Comment by nonrandomstring | Hacker News Reader

Comment by nonrandomstring | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

nonrandomstring

Content was never removed. I stand by it. Of course I never call her friends that, which would be destructive, inappropriate and alienating for the all the reasons you wisely relay.

I stand by it because I'm talking about their behaviour, not what they are. They're bright kids ( or they wouldn't be her mates ). But what I often see them do, which looks a lot like randomly bashing at a screen to "make shit happen", isn't the pinnacle of technology I want my kids to experience. Not until 15, wasted with her mates and playing the 2032 version of DOOM or whatever.

Interestingly, if there's any friction or danger it comes from not biting my lip in criticising other parenting styles. That's actually where the weird stuff is, in the relations between the grown-ups. Most parents are naturally touchy about even implied criticism. And many do feel guilt about using phones and tablets as pacifiers.

As I say in the book, I learned that a long time ago and am a practising but not preaching digital vegan.

Do you think your mentality of using that language bleeds into other negative influences? You might benefit from learning from the criticism of your post and rethinking things.

It's just a word. Certain circles take it much more seriously than others. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and remember that using that language with ones peers on HN is different from using it in a professional or social setting.

If he'd said "silly monkeys" I don't think anyone would have even commented.

In my opinion, the "it's just a word" mentality can often be harmful. There's a reason we use words and language, it s how we communicate our thoughts to others and hence our choice of language is very important.

As it turns out, some words have connotations which are bad, and by using them you're communicating something that isn't an example of what you want to reinforce in a child, or anyone at all really.

So I am not suggesting that GP should be ostracised over saying 'retarded' but I think it's important to atleast question why they are using language which hurts a specific group of people that have done nothing to deserve it.

Here's a quote from a website[0] that explains why using 'retarded' in the way GP did here is harmful:

“It hurts and scares me when I am the only person with intellectual disabilities on the bus and young people start making “retard” jokes or references. Please put yourself on that bus and fill the bus with people who are different from you. Imagine that they start making jokes using a term that describes you. It hurts and it is scary.” – John Franklin Stephens, Special Olympics Virginia athlete and Global Messenger

Hopefully that quote helps to see why no one would question the usage of 'silly'.

[1]: https://www.spreadtheword.global/resource-archive/r-word-eff...

When you use the word idiot, it's also at their expense. The capacity to use these words in a derogatory sense is owing to their meaning, and it has not changed. The reflective attitude that similar terms are comparatively cleaner as they exist in a sort of bubble as "pure insults with no meaning" is a fantasy.

It's not good to be an idiot, and it never will be. Take your r-word, there's no shortage of others that mean the same thing. It's possible to love and show compassion to those with intellectual disabilities, not insult them to their face, and still accept that these conditions are not a positive, to the extent that in broader society people will show disdain for irrational behavior by invoking any one of these words, at the expense of those who don't know any better.

I don't think calling someone an idiot necessitates that the mentally disabled are harmed for it. Btw, Stephens is coached.

>The reflective attitude that similar terms are comparatively cleaner as they exist in a sort of bubble as "pure insults with no meaning" is a fantasy.

You do raise a very fair point. I did want to argue that idiot and other such words are 'different' from the r word but admittedly, I do not have a rebuttal.

It does make me question though, where did society choose to draw the line and why is the line drawn there. There definitely is a lot of talk about how the r word is harmful but I think it's fair to say that isn't the case for idiot and stupid for example.

Thanks for giving me some food for thought, cheers and have a happy new year :)

>It does make me question though, where did society choose to draw the line and why is the line drawn there.

The line moves, as and when someone in society gets up in arms at exactly that and is sufficiently powerful to move it. See "mentally handicapped", "special needs", etcetera. A new word gets generated that's less "bad", but it doesn't resolve the issue that the concept it describes is fundamentally bad.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/euphemism_treadmill

"That language" isn't the issue. Americans seem to have an odd prudishness over a few words, and retarded is one of them. GP is from GB where it's not so much of an issue.

A change of language wouldn't modify the negative connatations of the GPs statement, so the fact you think this critism has learning, maybe means there's some learning in this for you.

Thanks. I find your writing interesting (and the focus of other commenters on specific words weird) and I just bought your book. Looking foward to reading it!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com