It’s a valid point though. A simple change in terminology and messaging is literally all it would take for these types of criticisms to go away.
No it’s not. The people who make these sort of pathetic criticisms will find a new reason to not support women.
The reason we have individual words is that we can apply labels to issues that only affect certain people.
The criticisms remain valid regardless of your opinion on the people who say them. Ultimately optics do matter in any social movement, and quite a lot. If feminism wants to be perceived as an egalitarian movement, then it has to brand itself as such. It’s slogans, terminology, mentality, and the behavior of its supporters have to adjust to reflect a true adaptation of this principle. Otherwise, it’ll remain a movement that will be perceived as one that is solely focused on the advancement of women in a society irrespective of the status of men.
The current position is just inconsistent from an optics perspective. Either feminism is synonymous with egalitarianism and it adapts to reflect that or it remains as it is and gets viewed as a separate movement. I’m of the opinion that the direction the movement should take should depend on the society its in, but I digress. The point is you can’t have it both ways. As long as that inconsistency exists, it will always be pointed and criticized by people.
We really need a way to publicly name and shame these people.
It’s two different arguments. Individually there are many people who see women having it better then themselves and of course they will be upset when society is saying they don’t. Empathy here is understanding both sides have some valid points. Men do have a lot of problems in society. An entire generation left behind because many social programs focused only on boosting women while forgetting men. Telling those men to suck it up or that they’re wrong isn’t the answer. It’s only going to radicalize sides. Both sides should be addressed.
An entire generation left behind
Where is the source for this?
Google champ
Garbage article confusing classism with sexism. Ultimately DEI only helped a small percentage of women access jobs they would not be considered for in the past. It is called competition, but this guy wants to try and create a narrative that doesn’t exist except in his head.
Whether it is another male or a well qualified woman it doesn’t change you were not in the right spot at the right time. Blaming a competitive employment space on DEI is just stupid. There are hundreds if not thousands of candidates that all want that job.
The statistics don’t lie as well ~45 percent low level managers are women. So men still have an advantage, but it gets worse with seniors management only about ~35 percent. Even worse CEO ~10 percent. Doesn’t look like DEI was an advantage after all.
Absolutely top tier failure to read the article.
I read all the way through it to the end, a sappy father son epic of victim blaming. Garbage.
Don’t they usually end up doing it themselves?
Do people actually believe something like this?
The comments in this post certainly justify a lot of things.
But isn’t this mentality just flawed in general? Comment sections aren’t representative of society since they tend to attract the loudest, angriest voices. They’re usually not a balanced sample of public opinion. Using them as proof creates a circular argument where hostility toward feminism is treated as both the cause and the evidence of its necessity. It also mistakes correlation for causation and can shut down nuanced discussion by treating all criticism as misogyny.
Maybe it doesn’t represent the public opinion, but it still does show that there are plenty of dickheads out there somewhere. And sometimes those dickheads find their way into governments and positions where they turn more people into dickheads.
But this could be said about anything. Dickheads exist in literally every group and they participate in all levels of society like everybody else. There are dickhead misogynists and dickhead feminists. The existence of dickheads in of itself doesn’t mean anything.
I definitely agree with you. I’m shaking my head at the comments and tagging which accounts to be wary of.
Feminism isn’t just about women.
Toxic masculinity isn’t caused just by men.
Black Lives Matter isn’t just about black lives.
“Believe women” isn’t about blindly believing what women say. “Christian charity” is the least charitable thing in the world.
“Defund the police” and “abolish the police” aren’t about eliminating police forces and letting crime run rampant.
AI is anything but intelligent.
“Global Warming” sounds tame for what’s actually happening: “climate disruption” and “climate catastrophe”. A bunch of countries with “communist” or “democratic” in their names are anything but.Words are stupid. Slogans are lazy. People lie.
Which is why I like the lyrics of ‘Enjoy the Silence’ so much.
Every single line item in your comment became ammunition for foreign agents to get into our culture over the last 20 years and just escalate the FUCK out of both sides of each idea there.
It was directly from the KGB handbook written over 50 years ago, that if you infiltrate a nation’s culture and just amplify the most radical takes of both sides of every issue, it will create so much chaos and completely destabilize a culture so that people tune out and stop trusting each other or any news story they read. This has the effect of making the population just default to whatever state media they see and stop caring about social issues entirely. It’s been shocking seeing how effectively it’s played out in the US.
I watched it happen, I was on the frontlines, managing a few social sites and moderating a huge subreddit about relationships. It was a creeping infection at first, but eventually it was like Helm’s Deep, but instead of orcs outside, it was astroturfers, crybullies, sea lions, and the entire goddamn ZOO of bad-actors and subversive chuds. For every horrible, shit-mouthed incel ranting about how women need to be put in cages, there was also some delusional, insane “feminist” screaming about how all men are rapists and men should never be left alone with children.
I gave up the fight, reddit banned me for being an involved human, but it continues to this day, getting worse by the day.
I watched it happen because I saw it happening and read the (too few) news reports that pointed out that it was indeed happening.
But it’s like climate change. It seems to go in one ear and out the other for the vast majority of the population.
The fact that our species has a glaring weakness in identifying abstract threats, while at the same time we’re developing tools capable of performing the most abstract possible attacks on our free-will and agency, makes me feel a tad uncomfy about the near term future.
Well as long as you’ve correctly identified the KGB and Russia Russia Russia, your job is done.
You don’t have to be Russia to use KGB handbooks anymore
I hate the Kremlin so much. I hope the whole russia will crumble and disappear.
while the techniques were pioneered and written down by the KGB, I’m not even saying the blame lay on Russia alone. There are a lot of forces adopting this tactic, both foreign and domestic.
Wait 'til you learn about Twitter.
The craziest part here is that the primary goal of these movements isn’t to actually achieve their objectives, but to virtue signal. If all it took to get a huge chunk of the population on your side was to change your messaging a bit, then any reasonable movement would jump at such a low hanging fruit of an opportunity to advance their cause… but they don’t. These movements would really rather sacrifice optics and stall their movements than accept some criticism and adapt.
Hmm, this is an interesting line of thought. I’ve always thought these movements are dominated by left leaning people and the left usually understands the importance of inclusive wording. So why do they use such exclusive labels?
Surely many people do try to jump at that low hanging fruit and adopt more inclusive labels. But, I guess it’s not an idea that spreads so easily? These movements must rely on people with strong feelings on specific issues and have to target them with a label they can identify with. I guess the more moderate majority would associate with other terms, but don’t have the motivation to take much action in the name of it.
I suspect that all these slogans originated in more radical far left circles where extremism and purity testing are more rampant. Meaning that the face value meaning of the slogans is the intent. As the slogans became more mainstream, the moderate left tried to damage control by introducing alternate meanings to appeal to the public. However, that hasn’t really worked out because the average person doesn’t care about the extra nuance. They’ll just see the slogan and take the face value meaning as the intention. At face value, a lot of these terms are just bad and people rightfully oppose them. Having someone try to explain to them something along the lines of “ackhsually the slogan doesn’t actually mean what it says” doesn’t sound very convincing. Bad optics is a really a big problem on the left, and the crazy thing is that there’s a good chunk of the left that sees no issue with it.
Mottes aren’t actually baileys
This is what I don’t get about the manosphere movement.
Young guys watch these influencers being abrasive macho dorks, talking exactly like this. They somehow combine that “dorky, petty semantic minutia” argument style with being aggressively condescending and being a macho jerk, all at once. I’m a pretty isolated guy, yet it’s amazing how grating it is to me.
And men watching these influencers conclude that… other people will appreciate that?
And men watching these influencers conclude that… other people will appreciate that?
Nah, they think other people should appreciate that. Because that would make their lives easier, not having to challenge their own privileges.
Because the other side tells you that you suck and your problems are not real.
If you are a boy and you look around one side blaming you for all of societies ills and the other simply is not what aide are you going to gravitate to?
Things are already equal. Toxic masculinity comes from toxic femininity. Toxic femininity comes from toxic masculinity. It’s been like that forever, but we raised the living standard enough so now we can argue about this with our excess spare time.
Also, it is another way of divide and conquer to make sure that we keep fighting each other and not the billionaire class who needs to be defeated if you want to have a world in 20 years from now.
The quantum head fuck Is that men and women have always been equal in a weird way and at the same time equality can never be achieved because giving birth was given to one of the two sexes and not the other.
When it comes to class warfare, equality can be achieved.
Because while intelligence and skill and talent may not be equally distributed, the right to live is.
Things are already equal
My friend, go outside.
My friend
Oh great, at least one gets it
go outside.
Sigh.
The only reason someone says my friend is cause they think your an idiot. It’s like saying bless your heart.
And considering what you said… Yeah… Oof
I’ve been saying it like
My friend…
I am not trying to rob you. I’m trying to help you.
The problems with deciding things are “equal-ish” have already been well addressed, so I just want to point out - just because the billionaire class might use a topic as a wedge issue against us doesn’t excuse us from working to fix it.
They might be setting fire to houses as a distraction, but the houses are still on fire. The people inside can’t wait for us to find and deal with whoever hired the arsonists.
I completely agree with you, and that’s a great analogy.
Cartoons like this post aren’t helping the firemen and women though. And if it isn’t helping them, who is it helping?
To continue the analogy: He asks her why she fights fires, and in response to her explanation, talks about the benefits of fire-retardant foam over water. She then realizes he smells of gasoline.
The comic is pointing out needlessly divisive behavior on his part - she’s already working on one aspect of the class division, and he’s pushing for her to spread out and weaken her efforts.
Dumb and wrong
How to get the point across a bit better while also pointing out the guy actually doesn’t care.
Yup “Equalists” are just the same as all lives matter folks completely missing the point and trying to poison the well.
It’s like saying “I want everyone to be equal” and saying both men and women should be given a 10% pay raise to account for the gender pay gap.
Sure, you raised women’s wages to cover the gap… but now the gap remains because you also increased men’s by the same amount.
That’s false. If you want to make everyone equal, you close the pay gap.
To me, egalitarianism is making sure neither group is treated unfarly, so they should both receive the same pay for the same work, but also the same punishment for the same crime, etc.
The gap doesn’t just remain in that scenario, you actually increase the gap making it even worse.
The only wage gap we should be focusing on now is the gap between ultra rich capitalists and the worker class.
Anything else we can worry after we take care of that dumpster fire.
If feminists are allowed to be egalitarian but focus on issues which harm women, others (whatever label they have) can be egalitarian with a different focus. But it needs to be real equality, not a deflection, like the person in the comic.
Where it goes wrong is in telling people they can’t focus on specific issues close to their heart, or in telling people that since legal equality has largely been achieved somewhere there’s nothing else to do.
“All lives matter” was an obvious reaction to a slogan which, to all but existing allies, seemed to be excluding something obvious. BLM people saw rampant violence against black people as evidence that society didn’t think black lives mattered. But that’s not something that comes through when it’s distilled to a slogan.
The UK currently has an “end violence against women and girls” campaign even though men are more often victims of violence. There are reasons to focus on violence against women, but there are also reasons to focus on other things… there is room for nuance here.
“So you are a (rule) bender! You traitor, I devoted my life to you!”
(attacks the blood bender since that’s a great idea)
What a dumpster fire in here. How many shitty man came over from Reddit? Please go back.
Women have equality and a generally preferable status in Western society. I sure as hell wish I was a woman. My sexual assault would’ve been taken seriously, police would be less suspicious and hostile toward me, better education opportunities, better financial support.
Focusing on their issues is comparable to an egalitarian focusing on issues that affect white people. I’m sure everyone here would question that, right?
As a guy that was falsely accused of domestic violence and rape, I experienced firsthand the huge difference in how such accusations are viewed. I was assumed guilty, especially by law enforcement, the legal community and friends, neighbors and coworkers I wasn’t close with. It was tough, and embarrassing too.
That said, I fully understand that I was the odd case. Far more women genuinely experience sexual assuault and abuse by men and struggle to get the support they need than men that experience what I did… the difference is orders of magnitude. Just because I experienced some unequal treatment based on my gender doesn’t change the fact that women disproportionately suffer greatly at the hands of men and awareness and change is needed.
My personal experience doesn’t diminish the vastly greater numbers of women that suffer worse.
Yeah yeah #alllivesmatter, we get it.
Hippy, politically correct, feminist, SJW, woke…
It doesn’t matter how many times you rebrand ~not being an awful person~ people will always make goodness the enemy
SJWs were incredibly awful people.
Somehow whenever people bemoaned “social justice warriors”, I always pictured Lex Luthor slandering Superman.
Except Superman is the role model that SJWs imagine themselves to be, while holding not a single one of Superman’s qualities.
Any examples? I mostly remember the term being applied to the Greta Thunbergs of the day.
If your idea of the “Greta Thunberg” is someone who walks into a restaurant and starts to Karen about them serving onions (on behalf of those allergic to onions. They weren’t allergic themselves), then, uh… Sure.
I have honestly never heard the term SJW applied to a Karen.
Then consider yourself fortunate. Most SJWs go out of their way for these sorts of things for some sort of perceived status. Kinda like an “ethically sourced” label on a product, but as a social thing.
All lives matter~
Once upon a time I objected to the Black Lives Matter moniker. I didn’t disagree with the message that black people need to be counted more than they were. I have always thought that I counted black people as equals to everyone, so I just subconsciously completed the sentence by adding the word “more” in my head. Thinking to myself “oh, they have a terrible branding issue because everyone who reads the phrase Black Lives Matter will automatically just think they mean Black Lives Matter More”. But ultimately that wasn’t the problem. It wasn’t the phrase that was the issue.
What was the real problem was the inherent racism that had be ingrained into my consciousness by untold years of media and politics that continually make black people out to be lazy selfish useless people who only want a handout. (See Ronald Reagan’s speech about the “welfare queen”. Hint, he wasn’t talking about a white woman.)
In the end the problem I had with the phrase “Black Lives Matter” wasn’t their fault for picking a bad phrase. It was, in fact, me and my own preconceived notions of what a black person is and should be. All based on how society has portrayed them my entire life.
So now I very loudly say “BLACK LIVES MATTER”. And more people need to embrace this instead of trying to logic it out of existence with the pointless platitude “well ackchually all lives matter” like some snivelling little child with an inferiority complex. Because yes all lives should matter but in our fucked up society black lives usually don’t.
It’s the responsibility of the movement to be aware of the cultural connotations of the terms and slogans they choose to advertise themselves with. Movements have to adapt to fit their societies, expecting things to go the other way around is just entitlement and arrogance.
Can you imagine how differently the movement would gone if they simply adjusted the slogan from “Black Lives Matter” to “Black Lives Matter Too”. The fact that something this simple didn’t happen is a failure on the movement itself. Optics matter.
Can you imagine how differently the movement would gone if they simply adjusted the slogan from “Black Lives Matter” to “Black Lives Matter Too”. The fact that something this simple didn’t happen is a failure on the movement itself.
As a mater of fact I can. If they had used such an inoffensive moniker for their movement it would have been shoved to the back page of every newspaper and barely mentioned in any news program. The conservative assholes would have made fun of the acronyms and there would have been literally no conversation about the topic and no one would have had to come to terms with their own unaddressed racism that had been planted by 100 years of racist American ideology.
You and everyone who has commented with this exact “fix” for the Black Lives Matter movement should search within yourselves and try to determine why it really offends you so much. I saw someone mention the suffragette movement in relation to BLM and the comparison is apt. Suffragettes didn’t have any problem with disrupting the comfort of the people who’s opinion they were trying to alter. They knew very well that you cannot bring change by meekly asking for permission to get equal rights and standing in society. You have to get in their face and tell them YOU MUST BE COUNTED.
BLACK LIVES FUCKING MATTER
Your analysis is simply wrong. Nobody find finds the Black Lives Matter slogan offensive. It’s criticized because it’s it’s too vague, not because it’s provocative. The reason why conservatives latched on to the slogan specifically is precisely because the underlying point is valid and true. Regardless of how you personally see it, there are a lot of people out there who came to different conclusions as to what this slogan means. Many saw it to mean that black lives matter more or that other lives matter less. This different interpretation led a lot of people who would otherwise agree with the core cause to disassociate with the movement. This difference in support is key to any social movement as it defines a movement gaining enough support to achieve real change vs not. Optics matter.
You brought up the point that movements need to be offensive to get anywhere, but that’s not true. Social movements like this don’t need a “shock” factor in their optics. The videos of police brutality and the disproportionate statistics do that for the movement. They’re literally why the movement exists in the first place. The civil rights movement already demonstrates that this strategy is not effective or necessary. The same goes for the suffragette movement actually, and the LGBT movement as well.
This idea that social movements can get anywhere by simply demanding stuff is nonsense. All social movements require the support of the public to achieve anything. The suffragette movement campaigned to gain the favor of men, the civil rights did the same with white people, and so did the LGBT movement with straight people. Without the support of these demographics, their rights would’ve never been voted into place. All these movements were deliberate about their messaging, slogans, and optics. They didn’t try to shock people with their slogans, they wanted to convince people that they deserved their rights and they did so that appealed to everyone.
The videos of police brutality and the disproportionate statistics do that for the movement. They’re literally why the movement exists in the first place.
You are fantastically naive. There have been literally thousands of videos of police brutality towards black people. All of which were 100% unnecessary. Rodney King was beaten almost to death by police officers on video in 1991. And black people had to riot to get any real attention to how completely fucked up our system is because every cop who beat him got off completely scott free. And still 30 years later another black man was murdered on camera in broad daylight by a cop who did not give one shit because he and his cohorts assumed they would see no consequences for what they were doing. And without BLM and the absolute shitstorm of protest that every black person and their allies threw up, he would have been given a free pass too. BLM is the reckoning that white America has to contend with because they continue to support racist ideologies. And, quite frankly, if nothing is done to curb the racist bullshit being enacted against non-whites right now there is an even bigger shitstorm on the horizon.
Also, you should actually read some of the things that suffragettes had to do to get the attention of the public for over a century.. It was not polite or inoffensive.
Again, you’re arguing against ghosts here. I’m not against protests or people campaigning to get their rights. I’m pointing out that optics matter a lot in social movements, and it’s their responsibility to adapt optics fit for the society they’re in. If people can’t understand or accept your optics then your movement is not going to get any support.
I don’t think you understand the basic fact that no civil rights movement in any democratic society has ever achieved results without the support of the public. Do you seriously think people rioting and being offensive is all it takes to achieve any results? Hell no. The public is THE greatest pressure any movement can apply towards the government, and that pressure is what enacts change.
You seem to think very highly of BLM, but the reality is that it’s not a successful movement. It fizzled out and didn’t achieve anything substantial. The movement, like you, is stubbornly resistant to adapting and changing. This rigidity caused it to fall behind and stagnate as it was never able to overcome the criticisms against it. There’s a reason why BLM’s support has completely tanked since it’s peak during the pandemic.
According to Pew, the movement went from having 67% support (31% oppose) in 2020 to 51% support (46% oppose) in 2023. That’s less than what it was back in 2017 (55% support, 34% oppose). If the trend continued since then, and it likely did, then that means the majority of people now oppose the movement. This isn’t just a white people thing, this decline in support is true for all demographics. Yet the majority of Americans consistently support racial justice and equality. This discrepancy means that the movement is not aligned with the public even though the public supports the community and cause, and that entirely falls on the optics of the movement.
If BLM refuses to adapt, it will continue fade into history like it is now and it will replaced by a new movement that is willing to evolve and optimize optics.
Also, the link you posted is invalid so I can’t see it.
The problems in the organization itself are what led to it losing support. There were a number of characters within the organization that took advantage of several situations in order to enrich themselves. That is completely separate from the concept. Which is still valid.
P.S. I fixed the link
When BLM was a brand-new thing, it was a normal, and very understandable, reaction, for someone who’s hearing it for the first time to say/think something along the lines of:
- Who said they don’t matter? I know I didn’t, why are you saying “black lives matter” to me, as if you’re implying that I don’t believe they do?
- Why specify “black”, aren’t you implying others don’t, then?
It was also badly-named for another reason: the whole foundation of it was in response to police unlawfully killing black citizens. “Black Lives Matter” in no way speaks to anything involving police action. The phrase naturally comes off as an aggressive accusation of deep racism (to the point of believing a certain person’s life is literally worthless, which is a step beyond the inferiority actual racists usually ascribe to their ‘target’) when said to someone.
I mean, the phrase wasn’t good either, hence why you also ended up thinking that.
Black Lives Also Matter would have been much better, as it alludes that there is enough prejudice that society must be reminded, and the acronym is BLAM, which could be used as onomatopoeia invoking gun shots, which directly ties to the causes original protests against the police. It also sounds more of a plea for help than it does an aggressive simple statement - which considering the movement aimed to be peaceful, is the kind of sound you’d want.
The truth is these kinds of things heavily rely on optics, and BLM was a very bad choice of slogan. People forget even the whole Rosa Parks thing was carefully orchestrated for a reason - you need good causes, good figures, and good slogans for rallying support.
BLM is so bad I wonder if the push to use it was some kind of counter psy-op to then push things like All Lives Matter to help discredit it, because I swear I heard the BLAM acronym being used as well in the beginning. I would imagine such authorities would have learned well how to discredit such movements ever since the days and success of the Civil Rights era.
I like Black Lives Matter because on its face it is a “no duh” statement (for most…)
To me, it is pointing out the absurd disconnect between what (almost) everybody believes without question and the actual state of society and policing in particular. There’s something stronger to “we matter” vs “we matter too”, but I’m struggling to put it into words. For some reason, I feel like BLAM or something similar loses some impact.
But that’s just in my head; as far as the success of a movement, you’re probably right. Also, if it was BLAM from the start, maybe I wouldn’t dislike it.
The reason why “we matter” is stronger than “we matter too” is because it doesn’t reference the other and thus is a purely one-sided thing, which can totally be read as “we matter more”.
I’m not sure though if that’s a good thing, depending on what’s the goal.
Any minority movement always has to keep in mind that it’s the majority that decides. Suffragettes did not take voting rights by force. They got voting rights because they managed to find enough allies in the male population that they were given voting rights.
Black slaves didn’t end slavery themselves. They managed to find enough allies that would be willing to fight and die in a civil war to give them their freedom.
And a group consisting of roughly 12% of a country’s population will not take the country by force and change laws by themselves.
“Black lives matter” is an incredibly polarizing statement that causes opposition (as evidenced e.g. by “Blue lives matter”, which totally has the implied “more” attached). It’s comparatively easy to say “No, the life of a black suspect does not matter more than the life of a police officer”, if you already lean in that direction. It’s a good slogan if you want to polarize and divide.
“Black lives matter too” is a statement that’s really hard to disagree with, because of course black lives matter too, unless you are a hard-core white supremacist.
So if the goal is to get the majority on your side and actually cause change, I think “Black lives matter too” would have been the better slogan.
(as evidenced e.g. by “Blue lives matter”, which totally has the implied “more” attached)
Truth. Also, here is no such thing as “blue lives” because a cop can quit their job, a black person cannot quit being black.
Agree.
But “Black Lives Matter Too” abbreviates to BLMT which kinda sound like a sandwich 😅
BLAM conveys the same meaning but the acronym does double duty.
“Black lives also matter” works just as well, that’s right, no contest there.
And you are right, BLAM sounds way better than both BLM and BLMT.
Black Lives Also Matter would have been much better
Better, but still not optimal, since the whole thing is about police brutality, and that slogan says nothing about that. Even with the “also”, in general it comes off as an accusation of racism toward whoever you say it to (especially since it was said mostly to other ‘random’ citizens, not cops).
If I walked up to a random person and said “hey, women’s lives matter”, I should expect to get one or more of these responses:
- Uh, duh? Who said otherwise?
- Why are you saying that to me? Do you think I don’t think they do?
Because those are the implications that kind of phrase carries.
It’s implied in “black lives matter” that all lives matter. They are merely pointing out that their lives are not being treated as they matter when police officers are choking them out for 20 bucks.
All lives matter people: All houses matter!
Others: But that one is on fire… shouldn’t the firefighters work on it first?
All lives matter people: No! All houses matter and that one is mine!!!
Short comparison that kind of gets the point across. I think it was from some comedy show like John Stewart or John Oliver and the like.
Ugh, please be a joke.
Obviously
Sorry, I’ve had some pretty disappointing interactions with Lemmy users these past 2 days. It’s getting hard to tell.
nbd 😄
I remember being banned on some subreddit back then for saying that. Apparently it’s racist, lol.
That said, all of these movements on social media are really stupid, and if you interact with a person in real world, it seems that most of the issues disappear, aside from some individuals doing very bad things, but that’s what law is for.
The truth is, capitalists are just trying to divide us, and it’s like most people are really blind, and don’t see that, which is crazy to me.
Well yeah I guess. It’s the same as the point of this comic, disregarding systemic issues for a group with whataboutism of the rest
And the girl is the reason why feminists have such a bad reputation
Just don’t be a dick and treat everyone equal and with respect and we’ll be fine.
Now watch the down votes come in because I said that everyone should be treated equal and with respect and that the girl was wrong.
You had all the pieces in front of you, labeled and sorted, and you still put them together wrong. Huh.
deleted by creator
If a particular group of people (be it gender wise, race wise or whatever) are being treated unequally, it sounds like a
retardedstupid board game to try to point this out without actually using this group’s name.Love the sentiment, but the R word slur contributes to treating a group unequally.
Only if you believe that word is referencing one group of people.
People with mental disabilities have flagged the word as harmful. Trust the victims to know what hurts them.
If the word isn’t being used in reference to people with mental disabilities it’s not the problematic context.
If you are using a word to refer to a person as belonging to any group with the intent to label that person as lesser or some kind of failure state of being then you are by extention calling anyone being part of that group as being something people wouldn’t want to be. You are implying members of the group are inferior.
Examples :
Calling someone “gay” in a way to mean “uncool”. You are implying that a person should never want to be gay. That being gay - is bad. Inferior to being straight.
“You ____ like a girl!” Your underlying premise is that being female is a failure state. You should be angry at being compared to something who lesser than you. This could apply to looks, ability, mannerisms etc. Hence it implies being a woman is a failure state as opposed to being a man.
Calling someone “the R-slur” when you mean something like “asinine”, “idiotic”, “mean” or “silly” you are implying those groups are failure states of being who those behaviours can be appended to as an expectation. That is a slur This sentiment is the same if you were to change the word you used but the specific history of this specific word as a slur is based on it’s once widespread use in context of being a synonym for “stupid” . Now it is less widespread but as the comic that spurred this conversation shows- it is still being used in the context of being a failure state. Intent makes the slur. If people didn’t use the word to refer to people in a way that was supposed to make them sit up and be indignant they are being compared to a disabled person it never would have become a slur. Since parlance never popularized the other use of the word as a verb “to stop or hinder” and the use of this one as a slur is still active it is far too early to attempt to “reclaim” this one.
You can argue “well a new word will just gain slur status!” and the answer is no. The problem stops when you realize the underlying problem is intent the lesson is understood and society stops creating new slurs by implying inferiority through context. English is vast. Use a word without the connotation of belonging to a specific group and you stop the underlying problem.
LMAO, ok so I don’t need a lecture. We’re not talking about using “gay” as a pejorative. That’s not the same word that’s being discussed here. Nor are we talking about using femininity as a negative state.
The “R” word originally meant “to slow” or to hold back progress. That’s what it meant before the medical community misappropriated the term for individuals with intellectual disabilities. At some point after that, the word changed into an informal pejorative and then became taboo. At this point, there’s very viable uses of the word that correlate with politics and perspectives that are counter-progressive.
You appearantly do need the lecture because you are not listening. There are plenty of words you can use without using one that, misappropriated or not, was and still is used to describe the disability community and is now primarily linked to that understanding.
Your statement of “well words are fine if they aren’t used at the people who they are meant for” is inherently incorrect, hence the examples each is an example of using the word in a disrespectful or phobic context. What you are proposing is using a word linked through current pejorative use to the disability community to be expanded to not just be used in the context of “stupid” but to now mean essentially “facist” because… Why? You particularly like the word?
That’s not better.
I think you have it backwards - calling someone a slur doesn’t make the negative association, society as a whole has already decided those traits are negative, and as a result, we use them as slurs. Stopping people from using hurtful words does not fix the problem, I think it lets some people self-righteously think they’re helping, but it doesn’t really do anything.
We’ve seen that happen with using “gay” as an insult - society has shifted over the years, so that being gay is no longer seen as a bad thing (at least not so much so as it was in the 90s, we still have some room for improvement…) therefore it has lost its power as an insult. Somebody calls me gay today, I don’t really care - it’s inaccurate, but it doesn’t hurt me any. And because it doesn’t hurt me, they’re not going to use it as an insult, because that’s what they’re going for, and it’s not effective.
But certain classes of people will always be looked down on, so those traits will always be used as insults. If society makes it unacceptable to use those words, assholes will continue to use them when they think they can get away with it, or find new words. Think of how many words there are for “mentally deficient”. Many of those words were the clinical term for specific disabilities until they fell out of favor after being used as insults. Stupid is one, as is idiot, moron… The only real difference is recency.
We’ve seen that happen with using “gay” as an insult - society has shifted over the years, so that being gay is no longer seen as a bad thing
I don’t remember that “just happening”… I remember prominent members of the homosexual community deciding to reclaim the word “gay”, and then working to bring the more neutral connotations into the mainstream - and that effort is still ongoing.
The people targeted by the slur had to have the resources and ability to change public perception before that could happen, and it took a considerable, concerted effort. It did not just “shift”, and that process is not equally available to every target of a slur.
Slurs have a couple of different ways of coming about. Calling someone “gay” in the context of being uncool or unmanly was one whete the attitude shifted but consider that because of underlying attitude of homophobia became more appearant to the average listener in the attempt to use it in context of a slur. Once something reflects the small mindedness of the speaker more than insults the listener it does lose it’s power.
Now consider something you said about the disability community :
But certain classes of people will always be looked down on, so those traits will always be used as insults
There is a very large body of disability advocacy that is involved in fighting for a social attitude where this is not the case. In fact it hasn’t always been the case. Our concept of “normal” is historically more recent than you would think and people with mental disabilities in the English world were not really considered a distinct class. You are taking for granted that the disability community will be considered inferior by the wider population because you cannot imagine a state otherwise. That is ableism my friend and it doesn’t change unless you look it in the face and recognize it for what it is.
A fundamental thing lacking in your understanding of slurs is your insistance that their existence is a full negative for the community that they are levied against. It is more useful to look at the designation of slurs almost more as a form of technology those communities use both as a form of self advocacy to spread awareness of underlying prejudices and to identify individuals and groups who hold them particular opposition or threat. They aren’t just about “getting upset” or giving people an avenue to press buttons.
Consider the “N-slur” in light of it being a technology. Those who use it are either :
-
Identifying themselves as a member of the ‘in’ group and using it as a means of solidarity.
-
Identifying themselves as an individual that believes they have “the right” to use the slur companionably thus often identifying themselves as a problem who at best doesn’t quite understand the assignment or at worst believes they can make unilateral decisions as part of a group to which they do not belong presenting a threat
-
Identifying themselves as a legitimate threat by using the word with the full weight of it’s oppressive and derogatory context.
This is legitimately words as weapons of war. A technique hit upon by modern civil rights movements as a means of fighting back. The meeting place of sociology and etymology where people started looking at words beyond strict meaning. What you are attempting to do is disarm a community making use of this but in reality you are identifying yourself using this tech as the second form of threat. The one that treats advocacy as a lost cause because the idea of implicit inferiority is so ingrained you can’t see the paternalism.
-
That’s not how it works. I’m sorry you disagree with English, but people are able to be hurt but words not pointed directly at them.
So if someone uses the N word slur for black people to refer to non-black people they dislike, it’s okay?
Well, it never was used as a term for “people that are disliked.” Regardless, it depends on intent and context, more often than the alternative, probably not… but etymologically speaking, it should (and needs to) change as a purposeful and intentional way to de-power the current general understanding of the word.
Society as a whole cannot collectively agree on nuance. That’s the problem with a lot of this. Words that started off neutral became harmful over time due to context and etymology. The N word didn’t originally have a racial connotation. It gained one over time and was assigned through racism.
Well, it never was used as a term for “people that are disliked.”
Bullshit. You’ve never heard kids online use it an an insult toward anyone regardless of race? Or Pewdiepie using it as a general insult? It absolutely happens.
Regardless, you don’t get to decide if an insult is offensive to a particular group. You can certainly keep using it after knowing it is, but you’ll be an asshole for doing so.
In typical usage, retard (pronounced /ˈɹiː.tɑːɹd/, REE-tard) is an ableist slur for someone who is considered stupid, slow to understand, or ineffective in some way as a comparison to stereotypical traits perceived in those with intellectual disability. The adjective retarded is used in the same way, for something or someone considered very foolish or stupid. The word is sometimes censored and referred to as the euphemistic “r‑word” or “r‑slur” Retard was previously used as a medical term.
Yea, and from the same wiki article:
The word retard dates as far back as 1426. It stems from the Latin verb retardare, meaning “to hinder” or “make slow”.
Much like today’s socially acceptable terms idiot and moron, which are also defined as some sort of mental disability, when the term retard is being used in its pejorative form, it is usually not being directed at people with intellectual disabilities. Instead, people use the term when teasing their friends or as a general insult.
We’re not speaking bloody Latin ya ignoramus.
No, we’re speaking English. Do you know the definition of etymology?
Do you understand semantic shift?
this is either the perfect comment that uses the word “ignoramus”, or the worst insult.
I’m still not sure if you actually meant to do it or not.
I chose it for its Latin-ness, if that’s what you’re asking.
Retard was previously used as a medical term.
As was idiot, cretin, moron, and imbecile, which suffered similar misuse.
In typical usage
so you agree it is a multifaceted word that requires contextual definition in order to be used properly.
The noun retard is recorded from 1788 in the sense “retardation, delay;” from 1970 in the offensive meaning “retarded person,” originally American English, with accent on first syllable. Other words used for “one who is mentally retarded” include retardate (1956, from Latin retardatus), and U.S. newspapers 1950s-60s often used retardee (1950).
https://www.etymonline.com/word/retarded
It’s unfair to judge a word that has over 500 years of use on the last 70 years of history.
It’s unfair to judge a word that has over 500 years of use on the last 70 years of history.
A bridge that has stood for 500 years can be considered unusable today due to recent developments.
The word clearly isn’t having the effect you say you want. The solution isn’t to bemoan the poor treatment of the word - the solution is to change the word you use.
You have many options - be creative!
more analogies that have no other purpose but to oversimplify and confuse the topic. I can’t fault you though, if this is the best way you can understand language. you tried your best after all.
if the intent of the speaker is misunderstood by the listener it’s the listeners fault for misinterpreting and failing to understand contextual intonation.
simply put, the speaker speaks and the listener listens. intent is conveyed through our words and their meaning. if the listener misinterprets the meaning based on context given, it’s the listeners fault.
have you observed that when listening to the speech of someone who is classically educated that their vocabulary seems to be endlessly descriptive and their intent often lost on the uneducated masses? that those with higher education are often ostracized or mocked because they are perceived as “thinking they’re better”.
that’s because the uneducated masses fail to understand the meaning of the words they speak. the peasants fail to understand the nobility of the spoken word. they simply use common to communicate with their simpleminded friends and neighbors.
I’m sure at this point you have clearly understood my intent of this comment.
if not, read a book.
On the contrary, a skilled orator adjusts the message to suit the audience, and a skilled craftsman chooses the tool best suited to the task.
However, your intent here seems to be primarily to offend, rather than to convince or persuade, as evidenced by both your word choice and the direction of your statements - this is your choice of course, and I will similarly choose to ignore it!
Yea this is a slippery slope though, you can play this game with every word and easily turn it into a discussion in bad faith. English, not being my mother tongue, when I think of the word “retarded”, I automatically think of the word as related to describing foolish and stupid actions. But I do also know, on a higher level, that it actually is a medical term. So I am not against this correction (I would for instance be more careful at not be using the anologous word in my language in such a sentence).
Retarded is an outdated medical term, we use terminology such as intellectual disability these days because of the stigma behind the R word.
Agreed, in its core the problem lies in people’s inclination to be ableist. Whether or not making people conscious of usage of ableist terminology in sentences is helpful to this problem, I am not really sure. But I am also not against it.
Retarded is an outdated medical term
Latin would like a word with you on that.
The etymology of the word is irrelevant in this context, only how it’s currently being used in English.
though I’m disappointed that you believe the history of language is irrelevant, I’m happy you feel that way!
in the original comment, they used it in a way to describe a board game, not against a person or people.
so no issue, right?
ok I suppose stupid does not necessarily isolate a group of people as it is a general adjective, otherwise we are a bit out of luck because it is also very hard to describe something strongly unpleasent without using such adjectives
Most of the time, whenever I see folks using the slur, I feel the word “asinine” would work just as well.
Other words that normally fit are: ludicrous, brainless, or downright silly.
sounds like a good one thanks
But sometimes you want to convey the backwardness, or that something is a product of a past that should be let go… is it still a slur if you’re not using it as a slur? Kind of like cracker, if you’re using it to refer to a white person it’s a slur, but nobody is going to stop you from calling a saltine or a cheese-it a cracker because that’s what they are… Or do we have to call them mass produced unleavened bread products?
Antiquated or barbaric (amongst others, language is diverse) are words that may express what you’re feeling. Of course, words have multiple meanings and those meanings change over time. Moron was used to describe a deficient intellectual capacity in a medical sense as well, however while an insult, it hasn’t adopted the slur title (maybe it has in some circles idfk). FR clothing is an example where the word is using the same definition as the insult, but describing a physical property instead of an abstract one.
At the end of the day, I usually try to avoid language and actions that are hurtful. With that being said, you can’t satisfy everyone, thus everyone has their own decisions on what values they wish to uphold.
deleted by creator
People like her would be the reason I’m against the current wave of feminism.
These two deserve each other.
This is why we should all just agree to go by Yusuke Urameshi style equality.
Man, women, or baby, if your stupid you should get punched in the face. If your not stupid then you wouldn’t be sexist in the first place and would punch the stupid people.
It’s very simple.
if your stupid
Wasn’t expecting a Yu Yu Hakusho analogy on punching sexism but I am here for it
