You appearantly do need the lecture because you are not listening. There are plenty of words you can use without using one that, misappropriated or not, was and still is used to describe the disability community and is now primarily linked to that understanding.
Your statement of “well words are fine if they aren’t used at the people who they are meant for” is inherently incorrect, hence the examples each is an example of using the word in a disrespectful or phobic context. What you are proposing is using a word linked through current pejorative use to the disability community to be expanded to not just be used in the context of “stupid” but to now mean essentially “facist” because… Why? You particularly like the word?
Making something more taboo doesn’t decrease it’s power; it increases it. Making things commonplace decreases their power. If the word is truly problematic for you, you’d want to decrease the historical harms.
I certainly do not need a lecture from someone that’s inherently lacking understanding about the evolution of language.
A fundamental thing lacking in your understanding of slurs is your insistance that their existence is a full negative for the community that they are levied against. It is more useful to look at the designation of slurs almost more as a form of technology those communities use both as a form of self advocacy to spread awareness of underlying prejudices and to identify individuals and groups who hold them particular opposition or threat. They aren’t just about “getting upset” or giving people an avenue to press buttons.
Consider the “N-slur” in light of it being a technology. Those who use it are either :
Identifying themselves as a member of the ‘in’ group and using it as a means of solidarity.
Identifying themselves as an individual that believes they have “the right” to use the slur companionably thus often identifying themselves as a problem who at best doesn’t quite understand the assignment or at worst believes they can make unilateral decisions as part of a group to which they do not belong presenting a threat
Identifying themselves as a legitimate threat by using the word with the full weight of it’s oppressive and derogatory context.
Those who are using this can track this use if this slur to figure out who their allies are, what are safe communities, which of their associates can be counted on to help and who is setting themselves up as an enemy. This is legitimately words as weapons of war. A technique hit upon by modern civil rights movements as a means of fighting back. The meeting place of sociology and etymology where people started looking at words beyond strict meaning. What you are attempting to do is disarm a community making use of this but in reality you are identifying yourself using this tech as the second form of threat. The one that treats advocacy as a lost cause because the idea of implicit inferiority is so ingrained you can’t see the paternalism.
You are talking about the forces of reclamation and that historically isn’t up to people outside of the community effected. You are an agent of the majority outside the community which means if you go against the wishes of the community actively stating its harm then you are enforcing something from without which is a really good way to perpetuate a slur. Until that consensus is met by the group it is never going to lose it’s connection and doing something “for someone else’s good” is patronizing.
You have the seeming of someone who dipped their toe in a discipline and is now using it to lord over others. I suspect however given lack of historical backdrop and advocating for the very circumstances that create slurs there are some holes in your education to address. Let’s do a little a little etymology exercise.
If you say “A man walks down the street” what is the stated gender of the person? If you say “I think you are very nice” should I be offended at the comment on my intellect?
Words sometimes lose their original connotations in favour of other ones. This can happen in historically very short periods and sometimes there’s no reversing the clock. Sometimes a change is there to stay.
You appearantly do need the lecture because you are not listening. There are plenty of words you can use without using one that, misappropriated or not, was and still is used to describe the disability community and is now primarily linked to that understanding.
Your statement of “well words are fine if they aren’t used at the people who they are meant for” is inherently incorrect, hence the examples each is an example of using the word in a disrespectful or phobic context. What you are proposing is using a word linked through current pejorative use to the disability community to be expanded to not just be used in the context of “stupid” but to now mean essentially “facist” because… Why? You particularly like the word?
That’s not better.
Making something more taboo doesn’t decrease it’s power; it increases it. Making things commonplace decreases their power. If the word is truly problematic for you, you’d want to decrease the historical harms.
I certainly do not need a lecture from someone that’s inherently lacking understanding about the evolution of language.
A fundamental thing lacking in your understanding of slurs is your insistance that their existence is a full negative for the community that they are levied against. It is more useful to look at the designation of slurs almost more as a form of technology those communities use both as a form of self advocacy to spread awareness of underlying prejudices and to identify individuals and groups who hold them particular opposition or threat. They aren’t just about “getting upset” or giving people an avenue to press buttons.
Consider the “N-slur” in light of it being a technology. Those who use it are either :
Identifying themselves as a member of the ‘in’ group and using it as a means of solidarity.
Identifying themselves as an individual that believes they have “the right” to use the slur companionably thus often identifying themselves as a problem who at best doesn’t quite understand the assignment or at worst believes they can make unilateral decisions as part of a group to which they do not belong presenting a threat
Identifying themselves as a legitimate threat by using the word with the full weight of it’s oppressive and derogatory context.
Those who are using this can track this use if this slur to figure out who their allies are, what are safe communities, which of their associates can be counted on to help and who is setting themselves up as an enemy. This is legitimately words as weapons of war. A technique hit upon by modern civil rights movements as a means of fighting back. The meeting place of sociology and etymology where people started looking at words beyond strict meaning. What you are attempting to do is disarm a community making use of this but in reality you are identifying yourself using this tech as the second form of threat. The one that treats advocacy as a lost cause because the idea of implicit inferiority is so ingrained you can’t see the paternalism.
You are talking about the forces of reclamation and that historically isn’t up to people outside of the community effected. You are an agent of the majority outside the community which means if you go against the wishes of the community actively stating its harm then you are enforcing something from without which is a really good way to perpetuate a slur. Until that consensus is met by the group it is never going to lose it’s connection and doing something “for someone else’s good” is patronizing.
You have the seeming of someone who dipped their toe in a discipline and is now using it to lord over others. I suspect however given lack of historical backdrop and advocating for the very circumstances that create slurs there are some holes in your education to address. Let’s do a little a little etymology exercise.
If you say “A man walks down the street” what is the stated gender of the person? If you say “I think you are very nice” should I be offended at the comment on my intellect?
Words sometimes lose their original connotations in favour of other ones. This can happen in historically very short periods and sometimes there’s no reversing the clock. Sometimes a change is there to stay.