maniclucky
@maniclucky@lemmy.world
- Comment on Why is the USA attacking Iran? 1 week ago:
The word is horrified, but yes.
- Comment on Microsoft's planned new AI trick for Edge will 'automatically open the Copilot side pane' with Outlook email links — and I can feel the hate already 1 week ago:
I feel like most people with a new Windows installation aren’t going to know that one.
- Comment on Microsoft's planned new AI trick for Edge will 'automatically open the Copilot side pane' with Outlook email links — and I can feel the hate already 1 week ago:
People installing firefox or chrome.
- Comment on grrr 2 weeks ago:
It’s unfortunate. Other than you loving hate speech apparently, your comment history indicates we agree on quite a bit, if perhaps not to the same level of passion.
- Comment on grrr 2 weeks ago:
I see. Care to share with the class? Or are you just gonna show up outside my house with a knife, cause that’s the vibe you’re now giving off.
An appeal to your… whatever you’ve got going on: it’ll help other people not be deceived if you say whatever the fuck you’re talking about.
- Comment on grrr 2 weeks ago:
It’s just very suddenly aggressive. I’m very confused where the turn happened and where the poorly founded accusations of lying enter. What statement did I intentionally misrepresent?
I mean, I dumped a lot of effort into defending against the use of a slur. Fascists have a tendency to be pro-slur in general. Your stance is… shaky.
- Comment on grrr 2 weeks ago:
This has taken such a strange turn. At the risk of encouraging the pigeon, you do realize that deception, by definition, requires an intent to deceive? At worst I’m just wrong.
I don’t understand your affinity for hate speech nor why you defend it to the point of apparent delusion, but you might want to ask a therapist about that.
- Comment on grrr 2 weeks ago:
It’s rather hard to see eye to eye while covering your eyes. Enjoy your hate speech.
- Comment on grrr 2 weeks ago:
Glad we could agree even if you are coming from a point of bad faith now.
Ah pigeon chess. Delightful.
You say calling it a slur was not lie, but it was.
I’m still confused. What did I misrepresent? Calling it a slur was a lie? That’s my entire thesis that I have backed at every step.
The way it was used was simply not a slur.
I contend otherwise. Extensively. With logic and rationale that you refuse to engage with.
I apologize if you feel I have not conceded to any of your points.
You don’t have to concede. I expect you won’t. I’d like you to engage with me rather than put words in my mouth and ignore what you find inconvenient, though even that is out of what I have control over. I’ve specifically marked why I have dismissed some of your arguments (mostly red herring) while you’ve relied on the tried and true ‘nuh uh’ strategy.
I listed three things that, if refuted directly, I would gladly yield. You have ignored this condition that is the basis of having any sort of debate and instead decided that you have won by some metric that you have come up with. Or would you like to babble about context while ignoring it more?
- Comment on grrr 2 weeks ago:
So you admit that slurs are not always slurs and context matter. This context was missing for you to call it a slur to begin with. There was no mentally delayed person being called a retard. Glad we can agree your original comment was half-baked.
That’s quite a few words you shoved in my mouth. I at no point said slurs are not always slurs. I acknowledged context matters as a general statement and then posed the context that I believe matters. I, in fact, positively asserted that history, usage, and present recognition by relevant advocacy groups as being relevant context to define it as a slur. You have yet to acknowledge any of those points. I’ll happily yield if you can name why those three things are irrelevant.
What are you left with again? Oh yes a lie about a slur and a false usage of punching down.
Lie? You’ve lost me on that one. I hold that the usage was offensive even if it does not necessarily meet the definition of ‘punching down’ specifically. The bat is still harmed when it strikes the baseball.
Stop bloviating, this is the beginning and end of it.
Is it? You have ignored my points multiple times while I have endeavored to engage with yours. I should know better than to engage with bad faith. Alas.
- Comment on grrr 2 weeks ago:
Black people don’t view as a slur
Black people are not a monolith and I’d be dead in the street if I said that in the wrong neighborhood. This is also irrelevant as that is more about reclamation than the status as a slur (which it is).
We collectively as a society stopped using retardation as a medical diagnosis. The rest of what you say is nonsense.
So history, the appeals of advocacy groups, the direct rejection of what you say by someone who would have been called such not long enough ago is irrelevant? Context only matters when it helps you I guess?
Glad you can admit the punching down was nonsense.
Linguistic imprecision is hardly the most salient point. My inability to name a better term for the wrong done does not remove the wrong.
Speaking of spirals, I just said it was a dumb take because you forgot context and added in some bullshit about punching down. This is objectively true so I am not sure why you need to keep going on and on.
I’ve listed off context multiple times. You have failed to refute any of it.
You’re rather arrogant to aspire to objective truth. Even I’m not doing that and I’m having trouble breathing from my high horse. Sociology and linguistics are not the land of objective truth. It speaks ill of your reasoning abilities that you believe that is what you’re doing.
- Comment on grrr 2 weeks ago:
So calling someone a removed is always a slur? Ignoring context is stupid because it is willfully ignorance. Clearly context matters.
So dropping the n-slur when no black people are around strips it of its history and the connotations used by the speaker? History is part of the context. Tone is part of the context. Both were present.
Furthermore who defines it as as a slur.
Society as a whole generally does that. We collectively decided 20 or so years ago that it was a bad thing to do. And the world was better for it. But that is a bad argument. [arcmonroe.org/…/the-r-word-why-language-matters-a…](Advocacy groups publishing articles reasoning far better than I regarding its status as hate speech is probably the better angle.)
I know someone who is mentally developed that throws around the retard word all the time. Are you offended for them?
I’ll assume you meant developmentally delayed. I don’t care for it, but that’s getting into ‘reclaiming the word’ territory, which is not what this conversation is about.
Also retardation has fallen out of favor for medical diagnosis. It has not fallen out of favor for a general insult, no matter how badly you want it to. Once again, ignoring context.
The existence of this conversation and my general net upvote (with a nod that lemmy is not a complete demographic, nor do a few comments do an informed study make) rather disproves that. It was out of favor for a long ass time. It was scumbags like Joe Rogan who brought it back. Words evolve past their history. A point I have at no point refuted, merely rejected the argument that this is relevant. One must show that the evolution has changed it sufficiently to no longer be a slur. It still bears its history and current status of being a slur despite falling out of medical favor.
Lastly punching down refers to social ridicule from a high standing group to a low standing group.
The individual, presumably not disabled, used the intellectually disabled as an insult against others. While perhaps not directly social ridicule it’s not exactly promoting social standing. I’ll grant that they were not attacked directly and thus punching down is not the most appropriate term. What was done was definitely a sibling and still a shitty thing to do.
So yeah you are acting stupid and you continue to double down on the stupidity like it is a badge of honor.
You fundamentally misunderstand. I see an offensive thing. I make a single comment that spiraled in a big way. I defend my position and await a compelling argument to convince me otherwise, which has not arisen. I’ve even had some good faith debate and conceded a few things in this mess. Your arguments just aren’t landing for the reason’s I’m spending too much time and effort on.
I’ll admit that my taunts were in poor taste. It doesn’t induce good faith debate to insult.
- Comment on grrr 2 weeks ago:
That’s a poorly reasoned take. Slurs are only slurs if someone’s around to hear it? That’s definitely not how that works. Additionally, groups that are not necessarily mentally delayed (waves in autistic) get painted with that brush too. So even by your poor reasoning, it was a slur because I was there to see it.
It was also definitely punching down. It was the classic usage “Group X is like group Y and they’re bad because of the features they share”, specifically difficulty understanding new information in this context. Explain how it wasn’t that? How it didn’t draw an equality between them based upon the expressed undesirable feature of learning difficulties, thus implying that the intellectually disabled are less because of it?
So, yeah. You’re taunting me. Really badly.
- Comment on grrr 2 weeks ago:
Well with such a compelling, well reasoned argument, I’ll have to concede. Well done.
- Comment on grrr 2 weeks ago:
Now you’re just taunting me. Badly.
- Comment on grrr 2 weeks ago:
If you’re gonna jump in so late with so little to add, at least have the courage to drop the slur. It was right there.
- Comment on grrr 2 weeks ago:
I appreciate the answer. I even agree to a large extent with your last point. I still think it an easy thing to not do and will call it out when I see it. I think the people that are letting annoyance with the general rule ‘don’t be a dick even if you can get away with it’ lead them to fascism were probably most of the way there anyway, but that’s whatever.
I’m not going to entreat further change from you, I’ve got too many paragraphs into this thread as is. I hope to see the immoral sacks of shit get everything they have coming too.
- Comment on grrr 2 weeks ago:
There was no ambiguous intent to how they used the slur. It was the classic “they’re bad because they’re like X” usage. It’s a word with a long history of harming a marginalized group. It was resurrected by awful people for its original awful purpose.
So, less good faith this time: why do you defend it? What worth does it have that cannot be claimed elsewhere?
Asked by someone part of a group that was painted with the r-slur for a long ass time (autism).
- Comment on grrr 2 weeks ago:
So. Coming down from my high horse and taking a breath. A good faith question for you? I can understand the first paragraph and disagree with the second, but I would like to let that go for just a second.
Why are you attached to this word? They defend pedophiles, the steal from the poor, they commit atrocities, and they do really bizarre shit like wearing diapers because their leader is incontinent. I get the ‘hit them with what hurts’ angle and can’t say whether or not it’s effective. Is casually hurting others, because two different people in these comments have positively asserted that they were offended, worth not choosing a different word?
- Comment on grrr 2 weeks ago:
The test was ‘don’t use slurs’. I suspect you have larger issues if that is the hill you want to die on.
I’m autistic. I don’t like seeing that word come back. So I called out shit behavior. Have some godsdamned creativity if you’re going to insult people. Don’t emulate the people you’re insulting.
- Comment on grrr 2 weeks ago:
Don’t be a shit bag.
- Comment on grrr 2 weeks ago:
You look like them when you drop the r-slur. Don’t let their shit behavior and punching down make you worse.
- Comment on A place for conservatives 3 months ago:
Basically. Our Overton window is fucked thanks to the Nazis in power. Both current and historical.
- Comment on Bad people and bullies usually have justified reasons for why they are doing bad things, so instead of blaming them, maybe sympathize with them. 3 months ago:
At the risk of lumping myself in with bullies (I don’t leave the house enough to be one or the victim of one), there’s space between here and there. We can by sympathetic that a bully is being abused at home or some other form of unhappiness causing a behavior while also condemning it. Like stopping someone looking at their phone from walking into the street. Pull them out and also yell at them for being a moron.
Some number can, with sympathy in addition to condemnation, change their behavior. The ones that don’t were given a chance and they can eat the consequences of being a cunt.
- Comment on Over 47% of Stop Killing Games Signatures Have Already Been Verified 4 months ago:
You know that large groups can pursue more than one thing at a time right?
- Comment on Huge internet outage live blog: Amazon, Disney+, Hulu, HBO Max and more experiencing issues 4 months ago:
That’s what they said.
- Comment on Elon musk is a pedophile 5 months ago:
Well, without the files I’m going to assume worst case. Normal prostitution doesn’t need to go to a remote island that also has sex trafficked children.
- Comment on The campaign against predatory in-game practices takes a step forward in Brazil, as President Lula bans loot boxes targeted at under-18s 5 months ago:
The point is that, despite being in the same bill, they shouldn’t be. One is already covered in existing law, related to adult exclusive activities recognized as such the world over (porn for clarity). The other is defining a new phenomenon that has yet to be defined as being exclusive to adults and currently exists within spaces for children to the point of predation and is akin to existing child targeted products (loot boxes again for clarity).
Lumping even seemingly similar things is a bad practice that is more meant to poison pill bills (among other things) than actually execute legislative duties.
- Comment on Magic is real, we just know how it works and call it technology 5 months ago:
The inverse of Clark’s saying: sufficiently explained magic of indistinguishable from science (credit: Girl Genius webcomic)
- Comment on If they wanted to do a gender-swapped Doctor Who, without it being the absolute pile of dogshit that is the BBC's current attempt, Fern Brady would be an immaculately perfect choice 6 months ago:
A lesser point: the writing is pretty bad even by who standards. Trying too hard to check inclusion boxes when they would be nailing it with a little less effort. A random line in Gatwas second season about it being illegal for nurses to not know sign language, despite the presence of universal translation, was a ham fisted attempt to force inclusivity. Good impulse, heinously bad execution.
A thing that stood out to me was a recent episode (first of his second season). They go to the planet, find the bad guy, turns out he’s a literal incel (feels like they didn’t have to be so on the head, but that bit is whatever) stalking the new companion. In the end he unceremoniously dies. The Doctor and the new companion shared a laugh.
The Doctor doesn’t laugh at death. Granted I’ve never watched the originals, but the other Doctors have no shortage of hang ups about it. The tenth goes out of his way to give the bad guys a chance to end peacefully on his debut episode before killing them with a frown. The fourteenth chastised a person for trying to take advantage of the bad guy hanging from a ledge in her debut episode. The eleventh was a showman, but treated a good man going to war with proper, barely restrained rage. The twelfth has a sizable plotline about his issues with soldiers that interferes with his relationship with Clara.