Well, retardation means literally a "slowing down." Conservatives are a "slowing" force in regards to change in society, compared to "accelerating." They cause the retardation of change in our society. But perhaps it was used as a slur.
Considering it followed the suggestion that conservatism is a "social disease," I'm pretty sure it was a slur. And that's unacceptable.
One, it's a completely appropriate usage of the word.
Two, the slur itself also means "slow."
Three, the slur applies anyhow, because I'm pretty sure we can demonstrate a higher rate of mental deficiency in conservatives. I mean there have been actual studies on this. It's possible that it could be an information processing disorder that could be on the level of the things often lumped into the broad category of "mental deficiency."
Four, highly-conserved belief systems are transmitted in a way that is extremely analogous to the transmission of an actual disease. Religions have spread in the same way that plagues have, and they tend to destroy the extant cultures in the process.
While it might be slightly hyperbolic to call conservatism a mental disease, in many ways it's actually not far off the mark. The natural human inclination is towards free inquiry and progress. Deliberately holding back progress because you think it's better is a sign of defect.
The difference between a society being "unintelligent" and someone who suffers from a disability is the problems of the later are not their fault at all and not something they can change. Society does not have to be slow, but it chooses to be so, and thus can be blamed and insulted.
Considering it followed the suggestion that conservatism is a "social disease," I'm pretty sure it was a slur. And that's unacceptable.
One, it's a completely appropriate usage of the word.
But still pretty goddamn able-ist, insulting to people who have mental disabilities and aren't conservatives, and insulting to conservatives who don't have those disabilities. Also, nobody fucking uses retardation as a term for a mental/social disease anymore except as a slur.
Is there a good source for the "Conservatives have more mental disabilities" claim? I'm biased towards believing it, but that doesn't mean I should take it at face value.
The natural human inclination is towards free inquiry and progress. Deliberately holding back progress because you think it's better is a sign of defect.
Bullshit. First off, the belief that humans are inclined towards progress is pretty modern and historically-revisionist, and I find it difficult to believe. Calling those who oppose "progress" defective is a particularly dangerous path to go down.
Considering it followed the suggestion that conservatism is a "social disease," I'm pretty sure it was a slur. And that's unacceptable.
Are you kidding? Next you'll tell me that niggardly is a slur.
Conservatism is a fundamentally flawed ideology in my opinion, and I have never seen a reasonable defense of any of its basic tenants. One cannot slow down government just as the speed of advancement in science and social evolution is accelerating.
Conservatives opposed the American Revolution. Conservatives opposed progressive taxation. Conservatives opposed civil rights for blacks. Conservatives opposed civil rights for homosexuals. Conservatives opposed civil rights for women.
Conservatism, per wikipedia, is defined as such:
Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")[1] is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports at the most, minimal and gradual change in society.
It literally means to hold back and follow tradition in all things, grudgingly allowing change. This is ludicrous: we're evolving at an exponential rate, held back only by a massive dinosaur of a lagging and archaic government. I see no rational defense of it any more.
Remember, at the founding of the United States, the right to bear arms was an extremely, radically, liberal idea. But what was liberal yesterday is conservative today. What mattered yesterday is irrelevant today. Conservatives by definition will always be solving yesterday's problems, too little, too late.
Not to get off topic, but can you explain the concept of ableism to me? I have never thought that disabled people should not have equal rights, or that people should discriminate or make fun of them, but it is weird that it seems almost like the movement wants to make disabilities a good, normal thing. I don't agree with that. Disabilities are harmful to the individual, they take away function, they are terrible things. I have an uncle with severe cerebral palsy who can't talk. I can't pretend that I don't wish that he didn't have the disability. I love him a lot, but I always wish he was born with a brain that worked right because things are so hard for him.
Ableism is part of the concept of Intersectionality; that things like racism and sexism are part of a greater structure of social sorting which values some groups over others. When we indicate that the disabled are inherently bad, or compare people we dislike with people with disabilities, we enforce a social structure that devalues these people. When we call somebody who isn't thinking clearly crazy, we demonize the mentally ill, for example. Not to mention that somebody who has actually struggled with mental illness is going to be hurt by those words.
Not to mention it's lazy thinking. We don't have to indicate people we disagree with are broken; we just need to indicate they are wrong. Anything more is an enforcement of a social structure that hurts everyone.
Category insults are like bombs; they hurt the people we want to hurt, but a lot of innocents at the same time.
I believe that conservatism is a social disease. It's a meme like any other, and memes spread through the medium of human interaction.
Conservatism is in my mind likened to an old media virus, for which the vaccination is an exposure to the marketplace of ideas and the instillation of a healthy does of rational skepticism.
Oh, no doubt it's inflammatory language to use. But at this stage of the game, it is almost literally true. I don't care how offensive it may actually seem to someone - the point is that we're dealing with people who exhibit reduced mental faculties and an inability to process complex concepts. And they want to run the country.
Is there a good source for the "Conservatives have more mental disabilities" claim? I'm biased towards believing it, but that doesn't mean I should take it at face value.
I've got to find it again. I saw some IQ studies about this. There was a tendency towards lower IQ's with conservatism. I have no idea about the rate of occurrence of any specific mental disorder.
Bullshit. First off, the belief that humans are inclined towards progress is pretty modern and historically-revisionist, and I find it difficult to believe. Calling those who oppose "progress" defective is a particularly dangerous path to go down.
No, it's really not a modern concept. Progress has been the goal of humanity from the get-go. History has been driven by a desire to innovate and change. Attempts to stymie progress have all ended in failure for those who want to stymie.
I'm willing to say that anyone who impedes progress solely because they're afraid of progress is defective. If you object for some rational reason, that's great. If you're fear-mongering, you're defective.
Able-ism is, at least in most cases, significantly less visible than racism or sexism is. Ableism almost never manifests as direct (or at least, open) discrimination against the disabled, except for occasional rants by jackasses about the developmentally disabled.
Ableism rather refers to how the abled rarely ever even think about how what they do or say impacts the disabled. It's the use of words like "retarded" as slurs without consideration for how serious a lot of developmental disabilities actually are. It's also how we can do things like walk up stairs and get around without the consideration of how difficult just getting around can be for someone who's bound to a wheelchair, or blind, or deaf. One of my friends has hearing problems, and has frequently had trouble with classes where the professor forgets to wear their microphone and use the tech, so that she can barely hear the professor. It's things like that "forgetting" about the disabled that constitutes ableism, not open discrimination.
In terms of the use of language, like in this thread, the best way to think about it is that, just as it is not acceptable and totally awful to insult somebody by, for example, making disparaging remarks about their sexuality or comparing them to a racial group, it's not acceptable to compare them to people with disabilities.
Able-ism is, at least in most cases, significantly less visible than racism or sexism is. Ableism almost never manifests as direct (or at least, open) discrimination against the disabled, except for occasional rants by jackasses about the developmentally disabled.
Ableism rather refers to how the abled rarely ever even think about how what they do or say impacts the disabled. It's the use of words like "retarded" as slurs without consideration for how serious a lot of developmental disabilities actually are. It's also how we can do things like walk up stairs and get around without the consideration of how difficult just getting around can be for someone who's bound to a wheelchair, or blind, or deaf. One of my friends has hearing problems, and has frequently had trouble with classes where the professor forgets to wear their microphone and use the tech, so that she can barely hear the professor. It's things like that "forgetting" about the disabled that constitutes ableism, not open discrimination.
That's all cool because I literally used it in the literal context. The word "retard" originally got attached to the people w/ disabilities for the perceived literal relation between the two; the perception that it's offensive and that people w/ disablities aren't actually necessarily hindered (i.e. "disability" vs "impairment") comes way later. To me, it's interesting that something in our society is actually holding it back, yet it retains a brand of legitimacy. So yes, I don't think it's right that people w/ disabilities were ever considered "retarded" but I think it's right to consider conservatives as such; especially because they have full faculty to change their views and actively choose not to.
I literally fail to see how conservative doctrine isn't analogous to anti-social personality disorder.
Have you considered that it's because there is nothing inherently wrong with most conservatives? That they're simply taught by the society they grow up in to hold conservative values, and hold on to their initially learned beliefs just like most everybody else does?
Pete's analogy to a disease is at least somewhat accurate, but I'd contend that the analogy applies to the spread of most ideas.
Now, I have to go to class, and when I get back I'll construct a wall of text as to why I'm more or less entirely sure that Pete's view of society as naturally inclined towards progress is scientific-triumphalist bullshit.
Sure, I know. What I'm trying to say is that in the context of this thread, Conservatism is being described as a form of developmental retardation, literally a deficiency in the capabilities of the Conservative person in the realm of empathy and awareness of other human beings. Some people are dyslexic in regards to reading and spelling, other people have a similar trouble with understanding other people.
And don't think I'm being an apologist for ableism, or ableist language, because I'm right with you in terms of societies misunderstanding of this problem. In this case, I think the language is intentional and not insulting.
Able-ism is, at least in most cases, significantly less visible than racism or sexism is. Ableism almost never manifests as direct (or at least, open) discrimination against the disabled, except for occasional rants by jackasses about the developmentally disabled.
Ableism rather refers to how the abled rarely ever even think about how what they do or say impacts the disabled. It's the use of words like "retarded" as slurs without consideration for how serious a lot of developmental disabilities actually are. It's also how we can do things like walk up stairs and get around without the consideration of how difficult just getting around can be for someone who's bound to a wheelchair, or blind, or deaf. One of my friends has hearing problems, and has frequently had trouble with classes where the professor forgets to wear their microphone and use the tech, so that she can barely hear the professor. It's things like that "forgetting" about the disabled that constitutes ableism, not open discrimination.
That's all cool because I literally used it in the literal context. The word "retard" originally got attached to the people w/ disabilities for the perceived literal relation between the two; the perception that it's offensive and that people w/ disablities aren't actually necessarily hindered (i.e. "disability" vs "impairment") comes way later. To me, it's interesting that something in our society is actually holding it back, yet it retains a brand of legitimacy. So yes, I don't think it's right that people w/ disabilities were ever considered "retarded" but I think it's right to consider conservatives as such; especially because they have full faculty to change their views and actively choose not to.
... intent still isn't magic. However you intended the phrase, the average reader is going to come away with you comparing conservatives to the mentally disabled. How about "backward", "regressive", or "a titanic goddamn anchor around the collective neck of human progress". Those all work without catching innocent groups in the blast radius.
I think, in this case, it wasn't an insult when calling Conservatives retarded, but a description or analogy.
Exactly. Using the word retardation in this context didn't imply a slur, but was a reasonable analogy of what effects their ideology brings to bear on society. It would have been a big stretch to in good faith take that as saying "conservatives are retarded."
I see. So ableism is more about making sure that society is accommodating to all sorts of people in their daily lives. That's how it should be. We should make things as comfortable as possible for all members of the society.
I think, in this case, it wasn't an insult when calling Conservatives retarded, but a description or analogy.
Exactly. Using the word retardation in this context didn't imply a slur, but was a reasonable analogy of what effects their ideology brings to bear on society. It would have been a big stretch to in good faith take that as saying "conservatives are retarded."
Again, niggardly.
So, wait, Rym, are you saying a slur isn't a slur if you didn't mean it as a slur? "Retard" is a slur the way the n-word is a slur, so what makes it acceptable in any context ever ever?
ASPD isn't necessarily a genetic thing; the environmental factor is huge. Conservative culture breeds mild to severe forms of anti-social behavior, and it's evident all across history.
... intent still isn't magic. However you intended the phrase, the average reader is going to come away with you comparing conservatives to the mentally disabled. How about "backward", "regressive", or "a titanic goddamn anchor around the collective neck of human progress". Those all work without catching innocent groups in the blast radius.
One thing I have refused to compromise on is the diction of my discourse. The average reader out in the wild reads at a 6th grade or so level. I expect better of the people here.
... intent still isn't magic. However you intended the phrase, the average reader is going to come away with you comparing conservatives to the mentally disabled. How about "backward", "regressive", or "a titanic goddamn anchor around the collective neck of human progress". Those all work without catching innocent groups in the blast radius.
One thing I have refused to compromise on is the diction of my discourse. The average reader out in the wild reads at a 6th grade or so level. I expect better of the people here.
It's not the reading level of the reader that's the problem here. It's cultural context. "Retarded" might mean a whole lot of things, but it's common colloquial use is a slur against the mentally disabled. Regardless of reading level, people will come away seeing that comparison, which means you have failed in the dictation of your discourse AND have been ableist. So it's not a compromise, it's an improvement; you get to speak more accurately and avoid using potentially bigoted language. Win-win.
I really don't care how things I write are read, because I was there to explain everything I meant lol. What the hell does the initial reading/intent matter if I revised my meaning a few times over? Dude read a word and got mad.
Comments
Conservatives can be ridiculous, but they were taught to be stubborn about their beliefs. It's not a disease.
They cause the retardation of change in our society.
But perhaps it was used as a slur.
Two, the slur itself also means "slow."
Three, the slur applies anyhow, because I'm pretty sure we can demonstrate a higher rate of mental deficiency in conservatives. I mean there have been actual studies on this. It's possible that it could be an information processing disorder that could be on the level of the things often lumped into the broad category of "mental deficiency."
Four, highly-conserved belief systems are transmitted in a way that is extremely analogous to the transmission of an actual disease. Religions have spread in the same way that plagues have, and they tend to destroy the extant cultures in the process.
While it might be slightly hyperbolic to call conservatism a mental disease, in many ways it's actually not far off the mark. The natural human inclination is towards free inquiry and progress. Deliberately holding back progress because you think it's better is a sign of defect.
Is there a good source for the "Conservatives have more mental disabilities" claim? I'm biased towards believing it, but that doesn't mean I should take it at face value. Bullshit. First off, the belief that humans are inclined towards progress is pretty modern and historically-revisionist, and I find it difficult to believe. Calling those who oppose "progress" defective is a particularly dangerous path to go down.
Conservatism is a fundamentally flawed ideology in my opinion, and I have never seen a reasonable defense of any of its basic tenants. One cannot slow down government just as the speed of advancement in science and social evolution is accelerating.
Conservatives opposed the American Revolution.
Conservatives opposed progressive taxation.
Conservatives opposed civil rights for blacks.
Conservatives opposed civil rights for homosexuals.
Conservatives opposed civil rights for women.
Conservatism, per wikipedia, is defined as such:
Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")[1] is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports at the most, minimal and gradual change in society.
It literally means to hold back and follow tradition in all things, grudgingly allowing change. This is ludicrous: we're evolving at an exponential rate, held back only by a massive dinosaur of a lagging and archaic government. I see no rational defense of it any more.
Remember, at the founding of the United States, the right to bear arms was an extremely, radically, liberal idea. But what was liberal yesterday is conservative today. What mattered yesterday is irrelevant today. Conservatives by definition will always be solving yesterday's problems, too little, too late.
It's also a term in music, albeit usually written in Italian. Do you take exception to that usage as well?
Not to mention it's lazy thinking. We don't have to indicate people we disagree with are broken; we just need to indicate they are wrong. Anything more is an enforcement of a social structure that hurts everyone.
Category insults are like bombs; they hurt the people we want to hurt, but a lot of innocents at the same time.
Conservatism is in my mind likened to an old media virus, for which the vaccination is an exposure to the marketplace of ideas and the instillation of a healthy does of rational skepticism.
I'm willing to say that anyone who impedes progress solely because they're afraid of progress is defective. If you object for some rational reason, that's great. If you're fear-mongering, you're defective.
Ableism rather refers to how the abled rarely ever even think about how what they do or say impacts the disabled. It's the use of words like "retarded" as slurs without consideration for how serious a lot of developmental disabilities actually are. It's also how we can do things like walk up stairs and get around without the consideration of how difficult just getting around can be for someone who's bound to a wheelchair, or blind, or deaf. One of my friends has hearing problems, and has frequently had trouble with classes where the professor forgets to wear their microphone and use the tech, so that she can barely hear the professor. It's things like that "forgetting" about the disabled that constitutes ableism, not open discrimination.
Pete's analogy to a disease is at least somewhat accurate, but I'd contend that the analogy applies to the spread of most ideas.
Now, I have to go to class, and when I get back I'll construct a wall of text as to why I'm more or less entirely sure that Pete's view of society as naturally inclined towards progress is scientific-triumphalist bullshit.
And don't think I'm being an apologist for ableism, or ableist language, because I'm right with you in terms of societies misunderstanding of this problem. In this case, I think the language is intentional and not insulting.
Again, niggardly.
That aside, here's one article on the topic:
http://www.economicvoice.com/right-wing-people-are-less-intelligent/50027721#axzz1nhoQhbb4