And another post with the same eugenicist slur.
Most of you would probably know better than to use ethnic slurs to insult people [except Vandal and Philistine, for some awful reason], and gender-based slurs, but many of you persist in using ableist and eugenicist slurs used to justify forced sterilization campaigns, words such as “moron” and “imbecile,” to insult people.
Intent isn’t magic, and I think one effect is to normalize scorn towards disabled people.
Preach.
There’s a question on the dating website OKCupid:
Which would do more to improve the world:
- Fewer stupid people
Anyone who chooses either of the first two is abhorrent to me.
It’s a eugenics question; no ifs, ands, or buts about it. If you answer either of the first two, you’re literally implying that some people have less of a right to live than others, due to not thinking or not looking like you do.
And, to recycle a previous rant: If you choose to use a pejorative as an insult, then in order for it to be an insult to the person you’re directing it towards, it also has to be an insult at the people who would normally be described that way. So if you insult a person by calling them “stupid, idiot, moron, imbecile,” or something to that effect, you’re saying that a person’s value comes down to their intelligence. You’re dehumanizing the people who, often through circumstances completely out of their control, just don’t grasp certain concepts the same way “smarter” people do (although they may grasp other concepts better, but those concepts aren’t considered as important, because they aren’t any of the three Rs).
Be very careful what insults you use, because they say a lot more about you than they do about the person you’re insulting.
Yes, the most famous thing about Chesterfield was an accident caused by inferior materials.
How do you feel about “bastard”?
So it’s quite okay to insult people as long as you’re doing it right?
I always thought insulting people was dehumanizing them in the first place…
We’re, sadly, never going to get to a place where we don’t insult reach other at all. I myself, not usually one for insults, enjoy referring to Donald Trump as forty gallons of bullshit poured into a thirty-gallon barrel.
My point isn’t that you should be careful of dehumanizing a person by insulting him (although you really should). My point is that you should be careful of dehumanizing a whole group of people in an attempt to insult one person.
And — for an insult is, as you say, dehumanizing in its very nature — that the terms that you use as insults say a lot about which people you already think of as “less than human.”
Providing snarky, illogical and moronic justifications for being a reverse grammar snob: Acceptable.
Criticising said commentary: Nawty.
I miss Antinous. Discussion was robust back then. Now the edges have been shaved off, this place allows discussion about as robust as exchanging pleasantries about the weather.
Furthermore I was pretty happy to just air my grievances here, but when people’s commentary is automatically banned it kinda makes me wanna go and tell her myself. Is it better for my vitriol to be pointed right at the source? Because that’s what banning discussion encourages.
She should stick to her expertise: not English language.
I can’t recall reading any post in this thread as vitriolic as yours. Still, I wouldn’t have removed it. I’m OK to some extent with angry people revealing themselves, however unwittingly.
@Melizmatic kicked off this thread with proud admittance of being a grammar snob. But note her tact and lightheartedness about it. She’s not the stereotypical grammar snob. Angry and condescending ones are.
To be fair, you seemed pretty irate, almost instantly.
(Hence my little joke about you being “all streamed up.”)
At the end of the day, I also don’t agree with the Guardian reporter, but neither am I too upset about her opinion.
Because I know it’s just that; a mere opinion… and considering which publication she is employed by, it’s one that doesn’t actually seem to hold much water.
I am very civil when people are civil. When people try to change the conversation based on ignorance (as Chalabi is doing) and stupid talking points which are easily dismissed (as i did) and then attack all people who are defending a system against dilution by morons, irrespective of our purpose, those people can get vitriol level 11.
She is generalising about all people who correct grammar, in all situations. She started throwing stones and so it’s rather pathetic to defend her against legitimate criticism. There’s no rule saying I have to be nice, especially when she set the tone.
If i were angry I would’ve taken my complaints directly to her on twitter, and I am extremely self-aware… so dont tell me what im doing unwittingly, thanks.
The Guardian is a great publication. I have no idea what you’re talking about.
She’s a data scientist. Her views on grammar are irrelevant.
Also re: your joke - they’ve all been made before 
(all steamed up, pot calling the kettle black, etc)
Civility is staying cool even when the other person isn’t. Name-calling and condescension are not civil. If you’re unaware of this, then yeah, you kinda are doing it unwittingly. And if you are aware of it, then you either have a strange definition of civility or…
…well, I’ll leave that unsaid. Civility and all.
From what I understand the Guardian has a history of grammatical and spelling errors in its content.
That makes her stance on this issue rather ironic.
Her views about grammar are irrelevant to me, regardless to what her profession is; she doesn’t sign my paycheck, or have any other meaningful impact on my life.
So what she thinks doesn’t actually matter, as far as I am concerned.
“That’s liberation…”
Yeah, I was going for self-amusement, not originality.
As long as I’m entertained that’s what matters to me.
Uh, no… but feel free to write your own dictionary.
Civility: formal politeness and courtesy in behaviour or speech. (n)
Name-calling and condescension are not civil.
Maybe she shouldn’t have started it?
you kinda are doing it unwittingly.
Your original comment suggested I was exposing my anger unwittingly. Now it’s switched to me being uncivil unwittingly. Try to make consistent, salient arguments please.
That’s not my experience and they break stories that others are too scared/careful to break which is the only meaningful mark of good journalism in my book.
I’ve also noticed a history of comments complaining about supposed grammatical errors which aren’t.
Got it. You name-called and condescended on purpose. Because she started it.
Mm-kay.
Good, because I was speaking from my experience, not yours.
I’m done addressing the subject now; this thread ceased to be interesting to me days ago; literally.
Ta.
II have to nicely say, I’m not sure what the fuss is on this thread is all about. On one hand, its good to use proper grammar if your trying to impress people that you need to. On the other hand, if you’re just talking between friends it doesn’t matter a hole lot. If I was to use certain words and phrases wrong most people wouldn’t even notice of its spoken. When people write it less informal and you have to limit errors the best you can. All of this is between you and I.
Edit: fixed some typos and grammatical errors
