914
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2024
914 points (98.0% liked)
politics
18874 readers
3713 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
They’re not sending their brightest, folks. Many such examples.
Seriously though, I didn’t have a pizzagate guy openly advocating fascism at CPAC on my doomsday bingo card, yet here we are.
There's a non-zero chance that they actually are sending their brightest.
And they can hire the most intelligent sociopaths money can buy
And that their brightest are as retarded as these retards.
Hey big dog, we don't use the R word anymore. It was hard for me, man. Seriously. I slipped just a cpl wks ago. Personally, now I just use expletives to send the message home, e. g., fucking morons, total fucking idiots, shit for brains dumbass fuckface, etc. If you're worried about soap in your mouth, perhaps, jabronis, jackass, schmuck face, imbecile.
I think we can all realize that this man is stating that these people are slowing the progress of society and attempting to retard it's progress not disparaging the less capable en mass. I really think you should look into the etymology of some of your other suggestions.
This is the "and swastikas are used in Hinduism" argument. Anyone who works with people whose actual medical diagnosis is "mental retardation" will tell you that using that word to insult others is more an insult to the disabled, and should be discarded.
"These retards" doesn't mean "these slowing the progress of society persons." You know that. This is a reactionary excuse for a negative behavior easily altered with minor effort.
Moron: in psychology and psychiatry to denote mild intellectual disability. The term was closely tied with the American eugenics movement
Idiot: in legal and psychiatric contexts for some kinds of profound intellectual disability where the mental age is two years or less, and the person cannot guard themself against common physical dangers.
Imbecile: in psychiatrist contexts is used to denote a category of people with moderate to severe intellectual disability.
Are you really taking the high road here by using outdated terminology that's more demeaning that the more modern replacement.
We have, right now, in our care, men and women in their 40s, 50s, 60s and above whose real honest-to-God documentation states that their disability is "severe mental retardation." Is the language outdated by our current standard? Yes, but our system will not be taking them in for reevaluation when there isn't any benefit to be had to either those people or their caregivers.
We will not have alternative terminology for people who will never be reevaluated. Mental retardation is their diagnosis, and you're the mean little prick trying to justify using a diagnosis as an insult when it costs you literally nothing to pick a different invective. You're trying to seem so intelligent- use better, more creative language instead. Or don't. I'm not your mother.
But you'll likely continue to face pushback for this until either our older population (the real people with this real diagnosis) all die, and the word does become completely outdated, or until you lobby for legislation to have each and every person with this diagnosis reclassified based on current medical knowledge, regardless of it's benefit, just so you can use their disability as a swear.