Better to not use the problematic wording the first time, no? Nobody is accusing you of being an evil bigoted bigotpants, but merely suggesting ways you can avoid perpetuating hurtful memes.
... 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 disagree, I haven't heard the word retarded used in that manner since I was a kid. Recently it has come to mean stupid or idiotic. Language is always in flux and it's fairly obvious that the word retarded is in the process of being redefined.
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?
I'm saying that this didn't on a first read appear a slur at all to me. It didn't even cross my mind. The word "retardation" has no special connotations in my mind.
"Retard" does, when used as a noun, but not when used as a verb. I have not, in any discussion I've had in many, many years, run into anyone using "retard" or "retardation" in the pejorative sense. That usage simply exists outside of my sphere of recent experience, and I would be genuinely surprised to run into it in the company I keep.
... 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 disagree, I haven't heard the word retarded used in that manner since I was a kid. Recently it has come to mean stupid or idiotic. Language is always in flux and it's fairly obvious that the word retarded is in the process of being redefined.
It has come to mean stupid or idiotic through it's use as a slur against the mentally disabled. And do remember there are a lot of powerful people who use words in the manner of children. We call them Republicans.
Much like there is a fairly significant difference between libertarianism and Libertarianism (small-'l' vs. big-'L'), I think there is a difference between conservatism and Conservatism. I think a little bit of small-c conservatism isn't necessarily a bad thing, provided that it's not rigid and inflexible. Sometimes rapid progress isn't always the best thing and having a little time to "slow down, catch our breath, and make sure the progress we're making is a good idea" is a good thing. For example, look at some of the crazy stuff people thought about nuclear power back in the 50's -- I mean, they were experimental nuclear powered airliners built and flown (yes, that's right, flying nukes with minimal shielding) back then -- before people slowed down and realized, "hey wait a minute, there are actually some dangers with nuclear power we need to address before we do things like build flying nuclear reactors." Of course, a small-c conservative should be flexible enough to adapt to said progress once any legitimate concerns about progress have been addressed. Granted, one may feel that these small-c conservatives would be accurately labeled as "moderates" given the current state of big-C Conservatism.
The problem with the big-C Conservatives is that they want to slow down (retard, if you will) progress completely and are entirely inflexible. They've gone from merely being careful to actively being obstructionist, and that's the major problem with the current Conservative movement.
You really should, because now I think you're either a jerk, lazy, or an idiot by using retardation the way you did. And you won't always be around to explain yourself when you say something the wrong way the first time. Also, you're using "lol" in the context of a reasoned internet conversation. Am I even supposed to take you seriously?
You really should, because now I think you're either a jerk, lazy, or an idiot by using retardation the way you did. And you won't always be around to explain yourself when you say something the wrong way the first time. Also, you're using "lol" in the context of a reasoned internet conversation. Am I even supposed to take you seriously?
I'm actually a lazy jerk idiot, and mostly no you shouldn't take me hella seriously. But you shouldnt take anything super serious anyway!! Either way you should pay more attention to what actually went down and what I said after, cause we probably see eye to eye on the subject of disabilities, just not language as much. I like my language loose and strong.
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.
I'll save you the trouble. It is. And do you want to know why? Because you don't have polio. You didn't die of the plague. Or smallpox. Or the other host of diseases that literally prevented the majority of humanity from having a productive life for the majority of history. You're welcome.
Yes, I think science is more important than everything else ever because it is.
I think you may have come to the wrong forum. Also, could you at least be bothered to use proper punctuation? A little bit of me dies inside every time I see those multiple exclamation points.
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.
I'll save you the trouble. It is. And do you want to know why? Because you don't have polio. You didn't die of the plague. Or smallpox. Or the other host of diseases that literally prevented the majority of humanity from having a productive life for the majority of history. You're welcome.
Yes, but humans themselves very rarely care about progress. The whole idea that people are naturally inclined towards progress, at least for its own sake, is a fabrication by historians of the nineteenth century or so onward, which is designed to support a particular brand of triumphalist historical narrative (which is also fabricated). Yes, standards of living have tended to improve over time. But the improvements are not intentional. There is no overall or individual tendency to progress for its own sake.
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.
I'll save you the trouble. It is. And do you want to know why? Because you don't have polio. You didn't die of the plague. Or smallpox. Or the other host of diseases that literally prevented the majority of humanity from having a productive life for the majority of history. You're welcome.
Yes, but humans themselves very rarely care about progress. The whole idea that people are naturally inclined towards progress, at least for its own sake, is a fabrication by historians of the nineteenth century or so onward, which is designed to support a particular brand of triumphalist historical narrative (which is also fabricated). Yes, standards of living have tended to improve over time. But the improvements are not intentional. There is no overall or individual tendency to progress for its own sake.
Yeah, it's a lot like natural evolution. We make these incremental improvements to for fairly short-term benefits of survival, happiness, or power, and they happen to add up over time for greater human benefit.
Idk I feel like it's a natural tendency, like whether or not ppl or society want to, the whole thing lurches forward? Tho this definitely requires that you define what "forward" is, but then I'd get super recursive and say that's wherever society goes heh.
But the improvements are not intentional. There is no overall or individual tendency to progress for its own sake.
Improvements are not intentional? What the literal fuck is wrong with you? Are you telling me that the aqueduct was not conceived of and designed intentionally? Or are you saying that the inspiration for advancements arises by chance?
Yeah, it's a lot like natural evolution. We make these incremental improvements to for fairly short-term benefits of survival, happiness, or power, and they happen to add up over time for greater human benefit.
You're right, it's like natural evolution. So tell me, how does that preclude intentional, directed progress?
Believe me, I'm all about talking about the deterministic nature of reality and all that. But that has farther-reaching implications than is really practical to apply to life. If your argument is also that progress happens by chance, and not because we've actively tried to make it happen, you need to do a lot more studying.
Yes, but humans themselves very rarely care about progress. The whole idea that people are naturally inclined towards progress, at least for its own sake, is a fabrication by historians of the nineteenth century or so onward, which is designed to support a particular brand of triumphalist historical narrative (which is also fabricated). Yes, standards of living have tended to improve over time. But the improvements are not intentional. There is no overall or individual tendency to progress for its own sake.
OK, I'll bite. Let's assume you're right (disagreement aside).
Why hold ourselves back to this primitive, defective standard when we can evolve much faster though active progressivism? Conservatism is then a vestigal handicap, much like an appendix, that we can shed for the betterment of us all.
What he's saying is that the concept of the unbroken chain of deliberate human progress as an unstoppable, directed machine is a propagandist falsification of 19th/20th century imperialists where the actual reality is closer to the undirected improvements of natural evolution; progress is less making your way up a ladder and more a series of fortunate miniature improvements each done for it's own sake.
Ahh, thus the rub. The Democrats are the very definition of little-c conservatism. The Republicans are big-c. ;^)
Exactly... and you wonder why many moderate blogs/pundits/etc. tend to lean Democratic, at least these days? Granted, there are the uber-liberal hippy Democrats out there, but, by and large, mainstream Democrats are little-c conservatives, as you said.
But the improvements are not intentional. There is no overall or individual tendency to progress for its own sake.
Improvements are not intentional? What the literal fuck is wrong with you? Are you telling me that the aqueduct was not conceived of and designed intentionally? Or are you saying that the inspiration for advancements arises by chance?
I can see an argument that improvements on a very long time scale or something aren't intentional, but each little improvement along the way is. Someone invented the aquaduct because they intentionally wanted to somehow get water from point-A to point-B. Someone figured out how to control fire because they intentionally wanted something to keep warm and keep scary predators away. Now, granted, some of the discoveries related to these may have been accidental, but there was an intentional decision at some point to take advantage of these discoveries to make at least someone's life better. Now the caveman who figured out how to control fire certainly had no intention to use the knowledge of his control of fire to build jet engines one day, but it was still a necessary step on the progression to the jet engine.
Welp, I guess we're gonna have to go through all the sheet music and redact it now. Can't have ritardando in there insulting the disabled.
Seriously, there is a difference between using a word or character trait for a legitimate purpose and using it for the sole purpose of mockery. It shouldn't be a question of whether a word is offensive, but whether the usage of a word is offensive. Maybe I do not find snakes offensive, but I am offended by someone saying all women are snakes (because it is meant solely as an insult and not as an actual factual statement).
Also, Rym, stop trolling. :P There is a difference between doctrine and thought. Not all conservatives are doctrinal. Clinging to a doctrine is as you say, but thinking conservatively is not necessarily bad as long as you are actually thinking reasonably.
What he's saying is that the concept of the unbroken chain of deliberate human progress as an unstoppable, directed machine is a propagandist falsification of 19th/20th century imperialists where the actual reality is closer to the undirected improvements of natural evolution; progress is less making your way up a ladder and more a series of fortunate miniature improvements each done for it's own sake.
That...doesn't at all preclude anything I've said. Progress is progress. Humans have, for all of history, aimed to change their situation for the better. To progress.
I'm not sure why you're conflating what I'm saying with some kind of massive, collective, directed machine. We're not. We are not striving towards some point way off over there. Instead, we have historically set smaller goals and made conscious efforts to achieve them. We identify systematic problems and correct them. That's progress.
And we don't do it as one massive collective. I mean, that's why we have cultures and societies. But cultures and societies are tied together by collective goals and values, and those cultures and societies strive to achieve those goals and values.
The imperialistic machine is certainly revisionist. You are engaging in a false dichotomy by conflating my argument with imperialist machinery.
Yeah, isn't intent when it comes to progress sort of moot in this context? Tho I guess the funny part is that if progress is non deliberate, then the way a "progressive" thinker tries to shape the future could also technically be regressive; like if it doesn't go as far as the natural process would. Ummm sort of how oil cos. fight to move energy to their closest profitable model, instead of just funding a leap to the most optimal source for the whole of society. It's technically progress, but it's hindered progress.
Improvements are not intentional? What the literal fuck is wrong with you? Are you telling me that the aqueduct was not conceived of and designed intentionally? Or are you saying that the inspiration for advancements arises by chance?
I can see an argument that improvements on a very long time scale or something aren't intentional, but each little improvement along the way is. Someone invented the aquaduct because they intentionally wanted to somehow get water from point-A to point-B. Someone figured out how to control fire because they intentionally wanted something to keep warm and keep scary predators away. Now, granted, some of the discoveries related to these may have been accidental, but there was an intentional decision at some point to take advantage of these discoveries to make at least someone's life better. Now the caveman who figured out how to control fire certainly had no intention to use the knowledge of his control of fire to build jet engines one day, but it was still a necessary step on the progression to the jet engine.
You've misread what I meant by "intentional." Open_sketchbook said more or less what I meant; not that the person who designed something didn't do it intentionally, but that they didn't intend for "progress." Nobody is fucking concerned with progress for its own sake; they're just making minor changes to whatever they're concerned with, and "progress" is something that only ever appears in hindsight. Not to mention that progress is not always for the better; this conception of progress as something always desirable is a construction entirely of the 20th century.
Tho I guess the funny part is that if progress is non deliberate, then the way a "progressive" thinker tries to shape the future could also technically be regressive; like if it doesn't go as far as the natural process would.
The rest of your argument is moot, I believe I actually found a correct usage of a semicolon in the wild!
Comments
"Retard" does, when used as a noun, but not when used as a verb. I have not, in any discussion I've had in many, many years, run into anyone using "retard" or "retardation" in the pejorative sense. That usage simply exists outside of my sphere of recent experience, and I would be genuinely surprised to run into it in the company I keep.
(Okay, that was a little bit ageist of me.)
The problem with the big-C Conservatives is that they want to slow down (retard, if you will) progress completely and are entirely inflexible. They've gone from merely being careful to actively being obstructionist, and that's the major problem with the current Conservative movement.
Also, you're using "lol" in the context of a reasoned internet conversation. Am I even supposed to take you seriously?
Ahh, thus the rub. The Democrats are the very definition of little-c conservatism. The Republicans are big-c. ;^)
Yes, I think science is more important than everything else ever because it is.
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/04/0956797611421206.full#T1
Believe me, I'm all about talking about the deterministic nature of reality and all that. But that has farther-reaching implications than is really practical to apply to life. If your argument is also that progress happens by chance, and not because we've actively tried to make it happen, you need to do a lot more studying.
Why hold ourselves back to this primitive, defective standard when we can evolve much faster though active progressivism? Conservatism is then a vestigal handicap, much like an appendix, that we can shed for the betterment of us all.
Seriously, there is a difference between using a word or character trait for a legitimate purpose and using it for the sole purpose of mockery. It shouldn't be a question of whether a word is offensive, but whether the usage of a word is offensive. Maybe I do not find snakes offensive, but I am offended by someone saying all women are snakes (because it is meant solely as an insult and not as an actual factual statement).
Also, Rym, stop trolling. :P There is a difference between doctrine and thought. Not all conservatives are doctrinal. Clinging to a doctrine is as you say, but thinking conservatively is not necessarily bad as long as you are actually thinking reasonably.
I'm not sure why you're conflating what I'm saying with some kind of massive, collective, directed machine. We're not. We are not striving towards some point way off over there. Instead, we have historically set smaller goals and made conscious efforts to achieve them. We identify systematic problems and correct them. That's progress.
And we don't do it as one massive collective. I mean, that's why we have cultures and societies. But cultures and societies are tied together by collective goals and values, and those cultures and societies strive to achieve those goals and values.
The imperialistic machine is certainly revisionist. You are engaging in a false dichotomy by conflating my argument with imperialist machinery.
Not to mention that progress is not always for the better; this conception of progress as something always desirable is a construction entirely of the 20th century.