Comment

Comment on Awooo

Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

the R word in relation to humans is considered a no no. This isn’t accepted by everyone, though. In fact, I’d argue that it’s really only accepted by “polite society” at this point. This means that even in left-leaning communities like Lemmy, we’re seeing a majority of individuals speak out and very clearly say “This does not offend me.”

I avoid the use of the word typically because I aim to achieve something when I speak. By using a word that’s being actively burned by part of a community, you risk being selectively censored. This said, I think those who might censor others for the use of this word are doing the people they censor a massive disservice. I think a lot of the people practicing this are younger, and they were taken in strongly by the monied campaigns to push this word over the last 20 years. People paid to change their minds, and it worked.

At the end of the day, however, we’re looking at a word that means the exact same thing as a number of other words nobody cares to censor. This makes the entire ordeal nothing more than a mechanism to divide people who would otherwise get along. The world is becoming too small a place to allow for this sort of division, so I oppose this witch hunt. The word should either be tolerated, or we should see a true approach to protect disabled individuals - not this half-assed, virtue-signaling approach being enacted today.

source

Sort:hotnew top

tomenzgg@midwest.social ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

This means that even in left-leaning communities like Lemmy, we’re seeing a majority of individuals speak out and very clearly say “This does not offend me.”

Has that been by people who are mentally disabled, though?

And that leftist spaces struggle with meaningfully engagement with systems of ablism has been a point of contention for…decades, now.

source
lugal@sopuli.xyz ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

we’re looking at a word that means the exact same thing as a number of other words nobody cares to censor.

So why not use them instead? Why insist on this one word when there are enough to choose from?

And is this really the case? I’m not a native speaker but I consume a lot of English media, including old books, and never have I encountered it as anything other than a derogatory term to mentally disabled people. And let me remind you that you made this convention about censorship, I didn’t. I just wrote a short comment, ready to move on, you bombarded me with paragraphs of comments. I’m just feeding the troll at this point and maybe I shouldn’t.

So you are much more part of the mechanism that divides people which is a poor argument in my opinion anyway. It’s often used to silence people who fight for marginalized groups and “divide the working class”. I’m not saying that you used it that way, but neither am I part of a witch hunt for suggesting not to use that word.

And what is all the talk about “monied campaigns”? Who has the monetary interest to cancel this word? I really don’t get this point.

source