• glimse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 days ago

    A fuckin CENSORED greentext? Really? Never thought I’d see the day 4chan got whitewashed lol

    • Zwiebel@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      Assuming OOP said ‘retarded’, that doesn’t fit their message well does it?

        • AlexisFR@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 days ago

          There is nothing wrong with the word “retard”, don’t let corporations push their double speak.

          • Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            9 days ago

            Are the corporations in the room with us now?

            It was used and is used to cause harm to vulnerable people. It is the last and likely immortalized step of this particular euphemism treadmill.

            The treadmill stopped here. There is no one-size-fits-all diagnosis to replace “mental retardation” because that was a terrible diagnosis to begin with. That’s why something is wrong with the word. The people whose lives were ground up beneath the turning of the wheels that powered that euphemism treadmill are still alive today.

            Yes, if the treadmill had continued for one more step before we stopped using such horribly broad diagnosis criteria to lump together vulnerable people with wildly different needs, the word would lose its weight and implications.

            Whatever diagnosis that might have replaced it would be regarded with the same moral repugnance as this word is today, and this word would be used as casually and apathetically as we use the word “idiot” - because we can be reasonably certain that nobody in the room has any memories of themselves or someone they love being excluded, humiliated, and diagnosed by the word “idiot”.

            Will other diagnostic terms be weaponized? Certainly. Will they ever be as prevalent or as ignorant in their origin and usage? Unlikely. I certainly hope not. And each new vernacular replacement is more awkward and holds less power than the last. That’s why you’re not here defending any term that came after this one. They were never elevated to a shared identity and a humiliating slur. They were never promoted to the public consciousness the way “retard” once was.

            Not by corporations. By children abandoned and abused by the system who survived to become adults, and by the people that witnessed this abuse and worked to change it. By doctors, and parents, and peers, some who used the word in good faith and watched helplessly as it became twisted, and others who used the word from a place of ignorance and later learned how much harm could be done by a simple word. By a diagnostic label that was never enough to even describe the people it hurt, let alone help them.

            The treadmill stopped. It’s okay. You can join the rest of the world and step off of it now, knowing that we are better equipped to understand and protect our most vulnerable, while also knowing that there is still much more work to be done.

            • AlexisFR@jlai.lu
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 days ago

              I certainly did learn something out of this!

              I’ll not use that word this way anymore, I understand more now.

          • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 days ago

            I’ve grappled with “retard” & “bitch” (made a thread about it a couple months ago too, trying to form/reform my opinion).

            Clearly we have to be careful with any messages industry pushes. With that said -

            What do you think about these statements from Special Olympians?

            CC: @[email protected]

            • AlexisFR@jlai.lu
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 days ago

              That is true, if you use it against disabled poeple. I only use it against moronic able poeple who should know better.

            • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 days ago

              I appreciate your good faith response. I see and empathize with your perspective. To play devil’s advocate, you can’t control whether a group of people decide, out of the blue, to internalize hurtful language that isn’t aimed at them. The N-word had a very specific target and a very cruel purpose. The word “retard” did not. It basically has the same vernacular trajectory as “moron,” or “idiot.” From medical diagnosis to non-specific pejorative. Why aren’t those synonyms verboten? Because people like to make things about themselves.

              • Cypher@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                11 days ago

                I literally had an argument with @[email protected] about this a while back where he declared retard as against sub rules but then continued to call the poster a moron. They’re the same fucking word from different time periods on the treadmill of what is politically correct.

                Either both are slurs that shouldn’t be used or both are acceptable.

                • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 days ago

                  They’re the same fucking word from different time periods on the treadmill of what is politically correct.

                  Either both are slurs that shouldn’t be used or both are acceptable.

                  That’s not how language works, and unless you go around calling Black folk ‘colored’, you understand that in other contexts. What words are acceptable and what connotations they have change with time and usage.

            • Cypher@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 days ago

              To break down my response to this

              The R-word is EXCLUSIVE

              There are people with high intelligence and those with low intelligence, bandying about with different words will never change that. Intelligence is crucial in social, economic and evolutionary terms. They are correct no one would ever want to be lacking in intelligence because it would only make life worse. There will always be a need for a word to describe someone of lower intellect, or describe an argument or position as being thoughtless, in order to dismiss the person or idea as quickly as possible with as little engagement possible. Preferably while using small words so they understand.

              You can still say they have a room temperature IQ but they might not get the meaning…

              We are someone that is not your kind.

              I agree, and I would not want someone with an IQ of 70 to be in the military, or to be a teacher, or a doctor, as each of those scenarios would likely result in disaster not just for the 70 IQ individual but for everyone impacted by them.

              Everyone has a gift

              Yea no. This “everyone is special” bullshit just isn’t how the world works. The universe doesn’t care about you, the world is a harsh place where the unfit died early deaths until really intelligent people worked out how to increase food production, developed medicines, surgeries and hygiene.

              Retard equates intellectual disability with being DUMB or STUPID

              You only need to look up the etymology and history of clinical usage of both dumb and stupid to realise they were used to describe the same groups of people and behaviours during different time periods. More bullshit on the treadmill.

              I refuse to censor the word retard while moron, stupid, dumb and idiot are considered fine. To censor a synonym of acceptable words, is to put it bluntly, fucking retarded.

              • Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                10 days ago

                Copying most of my response to a similar line of reasoning elsewhere in this thread - The word was used as a humiliating slur against a vulnerable group of people. This is indisputable fact. It is a word specifically referring to a group of people, and it was used against that group of people to belittle, demean, and humiliate them.

                It was also used as a diagnostic criteria. That history doesn’t change the context for the better - it makes the whole story worse. It was a bad diagnostic criteria. Psychology, psychiatry, and neurology are young fields of study that are going through some serious growing pains - in this case, the usage of overly broad umbrella categorizations of deeply nuanced and complex disorders.

                People will always use words to cause harm. But have you noticed the thing that’s missing in everyone’s misguided defense of this word? How everyone complains about “what’s next?” when they refer to idiot, imbecile, and moron?

                Nothing’s next. This particular euphemism treadmill appears to have stopped on the word “retard”. Why? Because the fields of psychology, psychiatry, and neurology are outgrowing their old habits, and taking society with them.

                We understand these disorders better now. We’re trying to find ways to treat them. We’re diving deep into all the intricate little details about symptoms, and causes, and care, and prognosis.

                We don’t have one broad catch-all term like “retard”. We have dozens if not hundreds of diagnoses to replace it. And each “new” vernacular replacement-of-the-week is more awkward than the last and doesn’t gain remotely the popularity or ubiquitousness of its predecessor.

                The euphemism treadmill stopped. Other terms will be used, and weaponized, and cause harm. But they’ll never be used by everyone, everywhere the way the word “retard” once was, nor will they ever be used in quite the same way. They will never carry that same weight of shared, mistreated identity. And because of that it will be immortalized - because it was used as a diagnosis and as a humiliating slur by the generations that began to understand the truth. That society has treated our most vulnerable populations so unbelievably bad for so, so long, and we can do better.

                The thing is, you’re not entirely wrong in your reasoning. It is just a word. If the treadmill had continued for another generation, and a new word had successfully replaced it, it probably wouldn’t be a slur. It might be forever used as casually and as apathetically as we use terms like “idiot” and “imbecile” and lose most of its weight and implications (words, by the way, that I’m not defending usage of - I’m just not elevating them to the morally repugnant status of slur).

                But that didn’t happen. This word still holds a terrible number of memories for the living. And it doesn’t need to survive. Plenty of incredible insults have died out from everyday usage for literally no good reason - language just evolves constantly over time. What’s the harm in letting this one die for plenty of very good reasons?

                You - any of you reading this, anyone who needs to hear this - you don’t need to die on this hill with this word. It continues to wither away, and there’s genuinely no personal or societal value in trying to keep it in use. No history needs to be preserved in your vernacular, and certainly not such a troubled history.

                No one is trying to take away your speech. No one is coming for your words. But you will upset people with your words throughout your life. You’ll upset people with the truth, and you’ll upset people with lies. You’ll upset people with words carefully chosen, and you’ll upset people with off-the-cuff remarks.

                But in this case, you will upset people by carelessly using words that carry painful memories. You are not being bold or rebellious. You are not standing proudly against some nebulous tide of societal overcorrection for past mistakes. This is not some last stand for sanity in a world gone mad. There are many places to make that stand, many worthy causes to fight for - this isn’t one of them.

                You’re just using the last word that many people remember being used for cruelty and humiliation against a vulnerable group of people. What is that worth, to you? What makes the word hold such value, that you would use it even though it upsets people?

                Do you use it because it upsets people? Why? What purpose does that serve? Do you honestly think that this word - of all words - will provide some personal or societal benefit? Will you change the future for the better by using it?

                • Cypher@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 days ago

                  The word was used as a humiliating slur against a vulnerable group of people. This is indisputable fact. It is a word specifically referring to a group of people, and it was used against that group of people to belittle, demean, and humiliate them.

                  Not something I have disputed, in fact I have made this point repeatedly about the word moron.

                  The euphemism treadmill stopped.

                  There will always be a need in language to describe people who are less intellectually capable so I absolutely disagree with this claim. Retard is simply still the word of choice despite efforts to censor its usage.

                  No one is trying to take away your speech. No one is coming for your words.

                  Censoring speech is exactly what you’ve claimed isn’t happening, yet it is happening and you are making an argument for the censorship of a word.

                  Do you use it because it upsets people?

                  Yes. Because I clearly don’t want to have to waste my time on people who are, or are acting, retarded.

  • Valorie12@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 days ago

    The first time I ran into the KKK in the woods, I was really glad I had a stick of dynamite on me.

  • hactar42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 days ago

    I love the fact that the slave owner is not only the one unarmed person you don’t lose honor for killing, but you actually gain honor for killing him.

  • noxet@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 days ago

    And somehow this game is never part of the examples that some bigots are listing when talking about woke games.

    Similarly with Cyberpunk 2077 and Baldur’s Gate 3. Both of those games are gay as fuck.

  • IceFoxX@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    Much people forget before black slavery there was white slavery… So its just good if there is none slavery.

    • threeganzi@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 days ago

      Are you saying white slavery was as systemic and width spread as black slavery in America? If so I’ve missed a big part of the American slave history.

      • IceFoxX@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 days ago

        No, I’m just saying what I wrote. It is not meant to be an equality or anything else but just a statement that it is good without any slavery no matter what origin, skin color and (even if I am an atheist and despise any religion) religious affiliation. It was also not referring to Americans but a general statement.

        • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 days ago

          what is it that drives the desperate need you have to bring it up in this context?

          the vast majority of people who know history know about indentured servitude. but it’s a footnote compared the the millions of people systematically stolen (not indentured, note), taken to another part of the planet and bred for labor.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_slaves_myth

          • IceFoxX@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 days ago

            Yes ok then say that you are happy that slavery of black people has stopped and that you don’t care about any other form of slavery. < That’s what the statement suggests because you’re not talking about slavery in general but explicitly about black slaves…

            • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 days ago

              that’s what the statement suggests because you’re not talking about slavery in general but explicitly about black slaves…

              pfft that’s the most 13-year old racist edgelord shit I’ve heard in ages.

              No, that’s not what that says, you silly twat, lol… ok so there’s this thing called context. And the context in which slavery was introduced, in this thread, was regarding the protagonist in the game going after slavery supporters.

              AND YOU HAD TO FUCKIN’ CHIME IN BUT BUT NOT ALL SLAVES-

              motherfucking couldn’t resist the urge. So answer the fucking question: what is it, inside you, that is so desperate that you need to reply with that specious bullshit?

              TAKEN IN THE CONTEXT OF RDR2, the history of the US, it’s referring to the human stain of racists enslaving black people for their entire lives, and the lives of their children in perpetuity. a very different thing compared to what irish indentured servants experienced.

              • IceFoxX@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                9 days ago

                The nice thing is that even population groups elsewhere on earth who never had anything to do with slavery condemn all slavery and also that it is good if slavery is generally ended. Without differentiating whether black or white because slavery is to be despised whether black or white. Do you think a black slave would have sought a difference to a white slave and vice versa? No…after all, both would have experienced the same fate… It is those who are not affected who want to differentiate as if one slavery is worse than the other… those who are affected would not do that…

                • Initiateofthevoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 days ago

                  The issue is Grice’s “maxim of quantity”. It’s a linguistic model of how we speak to each other - we provide the appropriate amount of information, and no more. Providing a surplus of details “for context” immediately puts people on guard because it quite literally is suspicious.

                  Breaking the maxim of quantity in this way is like saying “asbestos-free cereal!” It’s a detail that wasn’t necessary for context, and so its inclusion seems intentionally designed to communicate some implicit information that we’re meant to understand.

                  No, you don’t need to say “all slavery is bad” when someone says “slavery is bad” because that was an unnecessary detail to add in context.

                  People don’t need to defend themselves to you and say “you’re right, indentured servitude and prison labor are bad, so white slavery is bad too” because they weren’t talking about those things. They were talking about slavery as it is protrayed in RDR2 and you seem to be trying to change the conversation.

    • theUwUhugger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 days ago

      You can? Tho they are quite expensive, still cheaper than a gf tho!

      But what does that have to do with this game?

      • droporain@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 days ago

        Nah if you say yes it’s a set up. Why code something that isn’t available. It’s like making a door that never opens. Or a war game with no blood. Or an empty building. Immediate world breaking. Those nice honorable cowboys who have killed hundreds of men lol. The game just seemed lazy and repetitive to me. Good job Rock $tar. Also fuck you for having your own loader.