poVoqBoy I was wrong about the Fediverse
Grail
Retail4068Y’all will find something else to screech at. It’s just a never ending loop off finding something to be pissed at.
I have NPD, and I don’t like it when My disorder is shortened and used as the word to identify Me. I’m not a “N*rcissist”, I’m a person with NPD. Call Me a person, not a disorder.
jarvisSerious question: isn’t the word separate from the disorder though?
We can describe people doing antisocial, paranoid, or dependent things even when they don’t have the associated personality disorders. We can also describe someone generally as antisocial or paranoid if they display those traits regularly, regardless of any underlying diagnosis. Is it different with NPD?
The word “autism” originally came from psychiatrists’ perceptions that autistic people are preoccupied with ourselves. So if I say “My boss is so autistic, it’s disgusting”, is that okay? Etymologically, it’s valid. I’m not talking about a disorder. But I don’t think it’s an okay thing to say.
When psychiatrists made narcissism a label to apply to vulnerable people, I think they made it off limits for casual comments. I’m careful about labelling people as antisocial or paranoid too. Those are serious words used for serious conversations about mental health. That means they can be dangerous in untrained hands. Think of those words like power tools. You don’t pick up a drill and start waving it around without the proper training and carefulness. That’s going to get someone hurt. These words have just as much destructive potential, so we need to treat them the same way.
That’s going to get someone hurt. These words have just as much destructive potential, so we need to treat them the same way.
Offense isn’t harm: no one is getting hurt. You’re overstating the harm of expression by appealing to clinical language & understating the need for resilience & enough judgement to discern that in context, the word has a looser meaning. It’s a bit overdramatic.
Moreover, conventional language doesn’t operate the way you suggest: there’s no such rule about psychiatrists & “off limits”. No one is obligated to share your opinion on this: it’s not fact.
Words can get someone involuntarily committed to a mental hospital. Words can be used to take away rights. Words can affect national policy. Words were what Adolf Hitler used to send people to the concentration camps, and they’re what Donald Trump is doing to do the same thing to today. Words are extraordinarily dangerous.
When we legitimise words that dehumanise the mentally ill, words like rtard or nrcissist, we give more power to fascists, because they can go on to use those words and people won’t be offended. Ordinary people’s offence is a defensive weapon that can be used to protect against the misuse of words. Ordinary people’s offence is a valuable resource it makes sense to cultivate.
I want people to be more easily offended, so that they’ll resist messages of hate spread by fascists. If people learn to be okay with hearing slurs casually thrown around on the street, words like fggot and ngger, then things are going to get worse for the people those slurs describe.
Words can get someone involuntarily committed to a mental hospital. Words can be used to take away rights. Words can affect national policy. Words were what Adolf Hitler used to send people to the concentration camps, and they’re what Donald Trump is using to do the same thing today. Words are extraordinarily dangerous.
Nah, none of those. All instances of harm require unnecessary action taken by choice. Words can be disregarded. Acting on words is the actor’s choice.
When we legitimise words that dehumanise the mentally ill
They’re not doing that. Moreover, using such words alone doesn’t do what you claim. There are a number of steps between a word you find offensive & adverse action: that argument is a slippery slope. Unless the words incite imminent action, people have an unbounded amount of time think & arrive to a decision before taking action. Any amount of discussion can occur during that time to influence & inform decisions. Rather than an overgeneralized attack on using a word, a more focused & coherent argument to support human rights could be raised.
Over relying on offense & emotion to steer their judgement discounts people’s capacity to reason & infantilizes them, which is condescending. Offense & emotion are not reliable guides of judgement. Speculation that it would promote better outcomes is not a valid argument. That such an approach would work better than reason is poorly supported. We could at least as plausibly appeal to reason rather than to offended emotion with the bonus of not irrationally overgeneralizing.
People can interpret context to draw distinctions & you’re overgeneralizing. The overgeneralization underpinning your offended opinion isn’t a valid argument. Neither is the speculation offered to support it. Telling people their words mean something they do not, disrespecting their moral agency & ability think, & insulting their intelligence to discern meaning is unpersuasive. Promoting a rational argument more specifically supporting the outcomes you favor would be more persuasive.