True! It’s just another of the many ways that evil is counterproductive to its own interests.

Helping groups of humans that bigots don’t like would literally result in less humans that bigots don’t like in the world.

But they can’t help the wrong humans! Oh no! They have to hurt those humans! And so they leave those humans in the socioeconomic conditions that maintain exponential population growth indefinitely

In a broad sense this is inaccurate - war has been around as long as humans, and yet we were on an exponential population growth curve until the demographic transitions started.

Over the last century we as a species have significantly reduced child mortality, improved education, infrastructure, overall quality of life, and established reproductive health initiatives that supply condoms and sex education!

These advancements cause the local mortality rate to plummet. Then the following generation gets to reproductive age but has much less offspring, and the reproductive rate falls farther than the mortality rate did.

This is called the “demographic transition” and has occurred across dramatically different cultures, environments, and economies.

This is not universal or inevitable across the globe but the impact is so significant that global population as a whole is currently heading towards a plateau!

Therefore condoms, reproductive healthcare, and distributed economic growth are more effective at reducing population growth than bombs and bullets.

Developing a nation is literally more cost-efficient than destroying it. For the species. Not for the people selling the bombs.

If the user was going to message someone off platform they’d still be sending them an unencrypted message anyways if they have to switch apps to SMS.

It sounds like they don’t want to take responsibility for that user choice or be connected to anything that happens because of that choice.

It would still be an insecure choice, even with obvious UX distinctions. It would only be a matter of time before headlines muddy the waters with “intercepted Signal messages reveal…” or “Judge rules in favor of subpeona for unencrypted Signal messages…”

Aside from the obvious (Trump being a dangerous radical, to put it mildly) has anything changed in the way influence is bought and sold

The world’s richest man did a nazi salute on stage, in front of at least 3 of the other richest men in the world who all showed up to support the incoming administration.

The owners of Twitter, Meta, Amazon, and most recently Tiktok with the “thanks Trump!” obvious power play have all quite openly kissed the ring and bent the knee.

This is very far off from previous years. The wealthiest of the wealthy are making public displays of loyalty to a man who has flagrantly profitted off of the office for four years straight while actively making life worse for everyone except the rich.

Now he flagrantly profitted off of the office again before he was even inaugurated by launching a cryptocurrency, and his first actions in office are all directly and obviously against the best interests of the people but custom-designed for the well-known interests of wealthy conservative idealogues.

Yes, this is new. And yes, this is very, very, bad. Was America an oligarchy playing dress-up as a democratic republic? Yes. Were there massive donors pulling strings behind the scenes? Absolutely. Were politicians and lobbyists enjoying a revolving door of public and private sector benefits and making bank on book deals? All true.

But now the masks are off, and the worst and wealthiest have taken control with a smile and a laugh. They aren’t playing the world’s biggest and stupidest game of Monopoly. They have the Commander in Chief of the Military with all the checks and balances intentionally removed, so at the very least they’re playing the world’s worst game of Risk.

They aren’t going to make money off of book deals. They will make money off of wholesale looting and dismantling the government, and they’ll blame the inevitable economic and societal problems on us, on immigrants, on un-American citizens, and they’ll do it in broad daylight on 5th avenue.

That’s bad.

Very close, but not quite. It’s like showing up on a post sometime in the future celebrating an end of Palestinian genocide… and saying “it’s good that Jewish genocide stopped”.

That wouldn’t be wrong, it is good to stop genocide, no matter the kind. But it’s suspicious that someone felt the need to show up and say that particular thing in that particular place. That additional context seems to be placed there to implicitly communicate something in particular.

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.

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.

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?

deleted by creator