Post #1664086

2026-03-25 10:53 UTC

@rosaaeterna @sleepybisexual Even in the case of using the adjective for an inanimate object, it still relies on drawing a comparison from the object to a disabled person. It still reinforces the societal harm and stigma of the condition and it still gives the word power. Which is to say, it works via the exact same mechanisms that a slur does. Because it's a slur. I don't really understand why you're nitpicking this. Just call a slur a slur and move on.

Replies (1)

@rosaaeterna@transfem.social 2026-03-25 19:49

@Misofist@girlcock.club @sleepybisexual@mk.absturztau.be For whatever reason, my brain likes to get really obsessed about being precisely correct about what a word is and isn't, especially in drawn-out convos like this. Usually to the detriment of the quality of the conversation, I will admit. As such, my brain kinda fixated on the little detail of "When exactly is the adjective a slur in and of itself, versus merely normalizing its use broadly and likely contributing to its use as a slur elsewhere", regardless of the fact that it seems we mostly agree except for whether we feel there's an inherent categorical difference between the adjective as applied to a living being and as applied to an inanimate object or concept. In any event, this has definitely been an interesting conversation! And, to return to the root of the thread: yeah, we really ought not to be just randomly diagnosing evil individuals with mental health conditions, and neither should we inherently associate said conditions with being evil. Some more thesauruses would help everyone, not just in these situations but in other ones as well. Then again, given the state of education in America, expecting anyone to use a thesaurus might be a lost cause over here

Open ##1664087