You broke the HN guidelines egregiously with this comment. We ban accounts that do this, regardless of how bad some other comment was or you feel it was. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take the intended spirit of this site to heart. We're trying hard to avoid this sort of mutual bashing on HN.
I'm going to make an argument for linguistic descriptivism. I've never once thought, in the WSB subreddit, someone calling another an "autist" or a "retard" was ever intended to harm or disrespect people with those literal issues. It's a niche audience with very specific meaning. As a linguist, I find it fascinating and aptly descriptive frankly. As a person who knows people with actual mental problems, I understand why it may be distasteful. However I strongly feel that when you enter that subreddit, the jargon is both incredibly obvious and specific.
„Retard“ has evolved and is universally regarded as an insult these days. Denying this entirely obvious fact is rather hard to square with your claim of being a linguist. The science tends to take a more descriptive approach, and to acknowledge the changing nature of language.
No it doesn't, and you have to blatantly ignore the power dynamics between groups to compare the two.
Your analogy would hold only if people with mental disabilities started trying to reclaim the discriminatory connotations of the word by using it to describe themselves.
I think there's a very obvious difference between a group reclaiming a word that has been used to marginalize them and discriminate against them (N word, Queer etc.) and people who are not part of that group using the word to mock each other - and by proxy - the group of people the term is used to mock, and perpetuating its use as a derrogatory term.
Radio edits are a thing and every rapper who uses that word finds it gets censored a lot.
And context here is people picked the terms for 4chan-humour value, and it's quite hard to argue non-autists lolling about how an instance of their behaviour is a bit like an autistic stereotype, or hehe trader is an anagram of how uninformed we think these trades are is an obvious candidate for the meaning being completely unrelated to the use of autist and retard as terms of abuse. Same as if I decide to categorise my friends using derivations of a four letter word: I'm doing so because it's a four letter word, and I don't get to play the 'but I meant it affectionately, specifically and non-literally' card if someone asks me not to swear in this establishment
I certainly don't think it's necessary for Discord to ban them, but if your jargon is chosen for edginess, you don't get to act surprised if someone decides it's too edgy.
The very reason of how words like "retard" evolve in the first
place is by people using those words outside of the standard
dictionary definition's meaning.
What I want to say is that just like there's a huge difference
in meaning between "this is shit" and "this is the shit", even
usually insulting words can be used in inoffensive ways(like
it's done on WSB) - and of course the other way around you can
call someone a "genius" and make it obvious you meant the exact
opposite.
Language is an incredibly flexible tool and every dictionary
definition or scientific description is an obsolete snapshot at
best.
> „Retard“ has evolved and is universally regarded as an insult these days. Denying this entirely obvious fact is rather hard to square with your claim of being a linguist.
This "fact" is not, in fact, a fact. GP is engaging in the act of forcing intersubjective reality - basically willing this "fact" into becoming an actual fact.
This is becoming increasingly common in discourse these days, and noticing it is the key to understanding the various non sequiturs and other abuses of logic made in arguments that try to classify random stuff as offensive. Unlike in the physical world, in the social world, if enough people are forcefully claiming something is a fact, it becomes a fact.
That's why it's even more important socially to combat such abuse of reasoning than it is in hard sciences. You can't make gravity disappear because you really believe humans are capable of levitating. But you absolutely can make acceptance, due process and individual freedoms disappear if enough people strongly insist some other people are saying the wrong things.
That's obviously incorrect. When someone on wallstreetbets says "What's up retards", they are obviously not intending to insult everyone reading it. Context matters.
It's a very convenient excuse for banning a controversial community, though. With the sea change we just had in corporate censorship, no one should be surprised.
I hope we get plausible alternatives with a more principled stand towards censorship.
I think that they are saying it's similar to how the n-word has evolved - out of the right context it's very insulting (and more) but in certain situations it's appropriate, accepted and encouraged.
The OP's explanation is correct. The word "retard" being "universally regarded as an insult these days" is just straight up not accurate - on that sub or otherwise. I don't count myself as a linguist but have learned "get around in an emergency" in a few languages and have studied the history of language a bit, and it's very common for words to absorb new meanings in different contexts.
As others have pointed out, "retard" is an anagram of "trader".
I'm curious to know what is the meaning trying to be conveyed here which would not be received negatively by people with actual autism or caring for one?
You probably recognise this scene from The Wolf of Wall Street. The text uses “degenerate”, “autist” and so on but the whole text and di Caprio’s manner strongly implies that these are positive, desirable qualities. He uses them as terms of endearment and compliments. The rest of /r/wsb is the same. Context matters.
> I've never once thought, in the WSB subreddit, someone calling another an "autist" or a "retard" was ever intended to harm or disrespect people with those literal issues.
What you said is purely annecdotal and it's a big assumption to think you know other people's thoughts and intents are.
Fact is they are popularizing hate speech to a growing audience and its not ok. Period.
Idiot, stupid, moron, immature -- these terms are all much the same as retard in their origin as a neutral clinical label. These were terms referring to impairments that patients often had through no fault of their own. Why are some of those words still acceptably used negatively in a serious fashion, while others are taboo to be used even affectionately or in a neutral context?
Why is your deliberately negative label of "shit-for-brains" any better?
Words change meaning, my dear egregious etymologist.
By that reasoning every nice woman is an ignorant queen. (Nice comes from latin "ne scius", and queen was the general word for woman)
EDIT: egregious also flipped it's meaning; I clearly meant the old meaning of "remarkably good"
You cannot just pick and choose. We live today and we understand each other based on a shared under ding of what words mean and what they are are "meant to mean". A veiled insult is still an insult, and there are places where it's inappropriate
By virtue of the fact that numerous people disagree with your assessment. Should it not be obvious that you could be living in your own private Idaho sharing a belief that all humans experience your gestalt. People have been finding ways to call both themselves and others mentally handicap since communication began. The irony of the current cultural dialogue is that the real negative experience of an expressive and living word is assumed to negate substantial positive aspects which are well documented by those of good humor and cheer. Your line of reasoning attempts to censure peers much as a child would demand of a playmate when in disagreement.
a) whether it's ok or not to insult person A with terminology that currently insults group B as a side effect. (The topic here would be "to PC or not to PC, have we gone to far with it etc; which is a conversation that can and should be had)
b) whether it's ok, while discussing point "a" above, to insist that some words mean something else than what it's generally understand in good faith, in order to apply ineffective whataboutism ("what about idiot, it used to be a medical term!") to the conversation. To what goal? Claim that you can use "retard" because you can use "idiot"? Let's not play etymological games, if you want to discuss about PC overreach, discuss PC overreach; there are plenty of good arguments to be had against extreme political correctness and censure that don't involve having your readers rolling their eyes at blatant attempts to clutching at straws.
Words change meaning over time. They do not flip over in an instant.
What I believe we're seeing is a society-wide disagreement on the connotations of the word. It will shake itself out, one way or another - but this process used to take decades and was barely noticeable. Now it takes months to years, which is catching people by surprise.
Also: the flip side of "words change meaning" is that, during a period of change, you'll encounter people using a different meaning than you. The arguments favoring the updated weight of the word we're discussing here seem frequently of the form, "$word truly means $my-meaning; surely you do not really believe it means $your-meaning, you're just pretending, and in reality you're just a hateful person who hates $me and $mine" - which is essentially twisting logic and sanity into a pretzel.
(For better or worse, I expect the "revisionists" to win over "conservatives" here, now that the updated connotations have institutional backing of big social media companies, in form of the ban policies.)
I think you're right, society is not homogeneous and language does evolve differently in different niches. Usually this can be observed in smaller groups, which have a strong pressure to "code switch" the dominant language of the society where they live. Minority group members do this all the time, all over the world; often there is a continuum of language/dialect/register that speakers navigate throughout their daily lives.
What's peculiar here is that american society has become polarized, on a rough 50/50% split, along certain cultural norms that affect a small part of language.
Members of group A will not easily concede "code switching" to the vocabulary that is ok for group B because group be is not clearly the majority dominant group.
In this case it's easy, since the word has alternatives, so a member of group A doesn't have to code switch to group-B-speak and say "retard" instead of "idiot".
Furthermore some vocal members of group A will demand that members of group B refrain from using that word on the same ground (there is an easy alternative).
You may be rightfully annoyed that group A is dictating something to you, dear group B member. A meager consolation is that there many minorities in the world that know how you feel (although some may not identify you as a minority since you're not; but that's beside the point, that's how it feels to be one).
Culture is complicated.
Where I live there is a big chunk of local culture that uses blasphemy as casual filler words. Other areas of the country, and a sizeable chunk of the same region, find that utterly repugnant and it cannot be used in polite speech (e.g. people are fired for saying "porco Dio" on television). Locals here just know it when it's ok to use it and when it's not a good idea. Some insist they should be free to stay whatever they want, and "porco Dio" they may well be right! A famous local nobel prize winner (Margherita Hack), when asked "do you use blasphemy in casual speech?" answered "sure, I'm from Tuscany!". I myself fit well in the that local culture.
That said, do I still talk like that when my 4yo child is around? No! I don't want him to talk like that until he can control himself and read the room! Is fixing this bug in the society (the rule against insulting the christian God) a hill I want to die on? Why should I? It's just a word, a fun habit, would it be rational for me to yell at people that I'm free to insult their gods because if freedom of speech or whatever? I'd be looked at as a crazy man because that's what I'd be.
To me people who cling their freedom to utter words that a significant portion of their fellow compatriots find offensive, look exactly like that. Picking a silly battle, and entrenching themselves.
Thanks for elaborating. I mostly agree with what you're saying here (and thanks for including a local example!). That said, I think the following isn't the correct portrayal of the situation:
> To me people who cling their freedom to utter words that a significant portion of their fellow compatriots find offensive, look exactly like that. Picking a silly battle, and entrenching themselves.
We're not talking about people who "cling to their freedom" to say what they want to everyone. We're dealing with a group that used language allowed by its local culture, that suddenly got in the spotlight, and now the rest of the world is trying to pressure them into conforming to the norms used elsewhere. To riff of your example, it's like the wide world suddenly noticed Tuscany is a place, and decided to condemn people living there for insulting the Christian god on a regular basis.
I mention this point because, in my observation, this was a common pattern in on-line communities, particularly around forceful introduction of Codes of Conduct. Outsiders would enter a niche community, take public offense at the local language norms, mobilize a wider Internet crowd, and force the community to change their norms under threat of heaps of negative publicity. To me, this kind of behavior reeks of... colonialism.
That would make sense if communities are indeed isolated and want to stay as such. To continue with our little analogy: while Tuscany (and a few other places) have this peculiar cultural trait, it's as still home for a lot of people who don't recognize themselves in that and they also belong there and need to be respected. Very often that's even the numeric majority of people.
"my grandfather and my father and I all cursed God for breakfast for three generations and now I suddenly have to talk like what this pope-kissing bigots want me to?" ignores that there are pope-kissing bigots in your society, your neighbor may be one, your friendly policemen may be well one, the old man across the street.
But also, there are people who are not pope-kissing bigots and YET behave themselves in a way to not saw division. Your children's school teacher may be one, perhaps cursing in the privacy of her home but giving you a look you if your children talk like little fallen angels.
We're all used to norms. I don't think that's the root cause of us having this conversation in the first place.
There is a group of people who is feeling their position in society has changed under their feet and they are frustrated about that. For them these topics become an identity-glue, something to hold on and to tell their ingroup from outgroups.
But there are also people who just don't like norms and just by coincidence happen to be aligned with whoever is the norm-breaker du jour.
It isn’t that backwards? Retard isn’t a slur against against people with intellectual disabilities, it is a neutral description of people with intellectual disabilities, used to slur your buddy who said something dumb.
the word retard is common parlance in many parts of the world.
But lets not be retarded about this, the point is more that they are using a puritan argument about the word retard in a retarded manner in order to shut down discourse, to try and retard the share price of a stock, which has had absolutely retarded performance lately.
I think it's more like if the name "amvalo" caught on as an insult, which meant someone had shit for brains. Both "amvalo" and "shit for brains" would then hold the same meaning, but only one of those terms would be a needless attack on amvalo.
Yeah it’s all about the 3rd party who gets insulted. I have one friend whose brother is disabled and he’s told me off for using it, which I get. Transgression is part of the appeal of curse words
I agree it’s rude but banning a discord of 50k people just for that is highly sus
Is this not the classic problem with all censorship? Of course the majority (and I) would agree that the language used is not productive, but the question of whether something should be allowed, despite its "goodness" (or lack there of), is much more nuanced. I think an argument can be made that the definition of a public forum has changed.
OP can host his own server and invite his friends and they can say whatever they want there.... but no one has any obligation to give him a venue.
If I have a shitty band and I want to book your venue for a gig, you have every right to say to me "no, your band is too shitty for my venue, I don't want to degrade myself or the public in that way."
There's very little nuance here at all, no one is saying he is not allowed to be a terrible person, they're saying they don't want to be associated with him because he's a terrible person.
You seem to think “retarded” is magnitudes worse than all of the other negative words you used and worth shutting down a community for.
I think most people do not think this is true.
I think moderation is hard and I’m generally in favor of private companies being able to moderate how they want (with something like Urbit being a good alternative for a user owned network).
That said, the word policing around this and wsb in particular (a pretty good natured community really) is pretty off.
I know people who grew up with disabled relatives and I can assure you that insult is among the worse things you could use. Maybe those who use it don't think of themselves as bad persons, and "thats just the way language evolved", but if you use this word it shows that you never reflected on the other persons position. It tells me, you are either not the brightest bulb in the shed, unempathic or just mean.
So yes, depending on the context using retard as an insult is worse than many other things. It might not be to you, but so might have been the n-word a few generations before. Just because a lot of people don't get it, doesn't mean it is okay.
Edit: and now that you know that this insult might cut two ways (because you never know who has a disabled relative), you might also deem it less useful.
This is a topic that won’t make much progress on an Internet forum (too heated, too personal for people).
I think there’s a difference between using the word to target someone who is disabled and using it the way it’s used on wsb.
I also think there’s an irony in calling me “not the brightest bulb” for thinking this, which is a euphemistic way to say dumb (or even the word in question) in a way that’s more targeted than most of the forbidden word’s use on wsb.
I also don’t use “retarded” in writing either, I just don’t see as much issue with it in the wsb context.
Huh? I didn't call you "not the brightest bulb”, that was projection on your part and I am sorry for miscommunicating. What I meant was that these are the thought processes that spring to my mind when I hear someone using these phrases. I also explained a little bit of the underlying thinking on my side. This was my attempt of showing you my side of how I think about this.
Also: just because these thoughts spring to my mind doesn't mean I deterministically from now on think that person is stupid etc. I had my best friends use these words in an unreflected way.
My mistake - after rereading your comment I understand what you were saying.
I agree with you actually - I generally find overuse of profanity in real life leaves a bad impression on me too.
I just think the wsb context is a bit of a different thing and the word use in some contexts is fine.
It's also likely some of this is colored by other related word policing I find to be more stupid, (like saying 'on the other hand' is ableist). I have a general bias towards not policing words.
> I think there’s a difference between using the word to target someone who is disabled and using it the way it’s used on wsb.
Try being a white person and using the n-word in any context at all. Apart from an incredibly narrow set of contexts, it's deeply offensive and will be called out as such. Joking with your other white friends isn't one of the acceptable contexts.
If it's not exactly the same, it's very similar. It's a slur, used by members outside a group, defined by birth, to insult them and discriminate against them.
I'm genuinely hoping the huge number of sophists trying to defend it are doing so because they genuinely feel kind of bad for having done so and don't want to comprehend the moral implications of having used it casually for years.
Op doesn’t own the server, but neither do you as far as I know. You are free to express your opinion, but don’t pretend to speak for everyone. In my book, people who use offensive language are preferable to those who make snap value judgement about human worth based on it. The latter is far more destructive
Exactly, at least they didn’t use “childish” as a slur to condemn this behavior they consider inappropriate. Children have a significant inner world that deserves respect... /s
I'm curious, do people who get upset at this word never learn classical piano? Because, well, you're going to encounter that word quite frequently if you do.
A category of person? Being immature means you behave immature. Scolding someone for behaviour is very different than scolding them for something they can't change about them selves (e.g. like where they have been born).
Usually we also factor in age when calling someone immature. So if someone calls you immature, they mean "immature given your age", so it is certainly different from e.g. hating on all kids, teenagers or old people.
Immature: Not fully formed or developed; not grown [1]
It depends on what sense you use it in, just like the r-word.
> Scolding someone for behaviour is very different than scolding them for something they can't change about them selves (e.g. like where they have been born).
Literally what the r-word controversy is about. Glad you finally get it. Except of course if you think that someone was being scolded for having mental deficiency or specifically an IQ below 70 or something, which I doubt and which I would agree would be just as uncouth as scolding an immature person (in the sense of not being fully developed or grown) for being immature as they can't change that about themselves.
> Literally what the r-word controversy is about. Glad you finally get it.
Huh, are you confusing me with someone here? I argued precisely that in this very thread. As someone who grew up knowing people whose relatives were disabled I think of the r-word (and the German equivalent, English is not my first language) as horrible.
Most people who use it are ignorant to what it means to people who have to live with it every day. Which means it is even worse if one thinks about it and goes like "yeah I understand why they hate it, but I am still gonna use it", because then they are not ignorant but malicious.
How is it okay to you to use "immature" and not the r-word?
Both could refer to a category of person based on something they can't change about them selves, and both are in most cases not used to refer to said category.
> As someone who grew up knowing people whose relatives were disabled I think of the r-word (and the German equivalent, English is not my first language) as horrible.
You think children like being called immature?
> Most people who use it are ignorant to what it means to people who have to live with it every day.
Most people who call other people immature also has long since forgotten the anxiety and troubles that come with being an immature human being.
> "yeah I understand why they hate it, but I am still gonna use it", because then they are not ignorant but malicious.
As long as you feel the same about calling people immature, idiots, or anything else that could also be misinterpreted to refer to category of person based on something they can't change about them selves.
We ban accounts that post like this. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting to HN. You may not feel that you owe the person you're arguing with any better, but you definitely owe this community better—much better—if you're participating here.
Your account has already done this more than once, as well as posting unsubstantively and baitingly in other ways. That's a poor track record for only 11 comments. I don't want to ban you, so please fix this. On HN we want thoughtful, curious conversation. Bashing each other like this is obviously at the far extreme from that. No more of this, please.
