this post was submitted on 14 Sep 2025
768 points (94.8% liked)
Political Memes
1831 readers
1266 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
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.
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.