• flashgnash@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s so dumb, I think you have to be going out of your way to get offended by the word crazy

      • Dog@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        dumb

        omg your ableims is amazingly strong i bet u also like genocide and domestic violence omg

          • Dog@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            without opposable thumbs

            omg this is so ableist against ppl who don’t have opposable thumbs

            i just so happen to have both thumbs on the same side what are you saying bro omg omg this is so ableistic

    • TechnoBabble@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That page has to be satire… right?

      The whole “police your language, so there’s no chance anyone could ever be offended” idea is such an oppressive path to a more equal society.

      • eldoom@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean I hope so? One of the top offensive terms was wheelchair bound…

        • Sr Estegosaurio@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Isn’t that just a fact? Like, I get why words such as removed should be avoided due to it being an insult et all, but wheelchair bound? English is a funny language so I might be missing something.

          • Liempong_pagong@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            They want to be called "wheeled individual " as being wheelchair bound denotes that they’re restricted /s

      • The-Weapon-X@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s a path to inequality, not equality. Trying to silence people because you don’t like certain words is a bit of fascism in itself, which these people claim to be against.

        • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Telling people not to use a word, whatever might be said about it being a good idea or not, is not fascism. “Fascism” is a specific social phenomenon that has emerged from the decay of capitalism as reactionary popular movements that seek to offload their poverty onto social minorities. “Taboo words” have existed for about as long as language has existed for an endless variety of reasons. Whether having some words be taboo is good or bad, calling it fascism is completely ridiculous.

      • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is a foolish path, but to call it “oppressive” is to tip your hand that you have no real notion of what oppression is if you’re worried about what amounts to a slightly different set of etiquette on a semi-anonymous internet forum.

        • TechnoBabble@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This isn’t just a problem on the internet. I run into people in real life who think this way, often.

          How many times have comedians or other entertainers come under fire for jokes or other bits they’ve done? It’s a lot. Comedians will all tell you that they can’t perform in places like New York the same way anymore, because half the things they say get booed from the crowd.

          “Why should I care about Dave Chappelle, or anyone else, getting slammed for some offensive thing they said?”

          Because entertainer’s acts are one of the ways that people come to understand the world around them. Their satire is an important tool for democracy to unravel the bullshit that surrounds them. It’s supposed to be the opposite of sterile.

          And if “dirty language” means that you’re okay silencing those guys, along with everyone else, you are engaging in oppression on a far wider scale than you realize.

            • TechnoBabble@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              who care much more about whether what you said is polite than whether it’s actually a good thing to say.

              This is a great point. So much of the talk around equality is nothing more than pandering to gain social approval.

              And when you see people getting their entire careers ruined over saying the wrong thing once, or even something they said decades ago, it just drives people into the political margins.

              People are more interested in attacking their neighbors for “bigotry” than they are in building a more just society.

              I’m putting bigotry in quotes, because the words and ideas that are considered hateful are constantly changing. If someone doesn’t keep up with the latest fashion in acceptable speech, they may suddenly find themselves opposite to an angry mob.

              The social climate surrounding us is not an accident. The way people respond to their perceived political rivals is not an accident. It’s a result of how unprepared our society is in dealing with social media algorithms that promote engagement through division. And a result of bad actors capitalizing on that division to sow greater unrest.

              This isn’t new. The evidence has been on full display for years. And yet, the damage has been done. There’s simply no social appetite for those who support slow and steady (durable and stable) policy reform.

              The recent political climate on “sides” can be summed up with “You’re either 100% with us, no discussion, or you are our enemy” and that’s where true oppression begins.

    • hglman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Blind to ____ / turn a blind eye to ____ / blinded by ignorance/bigotry/etc. / double-blind review Refers to Blind, low-vision, or sight-limited people. Often used as a metaphor. Consider instead: willfully ignorant, deliberately ignoring, turning their back on, overcome by prejudice, doubly anonymous, had every reason to know, feigned ignorance

      Those alternatives dont mean the same thing.

      Double Annoymous seems better