway, as others have said, it’s rarely used on these boards, anyway. No need to include it in some official rule, IMHO.
I agree in the sense that it’s hate speech and already something you can be banned for.
Anyway, all that said, I do think that “Stupid” should be allowed to stay in use, as it, IMHO, resolves to, “Should know better, but chooses not to.”
Though if a better word for that particular state of mind is more appropriate, I wouldn’t be too resistant to change.
I haven’t decided how I feel about “stupid.” I don’t see how it could be offensive (though someone could enlighten me otherwise), but it just sounds a bit juvenile — and, more importantly, vague or ambiguous. “Ignorant,” “exaggerated,” etc. — whether about a person, or (preferably) a statement or argument — are more precise.
Circles of trash people. It was never, at any point of my life, acceptable to me, nor was it used by people I associated with. Because we weren’t trash people. And yes, any time I see someone use the term, my evaluation of their intelligence and morality plummets.
The word “nigger”, or the word “niggardly”? It’s hard to tell what “the term” here references.
Okay, perhaps. I was thinking of people born in, say, 1965, who used it as a teen in the early 1980s (not NICE even then, but VERY widespread, and not all those people were trash), and missed the memo on it as they aged. Are all these people “trash,” or might some of them just need a little advice? I don’t think they’re all trash, but YMMV.