Mastodawn

Society is starting to appropriately accommodate neurodivergence, yet stupid/idiot/crazy/lazy etc. stay in the vocabulary.

https://lemy.lol/post/62017205

Society is starting to appropriately accommodate neurodivergence, yet stupid/idiot/crazy/lazy etc. stay in the vocabulary. - lemy.lol

We have decided some brain quirks are disorders (and get accommodations, as is compassionate), whilst others are flaws (and get slurs). But no one picks their hardware. You cannot earn a better prefrontal cortex or deserve a calmer amygdala. Nor does one get to pick the environment they are born in, which will inform their choices later in life. Even the capacity to “learn better” is a roll of the dice, some brains start the race with sprinting shoes, others with lead weights. So when we call someone stupid, lazy or insane we are not describing a choice, but simply announcing which kinds of unlucky we’ve decided are worthy of scorn.

Iconoclast Mar 4

I’m not one to call people names with the intention of hurting their feelings, and I don’t even believe in free will to begin with. But if I were to call someone an idiot, it wouldn’t come from the assumption that they actively choose to be one or that they could choose otherwise. No, they’re helplessly an idiot - and I’m just making a factual statement about the world.

I get what you saying, but do you really really REALLY want us to sympathise Trump supporter?

I don’t think OP is suggesting we sympathize with the ideology or the harm it causes. There is a vital distinction between empathy as an alignment and empathy as a diagnostic tool.

Understanding the cognitive or mental health mechanics that lead to radicalization isn’t about giving someone a ‘pass.’ It’s about having the clarity to see the situation for what it is. If we don’t understand the ‘why’ behind how people are manipulated, we can’t effectively dismantle the systems that recruit them.

True compassion in a political sense isn’t about being ‘nice’ to someone spouting hate; it’s about having the clarity to address the root cause of the behavior rather than just reacting to the symptoms with more hate. It’s possible to hold a boundary against someone’s actions while still being mindful of the human vulnerabilities that landed them there.

This is why I try to be mindful of using those words. They’re really stuck in there but I understand that it would be hypocritical of me to call for understanding towards mental health and cognitive issues and then fault people for not having the cognitive capacity I think they “should” have.

I definitely fail frequently because I get angry when people spout total nonsense, even hateful stuff. I try not to let that get the better of me though.

Unless there’s some Tourette syndrome going on I don’t see why anyone should have to tolerate hateful speech.

There’s a difference between drawing a boundary and insulting others.

It seems like every single person these days is neurodivergent so I just treat them normal. I guess thats normalising it.

When we call people stupid/lazy we aren’t describing them as a person its usually describing their behaviour or actions in the moment. If an “normal” person doesnt want to get out of bed thats lazy. If an adhd person doesnt want to get out of bed thats still lazy.

There is genuinely a prevailing theory which basically asserts that the genes that make us neurodivergence are uniquely human, that neurodivergence doesn’t exist in other species, etc.

Sci show did a little video on it the other day. Better info here than what I know, undoubtedly. Sci show is well vetted content. Im some guy laying in his bed avoiding the start of his day.

youtu.be/0mffmUA7d_4

The Evolutionary Basis of Autism

YouTube

Interesting I’ll check that out. Also I’m some guy laying in bed avoiding the end of my day

Sry, but afaik there are some flaws with this hypothesis. Neurodivergence is no defined Illness but a catch-all-term for deviations from the norm. The thing with normality is, nobody really wants to be a normalo, and only very little people fit there. Everyone has his deviations. Neurodivergence refers to mental deviations from the (statistical) norm.

Whether you Like it or not, Person A with schizophrenia and Person B with depression only have in common that they both suffer from a ICD-defined Illness. That aside, theres not much in common between the two.

Calling the ability to be mentally ill, a defining trait of humanity is kind of strange. That would make normal people less human?

I hate to say it but those words, especially said by someone else to describe a person they refuse to empathize with, I take it with a grain of salt.

Stupid & insane can mean not by choice and as we’ve seen in the case of politics, it can also be a choice, or more like very stupid and insane decisions.

That said it can also be words used by a shitty society meant to extract as much “value” from everything as possible and sees people as a commodity to be used up and discarded.

So every asshole with a LinkedIn calling people stupid, lazy or insane has me wondering if they’re not the ones who are so unaware they call anything that questions the status quo sTuPiD, or refusing to follow others blindly and just do what their told, LaZy. If those who refuse to participate in this assbackwards “community” we’ve created are iNsAnE.

etherphon Mar 4

I get what you’re saying, but it’s quite difficult when people are constantly doing so many stupid, stupid things.

Carighan Maconar Mar 4

Yeah exactly, the mentioned words like ‘stupid’ or ‘lazy’ aren’t exclusive to describing neurodivergency at all. In fact I’d argue that’s a tiny minority of their use.

etherphon Mar 4

I think in most cases people are using stupid to describe the action or thing a person is doing and not the person themselves, people are doing stupid stuff all the time, it’s both bad and good of course, because often times the stupid things can be delightful as well. I guess it’s just a part of being human but it’s so very frustrating that we rely on some of those people to vote when they have chose to not take life seriously or think about the consequences for other people.

oreoreore Mar 4

How do you know? How can you be so certain in your judgment, and declare that another’s “stupidity” or “laziness” is not the shadow of a mind wired differently? Can you see the gears turning askew?

What is stupidity to your mind? What is laziness? If they were born stupid, if they were raised without care, would you fault them? When did Gods descent from heavens and bestow you with the wisdom to always do what is right? Why may not all have this privilege?

If you are wrong, if that “laziness” is exhaustion, that “stupidity” a misfiring synapse: then you’re not just cruel, you are part of the problem.

TrickDacy Mar 4

How can you be even 1% certain that these words are being used to refer to neurodivergent people? You cannot, at all. Not even 1%.

oreoreore Mar 4

If I am wrong, the result is that everyone gets treated with more kindness.

If you are wrong, people who cannot help themselves get treated with cruelty.

TrickDacy Mar 4

If you are wrong, billions of people police their language for absolutely no reason and have to figure out new ways to express an identical concept. And they will. And this time it might even have worse baggage.

If I am wrong, all humans who ever existed talk wrong, but won’t change for you anyway.

oreoreore Mar 4

I command not for policing of language. I put forth the request for people to examine if shaming and name calling impacts behavior towards a more desirable outcome.

(Spoilers: It does not)

TrickDacy Mar 4

So you state directly that essentially all insults are hateful toward neuro atypical people, and that’s not policing language?

It’s 100% policing language and basically calling standard insults to be bigotry of some level. Obviously, insults don’t fix anything but they are a basic part of human language. Anything you substitute for them can be compared to someone with a disability of some kind and there is no end to self censorship in the world you are asking for. It literally helps nothing even if you manage to ban these words, and also, you would never be able to manage banning them.

oreoreore Mar 4

The question is not whether every insult is aimed at the neurodivergent, it is whether we accept that our language, carelessly or maliciously deployed, reinforces a world where those already struggling are further ground beneath contempt.

You assert that policing language is futile, that insults are a “basic part of human language,”. This is the refuge of those who mistake tradition for truth. If language is merely a tool, then let us ask: what does it build? Does it foster understanding, or does it erect walls? Does it invite reflection, or does it demand submission?

You say, “It literally helps nothing even if you manage to ban these words.” But who, pray tell, is asking for bans? I am not advocating for the eradication of words, I am advocating for the examination of their purpose. You are correct that words are ever shifting and changing. Sever the verbal head of one hydra and witness as two new ones emerge. This is precisely the reason for my conviction.

“100% policing language”? It is 100% asking for accountability. If you insist on wielding words as weapons, at least own the carnage. But do not pretend that this reflects anything but a commitment to a cruel world.

TrickDacy Mar 4

carnage

Yikes dude. I hate it when people say to touch grass, but if you think insults rank even 1000th on the list of societal problems, you probably need to…Carnage. I gotta go take a walk just thinking about what it must be like to say that about general, unspecific insults.

Carighan Maconar Mar 4

This begs the question how I’d negatively assert outcomes and efforts if I am not to use negative language to describe it lest it’d be cruel.

oreoreore Mar 5

You may communicate without violence.

The Center for Nonviolent Communication | Home of NVC - Center for Nonviolent Communication

THE CENTER FOR NONVIOLENT COMMUNICATION When was the last time you experienced being seen and understood? Every day around the world, the Center for Nonviolent ...

Center for Nonviolent Communication

Carighan Maconar Mar 5

Hrm so I searched around that site a bit, and I genuinely cannot find them ever discussing that. Maybe it’s in some of the videos (a very poor choice of design for something that supposedly is about more inclusive communication) but mostly it seems to be seminares and workshops.

But just to ask the general question, I still need to make a negative assessment, yes? I still say “worst”, not “++ungood”. So I would also call something “stupid”, not “unsmart”?

oreoreore Mar 5

I admit that website is annoying to navigate, and yes a lot of the content is as videos.

www.cnvc.org/learn/nvc-101 Perhaps this.

If you want to read, this covers roughly the same principles: pastebin.com/ZHhS044M

Banning words is not the point. As you said, a word can have many meanings. I am calling for understanding what you yourself want to communicate, and what you want to achieve with that communication. If you truly just want to insult people and that is the goal, then yes. It is indeed most effective to just throw a slur at them.

But if you wish to bring about some good in the world, perhaps learning how you can communicate to someone that their actions are harmful, without putting them on the defensive.

Also, if you wish to call someone stupid because they are behaving like a fool, you need to first understand what their goal was. Perhaps their goal was to be stupid all along, and as such, acting a fool achieves the goal - making their approach smart indeed. But, if someone wants to put out a fire and tries to do so by waving a fan at it, you may tell them that what they are doing is counterproductive.

If you have been hurt, and wish to communicate that to someone to bring about accountability, you can do this without insult too. You can point out the specific action they did, and express how it impacted you. If you tell them they are cruel, idiots, crazy, you can expect as much abuse to come back at you.

dustycups Mar 4

Surely bonhoeffer would want the word stupid to stay on the vocabulary.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer - Wikipedia

etherphon Mar 4

He contends that Christians have relied so much on Christ’s forgiveness that they do not challenge themselves enough in actually following his word to their best ability, instead relying on God’s grace to save them when they fall.

Whoa that guy nailed it.

surewhynotlem Mar 4

You can be autistic, ADHD, have some horrible upbringing, have some other genetic thing… you can have any of those things, but you’re still accountable for your actions.

Knowing that someone has those things absolutely helps increase empathy and understanding and assist them with those things.

But a killer is still a killer, even if they did it while suffering with other issues.

oreoreore Mar 4

Accountability? Yes, accountability is good. It’s proper and necessary to address harmful actions and ensure steps are taken to prevent recurrence. This is entirely possible, and likely more effective, without resorting to insult.

Insults are just punitive justice in a social context: a counterproductive way to discharge outrage rather than foster change. It is to temporarily soothe the egoic zealot lurking within the hearts of all. The research is clear: whether in criminal justice or interpersonal conflict, rehabilitative approaches (clear boundaries, restorative dialogue, support) reduce harm more effectively than punishment alone.

To believe that hate may be remedied with further hate is to mistake fire for water.

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8196268/

journals.sagepub.com/doi/…/00938548251335322

The 40-year debate: a meta-review on what works for juvenile offenders

This meta-review integrates the findings of meta-analyses and systematic reviews to explore the effect of intervention programs on recidivism for juvenile offenders. The systematic literature search gathered 48 meta-analyses and systematic reviews ...

PubMed Central (PMC)

“Retard” has been making a comeback, too, I think.

guynamedzero Mar 5

Ehhhh, idk about that one, I’ve only heard it in alt-right social circles of high schoolers that I left long ago (I was never really part of the group, but they were the only people I knew). Everyone else I know would kill you if you called someone a “retard”

🇦🇺𝕄𝕦𝕟𝕥𝕖𝕕𝕔𝕣𝕠𝕔𝕠𝕕𝕚𝕝𝕖 Mar 4

Well most people aren’t referring to a mental illness when they say retard yet u can’t say that anymore. Well at least of left wing places like lemmy.

Devolution Mar 4

Society is confused and their issue is that lazy stupid and crazy people are using the label neurodivergent to offset their deficiencies, taken away actual help from true neurodivergent people.

Stupid, idiot, crazy, and lazy(?) have not been used for mental health long enough that their meaning has diverged significantly enough that they are no longer comparable to words like retard.

TrickDacy Mar 4

None of this is how words work. Imagining a world where no one can be called stupid or lazy is just bizarre. These are just words to describe incredibly common and undesirable traits. Last time I checked, being lazy isn’t a mental disorder, it’s a characteristic that literally every human embodies at some point or another.

I very much like the framing you used here. Words are to communicate about the world and the persons in it. This shouldn’t be made unduely difficult and complicated. Individuals wishing a special treatment don’t have a right to it, people should still try to respect the (handicapped) persons, with the respect comes a willingness to accomodate their wishes (within reason like with everyone else).

An important detail though ist the differenciation between calling someTHING stupid (action or words) and calling someONE stupid.

Every person has their right to be happy and at peace, everyone needs their self esteem (and this includes people with mental handicaps). Calling them stupid is a quality about them as persons. Calling what they said stupid leaves their quality as a person intact, next time they can choose again.

Someone might inform you about a handicap to explain their behaviour, it doesn’t make the shortsighted actions any less shortsighted. But it might help to understand the reasons and limitations of said person.

Actually that ist also put into words how i feel about extreme reactions to someone mislqbeling or misgendering someone else. You can be whatever you like, if it stays reasonable i will accomodate your preferences. If you need me to make a handstand to accomodate your preferences i might choose not to.

TrickDacy Mar 4

Yeah. I mostly agree with most of what you wrote. I feel like the over policing of language is not helping anyone. And I think it gives truly shitty people another excuse to shit on otherwise reasonable politics. The idea that we have to sanitize every insult is like trying to rid the world of all bacteria or something. It can work on a small scale but you will never complete the job and if you zoom out, what the hell did you help anyway?

I’d much rather focus on bigger concepts rather than rethinking every piece of language we use. Some of the language changes as of late, probably even most of them, have been good. We don’t need to continually obsess about it.

oreoreore Mar 4

You state that words like “stupid” or “lazy” are mere descriptors for common traits, and in this, you are correct. But let us be explicit: these words are not neutral. They are not clinical. They are not even accurate. They are judgments masquerading as observations, and their function is not to describe, but to dismiss, belittle and shame.

It is not the existence of laziness or folly that demands scrutiny, it is the impulse to label a human being as such, as though their value hinges on productivity or flawless reasoning. When you call a person “lazy,” you are not documenting a transient state; you are rendering a verdict. A judgment from a throne no higher than theirs. You ignore the depressed individual for whom movement is a Herculean task, the neurodivergent mind locked in executive dysfunction, the exhausted worker crushed beneath systems designed to extract labor without regard for humanity. The word “lazy” does not describe a choice. It erases a context.

Likewise, “stupid” is not a measure of intellect, it is a weapon. It presumes intelligence is a moral achievement, not a confluence of biology, environment, and luck. It assumes that those who fail to meet an arbitrary standard of competence deserve contempt, rather than inquiry. If a machine malfunctions, we do not call it “stupid”; we examine its design. Why, then, do we reserve such charity for objects, and withhold it from people?

The question is NOT whether we should “ban” these words. It is whether we recognize their purpose: to punish, not to understand. Language does not merely reflect reality, it constructs our perception of it. When we default to scorn, we architect a world where struggle is met with derision, where complexity is flattened into moral failure, and where the burden of proof always lies with the accused. This is not how justice works. This is not how compassion works.

Furthermore, if one desires a change in the conduct of one they would deem a fool, has shaming been shown to work? NAY! It has been demonstrated time and time again that shaming yields not the behavior of a distinguished individual but a seething hatred towards those that inflicted the wound. A resentment that easily turns what was once a mere human error into a vitriolic conviction. You may then have no hope of opening this fortress of bitterness to see the harm their actions wrought, indeed they may feel justified in their actions. So as have been done unto them, they will do unto others.

…substack.com/…/laziness-does-not-exist

www.uva.nl/…/guilt-makes-us-more-prosocial.html

researchgate.net/…/216671499_The_longitudinal_lin…

neurosciencenews.com/guilt-shame-behavior-neurosc…

Of course, if your desire is merely to feel good for a moment as you unleash an insult upon another, by all means. But this is not the behavior of a paragon of virtue, rather it is base.

Laziness Does Not Exist

But unseen barriers do

Devon Price

TrickDacy Mar 4

You spend almost the entire duration of this comment pretending not to understand what an insult is, then in the last sentence, you use the concept of insulting others as an insult itself. “Well maybe YOU insult people but that behavior is completely beneath ME, I’m not such a terrible person who would do that.” Ironically this post and all your comments come off judgy af.

It sounds like you’ve been called these insults and filter out possibilities outside of your perception. You assume the insults come solely from some condition(s) you might have. I think I can safely say, that is not typically what anyone thought about or meant.

Every single day, these insults are used to describe bad behavior and bad choices and my point is that this will continue, at most we switch to different insults. But that wouldn’t satisfy you either and it certainly wouldn’t solve anything. There is no evidence whatsoever that these insults are used even slightly in the direction of being only for people that “cannot help it.”

If you had simply said “maybe insulting people is bad for us ourselves. Think about it” then almost no one would be pushing back here. But instead what you did is you already decided (incorrectly in most cases) what other people mean when they use certain words and you’re here to tell those people that using those words makes them bad/lesser people.

oreoreore Mar 4

youtu.be/JAV9Q_c82M4?list=RDJAV9Q_c82M4&t=60

GOICO | Golgotha

YouTube

TrickDacy Mar 4

Ah yes, you claiming to be Jesus in this scenario really showed me lmao. Couldn’t have possibly hoped for more validation than this link.

Dude.

You are literally arguing for the right to be mean to others without consequences.

TrickDacy Mar 4

Not in the least. I’m arguing that this user is full of false assumptions. Just because I admit that insults will always remain a thing doesn’t mean they’re beyond reproach.

I have to assume from your comment that you also think mean words are “carnage” 😬

You realize the OP is doing a melodramatic bit, right? It’s funny, at least to me.

You say that they are full of false assumptions but your arguments against them hinge on the assumption that they have been asking for banning for words. Can you point to a single instance where he says this?

TrickDacy Mar 4

If they’re trolling and you like it, good for you?

I deleted all my comments here because this is a STUPID fucking conversation. I won’t respond to further trollings.

I’m not looking in their file and saying “ahh yea it says you have the stupid. I guess I’m calling you stupid.”

Ah, first world boredom.

Stonewyvvern Mar 4

I still suffer from the Dunning Kruger Effect…

YappyMonotheist Mar 4

You don’t believe in free will, OP? Just curious.

oreoreore Mar 4

No.

YappyMonotheist Mar 4

That makes sense.

Carighan Maconar Mar 4

Why not, if I may ask?

oreoreore Mar 5

So far as I have been shown:

People ask not to be born.

People ask not to be born to the parents they are blessed or cursed with.

People ask not for the environment within which their formative formative years occur.

So far as I have been shown, no angel descents from the heavens to bestow upon everyone equally the magical gift of just knowing right from wrong. Indeed, the very idea of right and wrong are wholly dependent on the circumstance of one’s birth. Did their mother whisper them tales of evil men who would lay with another, or did a kindly neighbor teach them the value of kindness and friendship? Or were they beset by men addled by inherited hatred and were they taught to wield a gun before they even knew love? 'Tis true most people will know pain from pleasure, but even what you perceive as pain and what as pleasure depends upon how you formed before you set eyes on the world. As we share most other features that make us human, we can assume what hurts you will hurt another, what pleases you will please another - but there is ever an exception to every rule. It is but a human tendency to associate most pleasure with good, and most pain as evil. Useful one to be sure, if one values the well-being of one’s kin. But an universal truth it is not.

If you say some people turn to evil no matter how they were taught: how then could they choose to be different? If you say some people turn kind regardless of any suffering they had to endure: how then could they have chosen otherwise?

Furthermore, you yourself do not even know the nature of the next thought before it has already revealed itself. Think now of an animal.

Did you know what animal would manifest in your mind before it already found purchase within it?

If you say you may deliberate a thought before a choice is made, how did the choice to deliberate come about? You do not know if you will ponder a choice for an eternity before you have already done so. You may say “I’ll think about it” but you do not know if you have thought about it, before you have thought about it. You did not choose the tendency. And if you say, you chose to learn: how did you know you were going to choose to learn, before you were learning it?

No, I do not believe in free will. It is but an artifact of ideologies that cater to our more base desire of being utterly beyond reproach of other women and men. It pleases the zealot in our hearts who wants to think of itself as the paragon of virtue. For if there is no absolute good or evil, and no inherent ability to choose one from the other, how would it partake in the joy of judging others to be lesser than it? It could not. It would have to see itself as no better than the most heinous of criminals, but for the circumstances of their life. This is the bitterest of pills to swallow, and thus even those of us most conscious to these realities gag when faced with that which truly offends us. Which is why this is no mere lever you pull in your brain and have it be set once and for all. No, it takes lifelong vigilance, facing the zealot every time it reaches for the gavel and fixing it with your unrelenting attention, until it recedes back into the darkest corner of your heart. There is may merely be an advisor to your desire to do good in the world, but no more.

Gathorall Mar 5

Now, then, you’re only upset about this because you want to be. Those people calling other aren’t bad for calling someone stupid or lazy if they don’t have free will.

If you assume free will doesn’t exist, evil or good doesn’t either. Murder or curing cancer, it’s like the sun shining, and inavoidable, neutral fact.

oreoreore Mar 5

Those people calling other aren’t bad for calling someone stupid or lazy if they don’t have free will.

You have grasped it.

If you assume free will doesn’t exist, evil or good doesn’t either.

Correct.

Murder or curing cancer, it’s like the sun shining, and inavoidable, neutral fact.

Correct.

Of course you may dismiss this as rambling idiocy, but I won’t hold it against a clockwork automaton.

No, you have grasped exactly what I said, at least on the level of the intellect. I realize of course you resist as it goes against what you merely WANT to be true. This I cannot do anything about, as you said. But you have understood perfectly. Well done!

Gathorall Mar 5

Well, this conversation is really pointless then. Kind of embarrassing that the universe compelled you to post this drivel, but it can’t be helped.

oreoreore Mar 5

Oh if only humanity did have an universally agreed upon meaning and point, so much strife could be avoided. Alas, such a thing does not exist in reality, but only in the minds of people. Those ever malleable and shifting minds.

I do as I do because because I am compelled, indeed! Because I wish to see less cruelty in the world. It is simplicity itself.

Gathorall Mar 5

Cruelty implies a choice. It doesn’t exist in a world without free will.

oreoreore Mar 5

Cruelty is merely a label we put upon an action we find harmful. Like every word, it is made up.

No word is the thing it points to. Except perhaps the word, “word” itself. Every word I have written is a small lie.

One does not go around licking recipes in order to taste the dish.