I read WSB daily for years and cannot recall a single usage of a racial slur. They definitely referred to themselves as autists/retards in a self-deprecating manner but that's hardly the same thing.
I could easily read through any of the front page posts on Reddit, and find what I consider to be hate speech, and if I were in a position of power, I could just use that as a justification to ban the entire domain.
Moreover, it easily allows adversaries the ability to plant hate speech in forums they dislike, and then pressure the authorities to ban it.
At the end of the day, I am an adult, and I reject the notion that sites need to protect me from speech.
Cardinal Richelieu (Alledgelly)
A lesson this generation will have to learn again.
At least they'll have a firm understanding of just how sexist light speed is.
That's the point. It serves to show the perils of judging people by what they say, particularly if single offence against some perceived norms becomes a standard for punishment.
And there's another quote from that same period: "like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children" (Jacques Mallet du Pan).
The man cement centralised power within France by through a multitude of authoritarian methods.
And so in my opinion it's the motives behind such a statement that are important.
1) Language is imprecise. We do not communicate with the idea that our words have a unique, specific meaning. This means that you can do things like quote my statements out of context in order to change their intent.
2) People are not perfect. You can almost always find some "fault" in even the best people. People should not be punished for a "fault" unless it does measurable harm to someone else.
Anon paraphrasing Cardinal Richelieu (Alledgelly)
This is different from what the parent poster is implying. It's about the dangers of authoritarianism. No plants or justification are necessary.
I fail to see how 'autist' is any less of a slur than e.g. 'trap' or 'gay', when used in the right (wrong) context.
It's not a racial slur, but it's quite certainly a slur.
Would you say it is okay for white people to use the n word if there are no Black people around?
I am not saying though that I think use of the term is okay, only that I don't think it should be prohibited either by law or by the pressure of big companies punishing people who say what is forbidden for them to say. I'm perfectly happy with people who make the judgement that they may never say certain words. I'm not happy with people telling others what they can or cannot say.
If listening to a word causes you so much trouble, thats your problem as the listener, and its up to you to deal with it.
I would, for example, encourage an actor to use overly offensive expletives, even repeating them ad nauseam in the presence of their fellow actors so they feel more comfortable using such words in a production dealing with racial strife, historical storytelling or what have you.
No word is so beyond the pale it must be Voldemorted.
How can you know what is a slur and what is not when judging the way others communicate in their relationships? What if it’s a nickname from childhood? What if...anything really?
How on earth would you take action on this point, besides teaching our children to be kind, thoughtful, and curious.
How can you know what is an insult and what is not when judging the way others communicate in their relationships? What if it’s a nickname from childhood?
How can you know what is a threat and what is not when judging the way others communicate in their relationships? What if it’s a nickname from childhood?
It's also quite common among comedians and other entertainers to make fun of their own ethnicity using slurs or use slurs in various performances.
You personally may not find it appropriate and that's a subjective point of view that you are entitled to have, but consider whether you have a good rational justification for it or whether you are exercising too much caution to the point that you are getting offended on behalf of others even when those others are not themselves offended.
The WSB folks are in a weird position where they're using slurs to describe themselves that don't actually apply to them (well, not as a whole; I imagine there are some autistic WSB members, just like there are in most populations). I'm bewildered as to why they think that's funny (or whatever justification they have for it), but it does strike me as potentially offensive.
As an example, I grew up in a very religious home. My family would find things like cursing, taking the Lord's name in vain, or advocating for atheism to be very offensive. And yet, I hope it is very easy for you to understand that it would be wrong to take what my religious family finds offensive and apply those ethical rules to other people. Jehovah's Witnesses think birthdays and holidays are offensive, Muslims think graven images are offensive, etc etc. All sorts of people believe all sorts of things. Every group of people is not obliged to not be offensive to every other group of people.
You may be inclined to say that people can choose not to be religious but have no say over things like mental type or race. I don't think that's true because the majority of religious people are in the same religion as their parents, implying there isn't much free choice involved. Even if that were true, why is something you believe less respected than something that you are?
The commenting guidelines state: Be kind. Don't be snarky. [...] Don't sneer. Regardless, I will indulge your curiosity.
1) There are certainly other terms in use on WSB that one could take offense to. I personally find this one to be particularly problematic. (The fact that I am myself autistic probably plays a big role in this ;)) 2) I have posted many comments here on HN, and as far as I know this one and the one you replied to are the only ones I've posted on the topic of slurs. I fail to see why I should be banned over this discussion.
Once we've reached that point it seems like a negotiation. Why would it be wrong to say sometimes and not wrong other times? My intuition here is that this is tied to whether the word is used with intent to offend or harass someone. In your case, you weren't using the word that way, and I would argue that the same applies largely to uses of the term on wallstreetbets.
If what you're saying would be true, then calling someone an idiot would be an insult to all the idiots out there. They are clearly not the target of the insult, the person you say it to is the insulted.
"oh, he hurt my feelings, stop him"
It's fucking moronic for us to have demonised speech like this, we should have held on to the old "sticks and stones" because frankly this Orwellian alternative is bonkers.
We're long past the point where feelings need to actually be hurt to take action.
Half the time it's "oh, he might hurt someone else's feelings, stop him"
Or in short, of course it's an insult to the idiots out there. That's literally what makes idiot an insult.
"Idiot" used to be a medical condition, someone suffering from idiocy.
"Retard"; someone whose mental development had been retarded and remained in a childhood state into adulthood.
These words are not supposed to be taken literally (when used colloquially) but to suggest that the person in question displays signs of the medical condition.
I guess we could try to label this as misuse of the terms and try to end the practice, but where would that lead us? "Bob is double plus ungood at thinking"?
[0] http://englishcowpath.blogspot.com/2011/06/euphemism-treadmi...
I could easily imagine a policy like this in, say, a linguistics forum, where it's totally allowed to discuss the usage of slurs, as long as they're not directed at someone.
A self-deprecating slur can still be a slur.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.” – Michael Crichton (1942-2008)
Every time you read an article saying “X community is filled with Y horrible thing,” remember this.