this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2025
790 points (94.9% liked)
Political Memes
1831 readers
1100 users here now
Non political memes: !memes@sopuli.xyz
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
1.) Your sole focus is on how hurtful the insult is to the target, fully ignoring the effect on the people being used as an insult. That's thoughtless at best.
2.) You don't get to DARVO people calling out the insult for "viewing it as an insult". It's blatantly obvious what your intent was. Stop trying to victim-blame.
3.) If there's really "nothing wrong with [insert characteristic used as an insult]", then why are you using it as an insult? And the target finding it insulting isn't a valid reason (see point 1).
4.)
Retaking a slur for your community isn't remotely the same as an outsider trying to justify using it as an insult, "but in a good way". There is no excuse for using a person's identity as an insult. Full stop.
DARVO is a serious tactic used by serious abusers to ruin the lives of their victims. I don't think this shitshow of a thread nor the efficacy of top-level's shitheaddery are serious enough to warrant such a serious word. I think when the word DARVO is used, everyone should sit down and think very carefully about the evidence being presented. It shouldn't be used as a small part of a larger rant. It should be one of those words that stops a conversation in its tracks, like a safeword.
Ever hear of the adage paraphrased in many forms, "Words only have power if you let them"?
The intent is to let these words have power against the psychopaths. After all, they're the ones who believe they're insults. That's dishing back what they dish out.
By contrast, the intent is to equip those vulnerable groups targeted by said attacks with the awareness to nullify their power against them; or if anything, to take pride. For example, I'm short; I've been called short and variations thereof. Idgaf. I guess you'd call that retaking the slur back?). But you know who I bet really hates being called short? Putin. In a way, every vulnerable group should take back the slur. I proudly wear bleeding heart hippie tree hugger woke sjw white knight with a badge of honor, after all.
Therein lies the difference. I'll be the first to call out assholes who use such slurs in effort to attack truly vulnerable people, however.
Did you just call short and variations a slur?
No? I was obviously referring to other derogatory terms like midget, napoleon complex, etc.
Were you? Were you obviously referring to other derogatory terms? Also, midget and napoleon complex are not even remotely in the same category.
Sorry, are you victim-blaming here?
Sure sounds like that's not for you to decide; that is of course, if you're taking the opposing position to mine in this thread.
Interesting for you to decide, oh great arbiter. How convenient.
Let's pause for a moment. I wanna make sure you're saying what I think you're saying because I refuse to believe someone can be this stupid. Are you saying that being short and having the medical condition known as dwarfism is the same thing?
No, I'm saying that the utilization the slur midget against people who ARE short is still derogatory toward a person's characteristics that are outside of their control, whether they are subject to dwarfism or simply below-average in height.
But let's pause here for a moment. I wanna make sure you're hyper-focusing on what I think you're hyper-focusing on because I refuse to believe someone can be this ignorant as to ignore what I'm actually saying. Are you actually, truly being transfixed on whether we can insult people based on height versus dwarfism while ignoring the broader argument I am making? In your own words, can you please describe what that broader argument is so that I understand you get it? Consider this a "read-back."
And you somehow believe those affected by using the word midget to insult short people are short people? You cannot be this stupid. You just can't.
I refuse to argue with people this lazy, having critical-thinking deficits, and/or stoned.
Good day.
You think you can argue with me. Funny.
Evidently not. Your response to being told that the insults are still hurtful to the disparaged group is, "If it upsets you, that's your fault." And your anecdotal "evidence" of how you feel about being insulted in one way is not applicable to every insult ever. You're behaving no different than the people you claim to oppose, just using the presumed righteousness of hurting them to justify hurting others.
Please indicate in this thread where either I or you directly used such discussed words as a slur against the very people the slur was wrought from — as in being the target or object of the sentence.
One chance.
Let's say you call someone a mouth-breather as an insult. My nose being fucked up is already not my fault, but as an extra fun cherry-on-top, it got that way from serial childhood abuse. I do not appreciate you using that attribute as an insult. I like it when moderators remove such posts.
Saying stuff like "words only have power of you let them" is false and blames the victim. When you insult a group of people, you are signaling to the entire social group that they are lesser. It does not matter if the victim (intentional or otherwise) considers themselves lesser because the larger social group determines how they will be treated. "It is okay to insult this person," is what you're saying.
To go back to your N-word analogy, do you think it's okay for me to call black conservatives the N-word because I know it will upset them? After all, I don't hate black people, but they certainly seem to. Or do you think that speaking that way promotes the use of a slur as an insult?
To Blame has a very specific dictionary definition. Blaming the victim... For what?
How am I "blaming" you If I were to use mouth-breather against a red hat loser or nazi — how is that blaming someone else for literally having a physiological issue that pertains to mouth-breathing? Did I ever state that it was your fault for having to breathe through the mouth? If I did, then that would be victim-blaming. Moreover, does that mean we cannot speak on any uncomfortable topic that may exert an undue trigger for any bystander reading? E.g., Maybe I raise the topic of cancer to talk about, but then someone says, "Hey, you're victim-blaming me because you brought up cancer and that makes me uncomfortable because my mom just died from that and I don't want to see those words online!"? Does that mean we can never discuss any topic or use any word that may be an emotional trigger for someone in an edge-case circumstance?
To your question on the N-word, no, probably not. I thought about this a bit and I perceive certain words that at least in modern terms have etymological origins or modern use to be strictly FOR slurs. That is, I don't use the homophobic f-word slur, or N-Word in any context because I think they ARE inherently loaded terms. But being short? Breathing through the mouth? Missing a chromosome? I defend these vulnerable group every single day against asshole bigots of the right. The slur only works against bigots because they perceive it as a slur in the first place. I don't. You don't. That's what matters.
Now instead of the f-word, what I might say to a machismo red-hatted straight guy to poke at their own macho-man complex, "Wow, buddy, that sounds pretty gay!"
Notice that I don't believe the underlying term in this case is a slur because that's a perfectly normal state of being, but I know they do, and that it would strike at their ego.
That said, I am very sorry for you experienced that. Anyone who mocks you directly for that is 100% a piece of shit.
Edit: Additional question: is it then wrong to say that either Biden or Trump is old and senile? Suffering from dementia because other people may have dementia or because they know someone who has dementia?
Anyone who uses their disability to mock anyone is a piece of shit.
There, I fixed it for you.
I understand you currently believe this — but that's kind of the heart and point of contention in our discussion now, is it not? You're just reiterating what has already been stated as the opposing side. I am aware.
Thoughts on the rest of my comment, or are you going just for low-hanging fruit?
Low-hanging fruit, others have tried to educate you yet you still cling to your very wrong belief, I just wanted to add to their voices.
Your fallacy is: Ad Populum. Go to a conservative sub, and you'll be in the minority and many users will say the same to you. Does that mean you're wrong? If all I get are mostly low-hanging fruit responses, that's not very convincing.
Oh you got me there! Except... Please point where I actually said "we're more numerous so we must be right"... Adding my voice that I know to be right to others that I also know to be right is not that.
You're trying so hard to justify using ableist, bigoted slurs. There's no justification for them, full stop.
Now I'm getting out of this convo as I know it will go nowhere, you're stuck on your position, maybe viewing an admission of being wrong as weakness or something like that. Or you're a troll. Either way, blocking you, bye!
Your inability value the damage done outside of a "targeted" insult is exactly what I'm talking about. You can victim blame as much as you want, and add as many qualifiers about what "really" counts as harmful from your singular viewpoint. It all just shows how little you care about those you claim you would defend.
So you couldn't find an example. Okay. Then provided the vast deflection of my myriad points, I will simply reiterate that which was deflected, “Words only have power if you let them."
By your logic, even when "taking back" a slur from a community, are they not trampling and speaking over those others who are less comfortable with its meaning — aka, "victim-blaming" as you say...? Let's find some consistency here at the very least, shall we?
Demanding evidence that you have or haven't broken your own standards doesn't refute my point that those standards are insufficient, which I have been quite consistent on.
It wasn't "deflected". It was outright rejected and called out for the victim blaming that it is.
Then I suppose we're at an impasse because I "outright reject" the unsubstantiated accusation claim that this is victim-blaming — both by definition of the verb, "to blame," and given my unchallenged aforementioned argument that the target is what matters, and now finally by the admission that one is choosing to blindly reject without merit the notion that, "Words only have power if you let them."
I offered you the opportunity to change my view; you failed to make a compelling case.
Have a great day.
Funny how it's on everyone else to convince you not to be hurtful. That it's "my" failure that you couldn't be swayed to be considerate of others, which was absolutely not my intent. Your stance was clear from the very beginning. I'm just hear to point it out.
In a thread whose comment section is full of opinions, I stated my own. I offered an open invitation to change my view. You clearly disagreed and intended to change my view. However, I am not obligated to change it if I remain unconvinced. That's not "funny," that was just what you signed up for when you responded and accepted my invitation.
You then reassert a Circular Reasoning / Begging The Question fallacy because you are asserting a premise that has yet to be established in our argument — that is your belief that I apparently am being hurtful, but has not been established in the domain of discourse. Of course you are free to believe that. But how dare one presumes on my intentions to harm the vulnerable. Are you putting words in my mouth, too?
I will cede on one aspect: It's not necessarily your "failure," insofar as the invitation to change my view. It could be one side or both side's failure to have a productive discussion in the mutual pursuit of truth. However, I am open to accepting that it is my failure to have fully understood your argument. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong; nor last.