I used gypsy because it's the title the person I was describing used. It's how they asked to be referred to, and as it's their literal blood heritage, I'm going to refer to them however they want to be referred to.
This happens today with words like "transsexual" - there are people very offended by that phrase and there are people who self-label using that phrase and want to be called that.
If we as a species are going to continue down a path of globalization where we have a lot of different cultures and communities around us, we're going to have to understand a word is not verboten universally. There's a difference between someone not wanting to be called retarded and taking offense anytime the word itself is used - even in non-derogatory contexts.
What's being said here is that the word retard is an insult, but does not rise to the level/strength of a slur.
In any case, my experience (and - probably - the context of my cultural upbringing) was that the word was used to both denigrate people with developmental disabilities and to degrade those who did not. This wasn’t calling someone a “loser”. This was using an immutable characteristic of someone’s personhood against them and attacking others by asserting a resemblance.
Are you seriously going to try to pull some narrow technical originalist definition to argue that in this specific edition of this specific dictionary it defines “slur” as being about ethnicity and thus that word can’t be a “slur” bc it effects a class of people that isn’t a specific ethnicity?
'mint2: I can't reply to your post, but despite the 'ThrowawayR2 account name, his account is five years old with four thousand points. Ironically, the only way in which he could pacify you is to create a new account and post from that instead.
While what you say about the account is true, it’s literally called a throw away. Even with the age, it’s questionable whether it’s an alt account. But yes my bad. I was misled by the misleading name.
When we get to that point, we've lost the forest for the trees.
And yes, if you said “don’t be a cripple” to your friend and a guy physical disability overheard it, how do you think that would make them feel? Why would you want to arbitrarily hurt someone, twisting a verbal knife, just to razz your friend.
Look, we should be polite and not use offensive words, but be consistent. The referenced word is rude and offensive but in no way the same room as words that have resulted in lynching, genocide, systematic oppression.
If we want to go all polite and ban all “slurs” then we’ll be getting butthurt over calling someone “stupid” or “idiot.” And of course I’ve worked with people who are upset at any foul language and even blasphemy.
Are we going to get to a point that major reporters are thinking it’s attention worthy to say someone says “Goddammit?”
Arguing over whether that’s as offensive as another word just a matter of time and we are experiencing a slippery slope.
Either we’re going to get offended by everything and live in China/Disneyworld where there’s never offense, or we’re going to stop getting hysterical over unimportant things and use that attention to fight real, difficult, systematic problems.
This is not accurate about how much I’ve heard and am familiar, or used it, or my bubble. It’s kind of astoundingly wrong to the point that it makes me wonder why you would assume that about a stranger.
Also weird how you think to know how hurtful some words are vs others like you have some clue into how to quantify the pain caused by words.
I wish I could achieve such knowledge and confidence as you express here, with some certainty that I wasn’t an idiot.
Also, I wasn’t around in the 50s so not sure how 50s white (or non-white as well I suppose) complained about not being able to say certain words. It seems to me that people in the 50s didn’t limit their speech too much and one of the improvements we’ve made is that there’s less callous and hurtful speech spoken.
Because your posts are saying/implying the r word is less hurtful or offensive than other now taboo words. That is the reason I infer you are more familiar and comfortable with the word than the other taboo words. Is that really a strange conclusion?
And you say “also weird how you think think you know how some words are vs others”. Isn’t that the core of your argument as well? So you get to judge whether the word is offensive, but I don’t?
And one doesn’t have to be alive during the civil rights movement to know many average Americans found it objectionable they couldn’t use whatever language they grew up using, as if that prior use made terminologies that should never have been acceptable, acceptable
Here’s one to start you off: https://www.specialolympics.org/stories/impact/why-the-r-wor...
I suspect “you retard” is stronger than “that’s retarded”.
Unlike various other slurs, the word has various valid uses apart from mental development so it’s not going away.
I'm being obviously sarcastic, but I'm guessing the irony will be lost on you.
And when confronted on it, she said 'thanks for clarifying' and doubled down on the lack of context. No 'whoops, I was wrong', no apology, no retraction.
What part of that sounds like good journalism to you?
Isn't exactly what you're doing -- which is to say condemning something for what in normal circumstances would be a mild transgression or simple misunderstanding, and drawing wild conclusions about the speaker that don't seem to be present in the original text -- exactly what the problem with "cancel culture" is supposed to be in the first place?
I mean, if you demand that Taylor Lorenz give Marc Andreessen the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith on his part, why are you not willing to grant the same to her?
Mr Andreesen doesn't need anyone's benefit of doubt, because he didn't say what Ms Lorenz claimed. And even if he did, the use of the word "retard" was entirely appropriate in its descriptive context in that discussion. There is no reason to assume anything besides good faith on the part of the lady who actually did use the word.
Taylor Lorenz, on the other hand, was caught in a lie. Not a little lie, mind you, but a loud, public slander. When caught, she responded not with an apology, but rather another lie, some sanctimonious excuses, and then she ran and hid. Ms. Lorenz has given us no reason to assume good faith on her part here.
This is a lax standard that might be okay to hold for a 15-year-old child, but not for an adult Times journalist.
> the Times’ tech team quickly donned their hall-monitor goggles and Stasi notebooks
> The little crew of tattletale millennials assembled by NBC — who refer to their twerpy work with the self-glorifying title of “working in the disinformation space”
> they clearly get aroused — find otherwise-elusive purpose — by destroying people’s reputations and lives
No one reads that and thinks "wow, these people are members of the actual Stasi? holy crap!"
As Greenwald pointed out, her recent reporting seems to indicate some sort of vendetta against Andreesen.
Accusing someone of saying something they didn't say is called "libel" or "slander" depending on the medium with which it is done. To call that out, publish it, and for people to enjoy that published work, that is a far cry away from having a stated mission to go after, expose and deplatform people sharing ideas you do not like. You use the word "cancelling" much more liberally than it's contemporary definition applies, I'd say you're stretching it beyond its elasticity in order to make an argument that doesn't exist to defend an indefensible act.
You do realize that this is not an acknowledgement of the mistake. It’s an attempt to deny the mistake and gaslight the person reporting it.
That... seems kinda spun. The source material isn't so damning. Taylor Lorenz was on the call, and tweeted:
"@pmarca just openly using the r-slur on Clubhouse tonight and not one other person in the room called him on it or saying anything"
Then later when she was corrected that it wasn't Andreessen but someone else, replied:
"Thanks for clarifying that it was Felicia saying that word, rather than Marc as many in the room heard it. I hope you can understand how some people in the room felt hearing it"
I mean, as I (someone who reads and values Lorenz's work) read it, she was offended (more, it seems, at the casual use of "retarded" going unchallenged than at the specific speaker), and tweeted about it, but made a mistake in attribution which she recognized (while pointing out that her original offense was that the word wasn't challenged).
And Greenwald wrote like 1000 words to go after her. And his essay, not her tweet, is at the top of HN right now.
So... who's cancelling who here?