Intelligenceism

Posted on by

I learned a new word the other day.

Ableist.

At first, I was very nearly offended by the word because I thought it was another term, like ‘differently abled’ or ‘handicapable’. Then I found out what it meant, and I was just annoyed.

Lemme lay out a little context here:

Post Subject: We can ban science from schools now
Posted By: Gremlin

I know there are teachers in general around here; at least one teaches some form of science, right?

This idiot was likely graduated from some form of public school: http://gotards.com/Multiple_head_wounds

Posted By: LisaDroesdov

You know, I’m new here and have no social equity whatsoever, so you’ll probably not take much stock in my opinion, but Dave Hingsburger has a message I consider important: http://davehingsburger.blogspot.com/200 … -girl.html

Yeah, I know speaking up and saying something hurtful isn’t amusing is not really cool on the internet, but I’m just no fun that way.

Posted By: tandabat

Yes, I teach science, but I’ve long since given up arguing with such people. On either side. It is a pointless argument. Much like “uh huh” “nuh huh”.

And that guy probably didn’t do public school. It is much more likely that it was a private school or homeschool. Seriously.

And Lisa, give it up. I had a sister with Downs, got beaten up in Middle school for standing up for that exact word and have decided that if I can have fire retardant clothes, you can be mentally retardant as well.

Yes, I’m feeling a little snarky today. Don’t care.

Posted By: Gremlin
About the argument: the question was never really whether X was factual, mythical, or whatever; it was whether fact can now mean sounds good to me, kinda like the layman’s misunderstanding of theory has demoted the definition to silly guess.

About gotards.com: I’d predicted a bit of an outcry, and wrote a disclaimer about it; I apparently just never made it an obvious link from the rest of the site: http://why.gotards.com

[In the interest of full disclosure: I’ve left out a couple of posts that contained a side-discussion about chat]

Posted By: LisaDroesdov

I know it’s a losing battle to try to educate people who think hate speech isn’t bothersome, but there is a big difference between correctly applying the term “mental retardation” and using the word “retard” as an insult. Would a disclaimer be reason enough to excuse a website full of tales of stupid people being called “GoNiggers?” Really, pick up a dictionary. There are many insults available that aren’t still used daily to cause hurt to people who are among the most vulnerable in society. Brent Martin’s murderers (google brent martin black armband campaign) used similar ableist epithets to excuse their homicidal actions. Tanda, why should I give up on what’s RIGHT, simply because it’s not popular? I don’t need to stfu about something I consider hateful and ignorant (see? Ignorant- an insult both accurate and free of hate speech connotations!) just because you gave up on sticking up for your sister. I’m sorry that you no longer consider helping your sister defend herself from ableism a worthy cause.

And Gremlin, while I do believe you have the best intentions, and I adore Josh Blue (and have met him and his funny pervy PA a few times) who continually pokes fun at his disability, there is a big difference between running the website name by a few people with physical disabilities and actually asking someone with an intellectual disability who’s had that word used hatefully towards them if it bothers them.

Reclamation of language does happen- see: Queer. But it should start with the people who were hurt by those words. When people with intellectual disabilities start wearing “retard” as a badge of honor, fab. Until then, news flash: Some people on the internet actually aren’t soulless shells like you find on 4chan.

Anyway, it’s been fun, guys, but I figured out what I wanted to know- there’s nowhere in town right now to take my curious coworker to see y’all do Rocky Horror- so, peace, love, and thanks for all the fish.

Posted By: Chewy

Lisa, there is one thing you have to understand about many of the people here (especially Grem), and that is Political Correctness isn’t common place on this forum. There are many people out there who want the words Fag, Retard, Nigger, Spick, Redneck, Chink, etc… banned because they ‘offend’ people, we aren’t those people. We have plenty of all that come here, and to our show, and we aren’t going to do much (if any) censorship here. It’s cool that you won’t use ‘retard’ to describe anyone who isn’t mentally handicapped, but frankly there are many of us around here that would, and do.

If you are looking for political correctness, this is definately the wrong place to look.

Keep in touch with us on here, we will hopefully have a home soon, k?

Posted By: tandabat

LisaDroesdov wrote:
I’m sorry that you no longer consider helping your sister defend herself from ableism a worthy cause.

Yeah well, it’s hard to defend someone that’s DEAD.

…hmm…yup, still snarky. Still don’t care.

Posted By: Gebus Krost

“It’s not the word itself, but the censorship of the word that gives it its power.”
–Lenny Bruce

Posted By: Gremlin
LisaDroesdov wrote:
Really, pick up a dictionary. There are many insults available that aren’t still used daily to cause hurt to people who are among the most vulnerable in society. Brent Martin’s murderers (google brent martin black armband campaign) used similar ableist epithets to excuse their homicidal actions.

If you think you know an English word I’m not aware of: hit me.

If you think that calling someone a ‘tard is tantamount to waging some halfassed genocide, then you’ve got a point: ‘tard isn’t a strong enough word.

LisaDroesdov wrote:
there is a big difference between running the website name by a few people with physical disabilities and actually asking someone with an intellectual disability who’s had that word used hatefully towards them if it bothers them.

I’ll grant that I didn’t build a focusgroup of people with IQs of twenty to ask whether they regarded ableist epithets as opprobriums; I guess I’m not evil enough to hit ‘tards with concepts that advanced, just to prove a point.

Posted By: Annie
wow. I’ve never seen one of these posts degenerate quite so quickly.

Let me say something overused, but still apt: arguing on the internet is like being in the special Olympics. even if you win, you’re still retarded.

And my addendum: Arguing with gremlin is like signing retards up for the normal Olympics. You can not win, and you’re still retarded.

So, I’ve got this new word. ‘Ableist’. As it turns out, it means the same thing as my other new word for the day — ‘disableist’. And the words come with a bonus fight over which word should be used…but I don’t really care about that right now.

What I care about is the word, and what it means. And the stupidity.

First, the word….

Ableist — and ‘disableist’, apparently — means ‘a person who discriminates against people with disabilites’.

…which is kinda stupid. Two different words, meaning the same thing? I’d argue that an ‘ableist’ would be, say, a person in a wheelchair, or a blind person, who discriminates against people who can walk, or can see. But that’s just what would make sense to me. Because they really are two different words.

On the subject of different words, there’s LisaDroesdov’s posts.

Posted By: LisaDroesdov

You know, I’m new here and have no social equity whatsoever, so you’ll probably not take much stock in my opinion, but Dave Hingsburger has a message I consider important: http://davehingsburger.blogspot.com/200 … -girl.html

Yeah, I know speaking up and saying something hurtful isn’t amusing is not really cool on the internet, but I’m just no fun that way.

Social equity has very little to do with how much anothers’ opinions are worth. Especially when anothers’ opinions are being supported by an article about the word ‘retard’, not ‘gotard’.

…and especially when that article is all full of the word ‘retard’ being censored like ‘fuck’ and ‘shit’. Which, I’ll admit, bugs me. It’s as if a person assumes that the reader is too…deficient – perhaps even too differently abled — to handle the word, so they have to protect the reader from it by misspelling it, or blocking out certain letters.

Hey, don’t we have a word for that?

Posted By: LisaDroesdov

I know it’s a losing battle to try to educate people who think hate speech isn’t bothersome,

Assuming what others think is…not good. I don’t remember seeing anyone in that thread saying anything about hate speech, let alone ‘hate speech isn’t bothersome’. Given that ‘hate speech’ is speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, class, occupation, or political views, I don’t see why the term is being flung into this conversation…except maybe to evoke a desired emotional response.

but there is a big difference between correctly applying the term “mental retardation” and using the word “retard” as an insult.

And there’s a big difference between ‘retard’ and ‘gotard’.

Would a disclaimer be reason enough to excuse a website full of tales of stupid people being called “GoNiggers?”

Actually, yes, it would. But you’ve completely missed something here. Like the fact that ‘gotard’ is a word. ‘Goniggers’ is not. The website is not ‘Go! Tards!’ or anything of the sort, it’s ‘gotards’.

I suppose that expecting a person to understand this after it’s already been explained to them a number of times is ‘ableist’ somehow. Or perhaps ‘ignorantist’. Maybe I do discriminate against people who willfully remain ignorant of some things.

Really, pick up a dictionary. There are many insults available that aren’t still used daily to cause hurt to people who are among the most vulnerable in society.

Wait, what?

So it’s okay to use an insult, as long as it’s not meant to hurt this specific group of people?

Brent Martin’s murderers (google brent martin black armband campaign) used similar ableist epithets to excuse their homicidal actions.

Is this a stock phrase that all activists are issued to defend their position? Seriously, I can change a few words, and make it look like Jack Thompson said this….

Tanda, why should I give up on what’s RIGHT, simply because it’s not popular? I don’t need to stfu about something I consider hateful and ignorant (see? Ignorant- an insult both accurate and free of hate speech connotations!) just because you gave up on sticking up for your sister. I’m sorry that you no longer consider helping your sister defend herself from ableism a worthy cause.

Yes, I see now. So hate speech is okay so long as it’s hate speech you agree with. The ignorant are people, too!

Or maybe not. Nevermind. The ignorant aren’t people. You fucking ignorant cow.

…wait, no, that’s hateful toward cows, isn’t it? Maybe I should just censor everything – except, no. Then I might offend someone who can somehow find words in the random pattern of characters I type out.

See, the problem with this sort of soft censorship is that it really is a slippery slope. By-and-by, there’s nothing left that’s safe to say, and there’s naught to be done about it.

Personally, I would prefer that people become a bit thicker skinned. The words have no power when you’re not afraid of them. An unloaded gun can still be used to club someone to death, but a word that’s no longer feared is just a word.

Trite, but true.

And Gremlin, while I do believe you have the best intentions, and I adore Josh Blue (and have met him and his funny pervy PA a few times) who continually pokes fun at his disability, there is a big difference between running the website name by a few people with physical disabilities and actually asking someone with an intellectual disability who’s had that word used hatefully towards them if it bothers them.

Gremlin? Having the best intentions? Ha.

And way to go on that whole belittling the experiences of david_darkeyes.

Oh, wait, I read that wrong. ‘If it bothers them.’ Yes, I suppose one should stack their research group with people who are biased. Wait, no, that’s wrong, isn’t it?

Reclamation of language does happen- see: Queer. But it should start with the people who were hurt by those words.

I’ve known gotards who’ve called themselves gotards. And I’ve known queers who are offended by the term ‘queer’. So perhaps Lisa here should stop flinging the word ‘queer’ around with such impunity….

When people with intellectual disabilities start wearing “retard” as a badge of honor, fab.

Which is why nobody’s offended by ‘nigger’ now. Oh, wait….

Until then, news flash: Some people on the internet actually aren’t soulless shells like you find on 4chan.

Newsflash: people on 4chan aren’t soulless shells. How channist of you. Or would that be ‘soulist’.

I think that there are a lot of disabled people out there who would be offended by this shit. To me, the idea that the world needs to be more ‘inclusive’ because people are ‘different’ is far more insulting than a couple of words. Especially since it’s all about the people who can’t walk, see, or hear. Apparently, not being able to, say, stand the sunlight isn’t a ‘disability’. I suppose it’s all just general teenaged silliness, and it’s just fine to not accomodate that minor handful of people, right? And then there’s the people with mental health issues – agoraphobes and people with panic disorders. I don’t see a lot of rushing around to accomodate them, either. So this whole ableism thing? It’s a little more offensive than a word – especially this word that this individual obviously misunderstood.

What’s a word for someone who doesn’t like stupid, emotional twits who are so guilt-ridden by their lack of disability that they have to lash out and pretend that their patronizing bullshit is somehow less hurtful overall than a few words? We need a word for that, because I feel like I deserve to have a name to be called when I come down against these individuals.

And if you think I don’t deserve one, then you’re just a wordist.

This entry was posted in Rants and tagged , , , , , .

Go on, say something....