#but do you have to be so ableist about it????

[flinny-so]

"This is what i needed to learn, especially with bureocracy. Much of bureocracy is cruel, much of it os not intended to be cruel. It's inefficient because whoever developed these forums did not think enough / have the time to make them less of a pain in the ass to fill out.

And it's not about you personally, it's about asessing the physical situation as much as possible.

Does it in some cases cost more for the state to uphold a bureocratic apparatus instead of just giving people that need it the money? Sometimes. Is it intended to do so? No. It just has never been worked over and at some point it may have been worth it."

I say this to myself but my inner goblin says: "it has to be a deterrand so that very few people put in the effort and that's kind of ableist etc. etc."

Maybe it is, goblin, but it's not intended to be

not everything bad that happens in the world is because of an oppressive conspiracy actually

“the 40 hour work-week is deliberately designed to keep workers exhausted and downtrodden –” no the forty hour workweek was negotiated by labor power to block the eighty  hour workweek. “american food is full of corn syrup in order to make people obese and sick and weak and unable to revolt against the government –” there are a lot of reasons why Corn is the way it is in the US and this is not any of them. “the concept of ‘coming out’ is a straight conspiracy designed to murder queer people –” please stop

stop assuming that every bad thing that exists is the result of active malice. there is so much in the world that’s bad just by accident, or as an unintended consequence of something else – maybe even something with good intentions. please don’t turn yourself into a conspiracy thinker just with shinier woker labels

[cpvnksabm]

hey rtc fandom. i wanted to talk about some of the more common ableist stereotypes that affect how society views disabled people. i don't see ricky as being much of a stereotype in canon, however i sometimes see fanworks where he's depicted in stereotypical ways that really don't line up with how he's portrayed in canon, and i find this worrying. i think there's a lack of awareness around these stereotypes and people often aren't realizing that what they're doing can be harmful

Infantilization of disabled people

This is basically just the idea that disabled people are somehow mentally younger than their actual age, or should be treated as younger than their actual age. This idea is mainly used against people with neurodevelopmental disabilities, intellectual disability in particular, but it is also sometimes applied to people outside that group. And this stereotype is really harmful because of how frequently it results in disabled people's freedom being limited. based on a false idea that disabled adults are "mentally too young" to drink alcohol, swear, or make their own life decisions.

You can see this stereotype in the musical itself, with how Ocean treats Ricky. Despite only being six months older than him, she refers to him as "Sweet Little Ricky Potts", expresses shock when he talks about sexual topics, and claims in her song that "he'll never learn to read".

But you can also see in the musical that Ocean is wrong to treat him this way. Ocean's character development, culminating in her decision to choose Jane over herself at the end, is a huge part of the musical! Ricky's entire song focuses on him expressing his creativity and talking about sexual fantasies, which he has just like most teens do. And his dialogue after the song focuses on talking about his worldview, showing that he does have thoughts that are worth sharing.

So I find it concerning when the fandom also gravitates toward treating Ricky like a child - sometimes talking about him using the same infantilizing language that Ocean uses. RTC might not have had a scene where Ocean turns directly to the audience and says "By the way, I was wrong to infantilize Ricky and this was due to my own ableist biases!", but that doesn't mean you're supposed to agree with everything she says.

Ricky might be the youngest of the choir, but only by a few months. It's not appropriate to talk about him as though he's a small child. Please be mindful of the words you're using for Ricky, particularly words that are used to infantilize him in canon like the "sweet little ricky potts" nickname, and try to talk about him just like you would talk about any other seventeen-year-old character.

Disabled people getting "special treatment"

This is just the idea that disabled people automatically have access to special privileges because of being disabled - that we can easily get away with things that abled people would be punished for, that we get given anything we want without having to work for it, that we are automatically treated better, etc etc.

This stereotype is twofold. First of all, it involves framing basic things like mobility aids and accommodations as "special privileges", when in reality, these things mainly exist to level the playing field. They don't give us an automatic advantage over abled people - they just help mitigate the advantage abled people generally have over us. And second of all, this stereotype involves assuming that these basic things, such as mobility aids and accommodations, are automatically given to us.

In reality, disabled people are not automatically treated well for being disabled. The opposite is true - we are frequently discriminated against in a variety of ways. Even extremely important things, like medical treatment or mobility aids, are often a struggle to access.

Despite all of this, people in the RTC fandom sometimes talk about Ricky getting special treatment or extra attention for his disability. In fact, that claim was the one that inspired this whole post.

And yet in canon this couldn't be further from the case! Karnak literally emphasises that Ricky was treated with "the worst cruelty humanity can muster - complete apathy". We see him being constantly ignored by his classmates and expressing that the choir, in the afterlife, are the first people to actually listen to him. The most "special treatment" he gets is his classmate, who infantilises him, singing about how his life isn't worth living because of his disability. And that's barely even special, she sings like that about most of the characters!

The idea that Ricky gets any "special treatment" for being disabled is clearly not inspired by anything in the musical itself. And it's also not accurate to real disabled peoples' experiences. It's just a completely wrong stereotype.

I've touched on this in previous posts but just a reminder - you should never be trying to "fix" RTC's disability rep without doing research. I think that sometimes people wrongly believe the ableism ricky faced in canon was unrealistic, and that they're improving canon by having him be automatically treated well for his disability - this is not true at all. Please look into real disabled peoples' experiences as inspiration for changing or expanding on canon, and please put in the effort to make sure your idea of "realism" isn't just based in stereotypes.

The "all disabilities are the same" idea

This one is simple - it's the idea that all disabilities can be treated interchangeably. For example, that two people with different disabilities (such as autism and arthritis) will automatically have similar life experiences, just because they're both disabled.

This is a ridiculous stereotype. "Disabled" is an extremely broad term which describes an extremely wide range of things. Not everyone benefits from the same sorts of aids or accommodations, and not everyone has the same experiences.

What this means in regards to Ricky is that you cannot swap his canon disability out for another one and have that not be erasure. Ricky canonically has a rare degenerative disease (heavily implied to be neuromuscular), which causes mobility impairment (resulting in him needing mobility aids), inability to speak, and a reduced lifespan. None of these aspects of his disability are interchangeable with other disabilities.

It's not okay to remove aspects of Ricky's disability just to give him another, different disability. They are not interchangeable.

It's perfectly okay to give him disabilities he isn't implied to have in canon - people frequently do have multiple unrelated disabilities! Just please make sure this is in addition to his canonically implied neuromuscular disability, and not replacing it.

Conclusion / TL;DR

I'm all for death-of-the-author and interpreting characters in various ways but it's a little concerning when I see fanworks and the like pigeonholing ricky into specific ableist stereotypes, when canon almost went out of its way to avoid them. we all know that stereotyping isn't polite or accurate so there's really no reason to depict ricky in these ways. i assume people aren't realizing the potential harm or sometimes think they're improving on canon by making it more stereotypical? this is why it's important to research rather than assuming you know what would be the right way to depict ricky

i didn't cover everything in this post because there were some issues that i thought were complex enough to justify a separate post. but reminder that my asks are always open if you'd like a disabled person's perspective on something specific! please dont hesitate to ask for advice!

[director-yomi-hellsmile]

Jesus fucking christ so many times someone makes a post saying "stop calling and armchair diagnosing your abusers as narcissists, your dickwad dad did not have npd just because he was self-centered he was probably just an asshole" and there's millions of comments like "well CHECKMATE cuz MY abusers were actually diagnosed narcissists <3 so you are wrong and I don't count and I have the free pass to say anything I want about npd <3" "but im pretty sure my mom was a narcissist and it was so so scary i don't mean to say all people with npd are like that but im pretty sure my mom actually had it and it was so scary :((( i don't think all narcissists are abusive it's just. my mo-" "that is so true op!!! not ALL narcissists are abusers :)) most of them are but some of them do make an effort to not bother anyone with their nasty symptoms and go to intensive therapy to get cured and become normal!!! however we shouldn't erase the very silenced and overlooked experiences of narc abuse victims as many experts from quora can confirm it is indeed real". or even like "i agree and im not ableist and dont hate pwnpd!!! my mom was a narcissist though but its not the npd's fault but her own actions that made her abusive <3" like WHY ARE YOU TELLING US THIS. WHY WOULD YOU BRING THAT UP ON THAT POST. WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO PROVE. PLEASE SHUT UP NO ONE CARES .

[kaija-rayne-author]

Some thoughts on Dragon Age Veilguard a couple weeks after playing/reviewing it.

Obligatory disclaimer, feel free to skip to the cut if you've read it.

Something came to my attention. I need to make it crystal clear that I utterly love the diversity in DAV. It's fantastic. I'm also a heavily left leaning, non-binary, queer as fuck reviewer, editor, and author.

Please be safe and take care of yourselves. Arguing with incels and white supremacists is completely pointless. They sea lion worse than an actual sea lion. Your mental health is important.

Though, every single time the anti-queer brigade comes out for a new DA game, I sit there thinking 'have you bozos ever played any DA game, like, ever?' My guess is nope.

Note: My reviews for DA and my blog posts about DAV in particular aren't edited. I don't have the time, energy, or heart to edit them properly.

It's been 16 days since I finished DAV.

And sadly, my opinion still hasn't changed. Especially after learning about Joplin from my friend's artbook. (Joplin is the original concept and art concepts for the game. It had so much we were all really desperate to see. It was gorgeous. And they scrapped it.)

I don't know why they scrapped it, it was exactly what so many of us wanted.

Honestly? I don't care why. I'm sick of all the excuses people keep making for BioWare turning out such a shitty game.

Were there reasons and difficulties I don't know and will never know about? There usually are.

But those things are honestly irrelevant when it comes to producing a quality product.

I work my ever loving ass off to make sure my books are good. And I don't have a team to help me and a 250 million dollar budget. I do everything myself because I have to.

Indie studios turn out fantastic games with cool worlds, good fighting systems, and interesting monsters all the time. With some help and some budget, sure. But not likely on the scale of what they had for DAV.

I'm both a creator and an editor. When you're making a product for sale, it's incredibly foolish to change a series title too much from what worked before. Sure, fix problems, streamline stuff, but people generally don't play RPGs for anything past the worldbuilding, writing, story, and characters. There's action RPGs, sure. I'm playing one now and loving it (Greedfall).

It's a solid RPG that feels like an RPG. (DAV did not.) The fighting system works. The companions are actually useful. They kill bad guys all by themselves! It's quite refreshing tbh.

When you're creating something for fun, sure, do what the fuck ever you want as long as it isn't harmful to someone else. (Don’t put words in my mouth. By harmful, I mean specifically things like racism, sexism, ableism etc. Not whether someone dislikes the colour green and thinks the word 'triggered' means unhappy or uncomfortable. It doesn't. It's specifically a needed mental health term.)

When you're creating a product for sale, you make decisions. IE. I chose to write a reverse harem series. That's a choice influenced by the business reality that my queer books hardly sell at all.

I still love the characters and world I built, still love the plot etc. But it was still a decision on my part. Because my work of words is my only income. I'm disabled and recovering from a pulmonary embolism. My partner is recovering from a broken back and has at least one, possibly two more surgeries to go. We don't get very much help from anywhere. Money is so tight it squeaks. I'm hoping with the decision to write m/f reverse harem, my sales will improve (They already have with only two books out. Third before end of year.)

So. No. No more excuses for BioWare. They've always, from rumour, had a lot of control over the games they make, even if EA does pollute the studio by owning it.

Someone made the choices that resulted in such a shitty game. Someone approved the terrible (in some cases, racist, sexist, and ableist) writing. Someone thought the editing was just fine (it really really is not).

Someone (likely Epler given what he's said in interviews) decided that it was a good idea to Disney-fie the most recent addition to an adult, dark fantasy game that has historically delivered a lot of horror elements. While somehow condescending to kids at the same time.

Someone decided to remove so many of those dark fantasy elements. It's especially obvious in the not-fucking-darkspawn. They made them goofy, not scary and vaguely horror inspiring. But it's all throughout the game.

Someone made decisions. Those decisions made an awful game.

Someone decided tying your companions' skill points acquisition to their level of bond with you was a good idea. Maybe it looked good on paper. I don’t honestly care. It made it nigh impossible to get them high enough to be actually useful. Meaning your OP character always has aggro. Fine, I guess, if you're a tank player, but what about the rest of us?

Someone decided to remove blood splatter from a freaking BioWare game.

Someone decided to go with that wretched art style.

Someone decided nerfing the rogue class was a good idea. Why even have them? They're just light skirmishers, not rogues. Without, y'know, the rogue skills that make a rogue.

It was a decision, each and every time.

Someone decided everything about that game.

So miss me with the excuses.

I would like actual reasons, but I highly doubt we'll ever get them.

Someone made unwise and often foolish decisions during development of DAV. The results are clear.

Simply by the fact they aren't releasing sales numbers... that indicates it's probably not doing well. Larian basically called their earnings for BG3 out weekly.

It mostly just makes me sad now. DAV could've been fantastic. Because of decisions human beings in positions of power made, DAV, while having some good parts, just sucks.

[t4lon]

i understand the need for posts abt how introjects arent their sources and i understand why everyone insists that source separation is so important but my god we feel very alienated as a system with fictives who are like, at least currently unable to detach themselves, to the point of like genuine Actual delusion

we have limited options here and these fictives' identities are very important to them to the point that it feels cruel to take them away, and it's honestly kind of alienating and miserable that source attachment is so fundamentally taboo on its face that whenever it's brought up it's in the context of it being bad.

because i understand that it is bad for some people! there are a lot of things that happen wrt mental illness that is bad for a lot of people! and it's amazing to me that "dissociate until you think you are literally a fictional character" is for some reason like, So Bad To Do as someone with a Dissociative Disorder that it's actively immoral to do it where anyone else can see it!

like im really really sorry if seeing my alter talk about Actually Not Being Human or Literally Being A Fictional Character triggers your own dissociation but it is not "ableist" and if i am apparently a danger to you then you need to like. Leave my blog. yk?

so i keep sighing when i see like, "source attachment bad" posts, or even related posts that Mention it as though it's something you'd never want. theres very little acknowledgement or positivity for people who Are source attached, whether or not they want to be, and that feels extremely isolating and kind of unfair. bc dissociation and depersonalization are symptoms of the disorder you are trying to advocate for and youre all just straight up saying like, "remember not to have these symptoms guys :) and if you do keep it to yourself" about something that i dont think needs to be that taboo

[autism-swagger]

Tara haters try not be ableist challenge (impossible difficulty)

[femingrab]

It wouldn't matter because people who were abused by kink get told it "wasn't real BDSM" or that it was their fault for "not using the safeword" or whatever. It's also odd how many people who tell me I know nothing have no personal experience, themselves.

And I see you've also jumped on the ableist slurs because you're getting defensive. Mind you, you could have avoided this post entirely. Saying people, especially women, shouldn't get involved with people who will harm them is not oppressing you in the slightest, but god forbid there's even the slightest criticism of BDSM. People not liking your sex practices is not gonna hurt you. Also, you mentioned being a rape survivor. Well, there's plenty of rape/abuse/CSA survivors who hate seeing their traumas sexualized. What do you think about them?

"Depression and anxiety" Doesn't sound like it's helping either of those things. Reenacting abuse, subjecting oneself to harm does not help heal trauma. That's something a licensed therapist can help with. It's common for victims of abuse to seek out situations that are similar to their abuse because that's all they've known.

I said "libfem" because lib/choice feminists often allow women to do whatever no matter how it affects themselves or others. Choices don't exist in a vacuum. Mind you, there's been a couple of conservative BDSM defenders on this post, at least one of them being a man and a Trump supporter, which is odd because so many of the others were "leftists", but also not surprising because conservative men generally have no respect for women as individuals and Trump, himself, is a sex offender, so it seems like a situation of like attracting like.

I honestly don't know how many of these defenders are doms, but given the aggression, I'm gonna say most if not all of them. BDSM attracts violent people. It comes with the territory and fits in with the"sadism" part of the acronym. It's literally in the name, just like masochism. If it wasn't harmful, it wouldn't be BDSM because by definition, it's arousal from the infliction of harm. Also, "sadism" is named after The Marquis de Sade, a serial rapist who often wrote about violent sex.

[reasonsforhope]

Btw, if you really just Need A Job (tm)

I'd really recommend looking into care work

Care work here is specifically being a home care aid, a care aid or assistant at any kind of residential home.

This for usually for elderly or disabled adults - and those are the ones that tend to be most entry level, from what I've seen, but also for mental health, addiction recovery etc. (With the obvious caveat that some of these jobs will be more emotionally intense than others)

I'm so serious about this guys. I was applying to jobs in care work for just three weeks, starting a couple days before Christmas, and in that time I got three interviews, two jobs offers, and five additional interview requests

Care work needs people CONSTANTLY

because it's a huge sector but very hard for them to keep staff long-term. Partly because it can be high burn-out, and there's definitely toxic places out there you should watch out for. And partly because a lot of people think care work is beneath them

AND they ACTUALLY MEAN IT when they say they're entry level. Because it's so hard for them to get staff that a lot of them will advertise super aggressively that they will train you themselves. A lot of them will straight up pay for your CPR and First Aid certifications, once they hire you, too (and you can get a leg up on applications by getting a CPR/First Aid certification for like. $30 to $80, at least in the US). They also accept experience taking care of elderly/disabled/etc. family members as real experience

Like, obviously don't do it if you hate taking care of people, but if you're open to it, it's probably by far your best shot of getting hired rn, statistically

(eta: Genuinely disclaimer that it can be super taxing emotionally and large portions of the industry are indeed fucked, and def don't take a job in this field if you're gonna be an asshole to the people you're caring for, but sometimes you just need whatever job you can get.)

Seriously, though, the first time I applied for a care work job (in October 2023, yes short timeline, like I said there's some toxic workplaces etc. out there), I applied to like ten or fifteen jobs over the course of a week or so. Within three weeks, I was working.

(And they did provide all of the training, fwiw)

If you need a job and no one is hiring, seriously consider looking into it

[marisatomay]

“you don’t owe anyone anything” actually you owe everyone everything!!! you OWE your table server and your coworkers and the elderly person you pass on the street and the dog on its walk and the child toddling along in the park and the driver trying to merge next to you and the pregnant person standing on public transport KINDNESS in return for theirs!! the connections we build are what give life meaning!!!

[unsentimentaltranslator]

This is back on my dash so I’ll reiterate my stance with something that occurred to me this morning:

Just A Girl is not a song criticising women who dumb themselves down. It is a song criticising men and the harm they do to women.

Y’all have a lot to say about women who dumb themselves down but much, much fewer of you are willing to criticise men and their misogyny. And your silence in the face of men’s misogyny and their endless manipulations about how any kind of real feminism is ackshually bioessentialist and ableist and racist and and and misandrist is part of the reason why these young women have given up hope that there’s any point in trying to stand up to them. If y’all want to see change then BE the change.

ask me about how Just A Girl by No Doubt is an actual feminist song that discusses SA and gender roles but social media fucking ruined it and turned into the anthem for the i'm just a girl, girl dinner, girl math, what kind of beauty are you, i'm a girl's girl feminism

[anti-ao3]

stop mocking ppl with schizophrenia. stop making fun of them for being weird. stop seeing them as dangerous monsters. it's fucking 2024! why are you STILL dehumanizing ppl with schizophrenia?!!

[mouthpoisons]

there is no way people are calling jayces love confession ableist we just arent gonna do this full stop if you arent physically disabled keep his name outta your mouth im serious

[bonefall]

I personally like Thunder's prosthetic. Explained it to my friend (who does use a mobility device, a cane and wheelchair, and listens to me rant and infodump about BB) and they agreed, it's important to know that not every person needs what someone wants to give them. It's another example of "bad ableist person does a thing that hurts a disabled person because they are bad and ableist".

Clear Sky got Jagged Peak killed and would have killed Sunlit Frost! He would absolutely force his disabled son to be "normal" and present it like a privilege. "I wouldn't do this for anyone else, it's special, why don't you want to be helped?"

Thunder Storm should toss it in Clear Sky's face. (I would say toss it into the river but we do not pollute waterways in this house)

Thank you for telling me this, and tell your friend I'm thanking them too! If they have anything else to add please forward what they have to say

Since BB!DOTC tackles some of the heaviest topics in the entire series because its canon equivalent is so dark, I think very carefully about what I do here and how I show it. I take feedback on its sensitive aspects very seriously. If I'm understanding the criticism properly, it's that I should avoid stigmatizing prosthetics by making sure Thunder Storm's not the only one with it-- which he's not! And I'll add even more.

I don't want to avoid something only because it's uncomfortable if the topic is important, and my portrayal is respectful. Ableism IS uncomfortable! There are some situations where a prosthetic is not wanted! I think the rejection of this particular one is both a good opportunity to show a type of ableism and ALSO is very fitting for the characters.

In BB!Clear Sky's mind, the villain, he's fixing an old mistake. He can't admit that he got Jagged Peak killed or take REAL accountability for it (though he will, occasionally, apologize insincerely), but deep in his bones, he knows what he did was cruel. He'll never tell anyone this because he doesn't really cognate it himself, but Thunder Storm NEEDS to take his gift.

If Thunder doesn't take it, it blows a hole in his newest story. You see, throwing Jagged Peak out was All That Could Have Been Done back then. It was a Tragedy and he simply Made A Hard Choice. He regrets it very much, But You Have To Understand.

But now? Now? Well, behold. Look at what he's accomplished since the tragic death of his little brother. His cats are well-fed, cared for, and stable enough to make such incredible advancements. If only Jagged Peak had been able to hold on longer, if only he could be here now, I could fix him.

Just like I can (MAKE YOU JUST LIKE ME) fix you.

"Everything I've ever done is for Jagged Peak. For Fluttering Wing. For you." Thunder Sky is SPECIAL, but if he rejects any gift, tries to turn down the "privileges" offered to him, in an instant that becomes ungratefulness and arrogance. He both forces him to be special, and then leverages it against him if it's rejected. "Spoiled brat, doesn't appreciate what I've worked so hard to give him."

It all goes back to him and his own guilt. He can NEVER be wrong. He can't accept his family doesn't have to be "normal" or reflect his own ability. He won't see himself as a bully, let alone a murderer. It was never about his son's comfort or finding out what Thunder Storm wants or needs, it was about his own ego.

...All that said I'm still taking feedback if there's anything else I should keep in mind, or if anyone has a counter point, especially if you also have experience here.

(In the interest of having a link trail for posterity, here's the critique/call for feedback this is in response to)

[callie-flower]

"proship dni" this, "comship dni" that, "neutral dni" unfortunately the people you don't like are still human and deserve comfort. my fucking god shut the hell up you're just as annoying as they are and protest WAY too much about it. go unlearn your purity morality shit

[loudmound]

i think where people are losing the plot in terms of making james and jim characters that have suffered more than what is initially apparent in the narrative of sh2 is that it tends to absolutely consume how they see those respective characters and takes that shit to the absolute extremes. james and mary having a tumultuous relationship when she was sick turns into "mary was james' abuser when she was sick." conversely, for jim, it's entirely possible that she was institutionalized and sa'd while she was there, then that somehow turns into "none of what she experienced in silent hill was real and she's been locked in that mental hospital for 20 years, actually." it's deeply unserious.

[greatatuintheworldturtle]

People talk about how WORDS MATTER, and they do, but so does CONTEXT. Having the BEST WORDS doesn't matter as much when the context in which those words are spoken is inherently hostile to the message you're trying to send. This post said it so well; of COURSE the actual word is a drop in the bucket when you surround it with the ableist attitudes of the society where it's used. The r-slur and all those previous terms that got perjorated because once people learned them, that didn't change the way they were already treating the disabled, so it's use reflected those thoughts and opinions. If tomorrow we replaced the r-slur with something else, we'd wind up right back here talking about the some-other-letter-slur.

One of the things they went over when I took linguistics was the "euphemism treadmill", the tendency of initially-clinical or neutral words to undergo pejoration to the point that someone felt the need to replace the pejorated word with one that was clinical or neutral. And then of course the process of pejoration would start again.

The best example of this were words related to what we now call intellectual disability. In the past, "idiot", "simpleton", "moron", "feeble-minded", and "imbecile" were all relatively clinical terms. (This is one of those things that's often repeated, but if you go looking at newspapers from the 1920s, you do kind of wonder whether the negative connotations were just completely acceptable then, especially when they're talking about the successes of sterilizing the feeble-minded.)

The reason that pejoration happens is that while the word changes, the societal attitude toward the underlying thing most often does not, and so if they change the word and declare that this new word is totally neutral, then society's negative view is just going to keep making those words take on bad connotations. This will happen even with the most anodyne descriptions, like "mentally handicapped", which Google will inform you with a little warning is offensive and dated.

The linguistics class I took in the early 2000s spent a little time on the word "retarded", which by then was well on its way to complete pejoration (federal law was changed in 2010, from "mental retardation" to "intellectual disability"), but had not reached the point when it was "the r-slur". If I recall correctly, this was when "mentally handicapped" was still relatively in vogue, and sitting in that classroom I had thought that "retard" was going to go the way of "moron", a word that was used exclusively in a disparaging way. I thought it would be about as acceptable as calling someone an imbecile, I guess, which is impolite but which doesn't rise to the level of "slur".

But no, I was wrong. The euphemism treadmill will probably continue because we have not done anything about the underlying condition (that people with intellectual disabilities are less valued and looked down on), but "retard" has now become a slur, even if every other fucking word for low intelligence is still in common use as a disparagement.

It's wild how much you can see people dancing around this. I said above that Google gives an "offensive and outdated" tag to the term "mentally handicapped", but they also give that to "retarded". However, if you go to "imbecile" they don't give that tag. To save you the trouble of looking it up:

noun: imbecile; plural noun: imbeciles

a stupid person.

archaic a person of low intelligence.

Ah, lovely. So it's okay, because it just means "a stupid person", it used to mean "a person of low intelligence", but it doesn't mean that any more, so ... not offensive, I guess?

Except hold on, what does "stupid" mean again?

adjective: stupid; comparative adjective: stupider; superlative adjective: stupidest

having or showing a great lack of intelligence or common sense.

Oh, okay, I see. So in the archaic sense "imbecile" meant a person of low intelligence, but now it means a person who has a lack of intelligence. Totally different, very understandable. Nevermind that "imbecile" was pejorated in the same way that "retard" was, and that using a negative word to refer to someone who is lacking intelligence is basically the same thing.

I think if you want to fight against the pejorative use of the word "retard", you should probably be fighting against a lot more words, and you should definitely be fighting against the societal view that people with lower intelligence are lesser. You can fight the language issue all you want, but it's just going to lead to more cycles of pejoration. There's no way that switching over to saying "person with a learning disability" (as it seems the UK bureaucrats now favor) is going to somehow end it.

Personally, I'm the kind of person who just goes with the flow. I think people with intellectual disabilities are just as much people as anyone else, deserving of care and compassion, but I also value intelligence at least as much as my surrounding society does, and while I do make attempts to temper my language, saying that an idea is stupid rather than casting contempt on a person who is stupid, that's a mighty fine line to tow, and ... people just don't care. If I call a politician a moron, no one will bat an eye. I will refrain from saying the r-word, because people get mad at you when you do that. I think if I got hit in the head tomorrow and became intellectually disabled, I would be more or less happy with this.

I don't have a strong principled stance, more a stance of "come on, what are we doing here". Euphemism treadmill goes brrrr, language gonna language, I just wish the whole linguistic and social process didn't feel like some out of control machine that wasn't actually doing anything for anyone, and that people would pay more attention to the underlying mechanisms for how/why pejoration actually works. Changing the word is not going to usher in an era of understanding and equality, we've proven that, haven't we?