全 184 件のコメント

[–]Terran117I submit Countryball Comics[M] [スコア非表示] stickied comment (4子コメント)

A few more announcements for on the fence people:

  1. Additional insults to use: Hollow, vapid, brainless (apparently it's not one), lacking, oblivious, obtuse.

  2. I also like this rule because alt right considers the soft ableist terms to be "ad hominem" and then they act like they won. This deprives them of shallow self indulged "victories".

  3. No matter how much you don't wanna admit it, being illiterate or ignorant may not have that much have an impact on your worldview, as many reactionaries are knowledgeable and are FULLY aware of the ramification of the things they support. Your intelligence/physical and mental standing will not magically make you left wing or right wing, and education will probably only be used to make you more learned in the things you wanna promote. Calling reactionaries ableist slurs is intellectually dishonest on our part.

  4. Yes, you will probably use the soft ableist slurs in an everyday conversation, but on this subreddit, we are highly public and have time to think. If you think highly of yourself, you are more than capable of self reflection and writing better responses that don't involve personal attacks on someone's expense.

[–]SpaffyJimble/r/KillingFascists 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Some more acceptable terms: Stalin hater, Deng lover, corn licker.

[–]rebelcanuckleft opposition to the left opposition 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Cornholio

[–]Novel-Tea-Accountnumber of nazi scalps ---> 55 ポイント56 ポイント  (0子コメント)

UPHOLD MARXISM-LENINISM-DINGUSISM

[–]OccultRationalist 31 ポイント32 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I got called out on using one of these slurs (don't recall which one) some time of it and was kind of outraged, not by any idea of censorship (after all, the comment is reinstated after editing out the slur), but by the allegation that I thought hid therein. "I'm not an oppressor! I've helped people with disabilities! I'm not discriminating! I'm inclusive!".

I think many people have a knee-jerk reaction like that and it doesn't allow them to critically think about what they're doing/saying. They don't realize it's not acceptable language because of the way language shapes thought processes. It's like people who say "But I've got black/gay friends so I can say xyz". I hope people can take a step back, realize what they're saying is problematic (and more importantly why) and change their language use to something less oppressive.

[–]CGracchus 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (1子コメント)

This is 100% it. People get really frustrated when they get called out on doing something problematic and their first inclination is to become defensive. The correct attitude is to self-criticize, and we should push for that as communists. Attitudes don't change in a vacuum, it takes real action and real awareness.

[–]HuntDownFascistsCommunism with a side of Grindcore 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Discipline is also important. I'm a strong believer in trusting in the discipline of a group (assuming this group of people has been evaluated and trusted to support a valuable cause, which communism certainly is).

I felt defensive at first but my sense of discipline to the group allowed me quickly to see the merit in changing my language and to not push back over a sense of misplaced rebellious egoism.

Basically sometimes peer pressure is good. Let it happen if the cause is a just one, which this certainly is.

I'm very drink right now too. Sorry if this makes no sense.

[–]eyes_of_vader 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

but any posts with those words, or posts that simply attack intelligence, can and will be removed until they're edited.

Thanks for giving people the oppurtinity to revisit their, uh, poorly thought out thoughts. I know I am all too often guilty of this.

[–]OmiC 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Serious question, why is it ok to use the opposite of those words? Smart, genius, etc. If intelligence doesn't exist then those are also not real concepts. By using them you are directly implying the existence of intelligence, which would make your reason for not allowing the other words invalid. It also implies the existence of people on the opposite end of the spectrum. For other slurs this isn't a problem, because obviously the other side exists (and in fact, pretending they don't exist is one of the major problems of other types of bigotry). It's also equally as lazy, you can just explain why would agree with that person.

If you just want to make a "don't be mean" rule I don't really care because I don't get into those types of arguments anyway, but I frankly do not see any sort of consistent logic with these rules.

[–]SpaffyJimble/r/KillingFascists 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

"If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will forever live its life thinking it's stupid." Famous socialist and physicist, Albert Einstein.

[–]TheGerryAdamsFamilyWe must seize the means of postal delivery 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The rule doesn't make sense at all and your point is just one of its many flaws. Intelligence does exist, half of these words are not slurs and some of the alternatives given above have exactly meaning and act for the same purpose as those they are supposed to replace. The origin of words doesn't necessarily taint the word in its current meaning. I mean otherwise the term "communism" would be completely useless.

[–]virgil2600making stalin look like a fucking anarchist since 1986 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Ok so you are banning the low hanging fruit of intelligence based insults?

[–]LazDude2012Try Discord for realtime shitposting![S] 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (1子コメント)

indeed.

[–]virgil2600making stalin look like a fucking anarchist since 1986 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (0子コメント)

ok that is understandable

[–]FAN_ROTOM_IS_SCARY"capitalism was a mistake" 64 ポイント65 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Personally, as a disabled person, I'm in favour of this, and I'm sure many of us are. Just didn't want it to seem like you're facing nothing but negativity on this.

[–]FC1145 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I mean personally as a disabled person I don't really give a shit, but others may, so I am in favor of this.

[–]FAN_ROTOM_IS_SCARY"capitalism was a mistake" 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Honestly, I had mixed thoughts about it at first. Banning words like the r-slur or sp-stic make sense because those words have such strong ableist connotations that reading or hearing them even in passing to me just feels very... Draining. Idk the way to put it accurately, but that's about the best word I can find.

Id--t or s--pid, though, obviously don't have that effect for me. There's no history or connotations there that make me feel marginalised or dehumanised by their use. Even though I agree with this policy, and I've been trying to remove them from my vocabulary, I've actually used them myself so much I'm finding it difficult.

At the same time, even though I have no strong feelings towards those words, I think it's valuable to look at how our language reinforces the dominant ideology of society. I don't think intelligence as it is commonly understood is a very useful concept and I think it does tend to reinforce very ableist preconceptions, and when we use this word "s--pid" or whatever, it does strike me as us unwittingly accepting and re-applying this exclusionary, normative ideal of intelligence that's actually counter to liberatory interests.

And as has been pointed out, we don't actually have much of a need for those words anyway. "Ignorant" is a much more accurate and more inclusive term to use for pretty much any circumstance where you could use the word "s--pid".

Idk, that's just my take on it. I suppose if there are disabled people out there who are really put out by intelligence-based insults (and there may well be, though personally I've never met any of them myself) then it's even better.

[–]Alwayswrite64 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Another disabled person. And same.

[–]LazDude2012Try Discord for realtime shitposting![S] 34 ポイント35 ポイント  (0子コメント)

solidarity, comrade. ✊

[–]mad_at_dad 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm a big fan of the word "mook."

[–]GaussWankerThe Ministry of Amphetamines will never give rise to neobourgies 35 ポイント36 ポイント  (32子コメント)

Intelligence does exist in those ways, but the people who have those lower intelligences are in need of our help, not our mockery.

[–]aruraljurorLABORWAVE[M] 21 ポイント22 ポイント  (2子コメント)

intelligence is subjective, and there are many forms of intelligence; however under capitalism, only those forms that are able to be exploited by capitalists for labor are valued. there are many valuable (to humanity, not to capitalism) things a person can be besides intelligent - funny, kind, creative, funny, etc. and valuing "intelligence" (whatever one means by that) over those things is arbitrary at best and harmful at worst.

[–]GaussWankerThe Ministry of Amphetamines will never give rise to neobourgies 29 ポイント30 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree in part, but my experience - through my dad, a carer for adults with learning difficulties - meeting many people who are in their late adulthood but with the faculties of a child, is that some people are less intelligent- when you have a 55 year old mute with the intelligence of a 3 year old and the violent outbursts of one when he doesn't get his way.
He's not funny, he's no kinder than a 3 year old (ie near psychopathy), he can't be funny or let his creativity out. He's someone worthy of respect but also in need of care to do the most basic things. He is less intelligent but not less of a person.

[–]AnonSocialist 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

So much this. Good post comrade.

[–]LazDude2012Try Discord for realtime shitposting![S] 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (28子コメント)

Strongly disagree. https://libcom.org/library/communism-real-movement-abolish-disability

Normal is negatively constructed, and for the benefit of the ruling class.

[–]GreenFiskShould've been RedFisk 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I find this discussion highly intriguing. On one hand, my daily life as a psychology student has shown me that there are many different forms of capability (intelligence isnt the same as IQ) but it has also shown me that some people are much better at remembering things and understanding abstract thought by nature. It's a much smaller difference then we're led to believe, in my opinion, but it's visible. On the other hand, I feel we need to heavily re-evaluate our constructs (DSM-V, looking at you) because the mental aftermath is massive. A label is demotivating enough for some to just not do anything anymore.

Also, where disabilities like Schizophrenia, depression and anxiety are heavily impairing on a person's daily life and thus should be seen as a major inconvenience, there's disorders like ADD which is almost a label just purely based on the fact 8 hours of concentration a day is just too heavy for a lot of people. Of course, this is mostly my opinion.

My point being is; I believe the DSM-V and our current classifications as disorders is restrictive and disabling to it's victims, but I do feel that mental disorders can sometimes be very real and those people need our care and support. As for intelligence, it's terribly measured in our society but I do think some people need more time for the same knowledge as others.

This is open for discussion, y'all.

[–]rozkosabotabby is my fursona 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

As someone with ADHD (ADD is now called Primary Inattentive ADHD), I can absolutely tell you that your perception of ADHD is very much based off the scam that big pharma pulled to sell stimulants like candy to make a quick buck.

ADHD is a neurodevelopmental disorder which most research shows is linked to the functioning of the prefrontal cortex, and levels of dopamine and norepinephrine. In regards to genetics, it's associated with the tandem repetition of the DRD5 gene, along with a few other things. I am not a neurologist and can't speak on this with much authority from that standpoint, though.

There's no set amount of time for how long someone with ADHD can focus on something. Sometimes I can't focus enough to even start something, and sometimes I can focus for an entire day on one thing so much that I forget to eat. It depends on how it engages me. We tend to call the type of non-stop focus "hyperfocusing" and it's super common in people with ADHD.

ADHD encompasses other behaviors as well that include but are not limited to disruptive impulsivity, excessive amount of disorganization/lack of time keeping, notable difficulty when processing information, stimming behaviors (aka fidgeting), cluttered and pressured speech, and quite a few other things. They vary from person to person, but generally all have the same underlying symptoms.

ADHD is often comorbid with bipolar disorder, unipolar depression, anxiety/panic disorders, and ODD/Conduct Disorder. People with ADHD are at a high risk for substance abuse for multiple reasons, most commonly the impulsive behaviors found in the disorder, and as a means to cope with the symptoms (via stimulants). Like any mental disorder, stigma from either a diagnosis, or just displaying symptoms with no diagnosis often leads to a lot of self-loathing, depression, and anxiety.

I could go on about more in regards to what it's like, but I won't drop a giant TL;DR about my life on you outta nowhere because this is TL;DR enough as it is.

But yeah, the idea that ADHD is just about kids not being able to sit down and focus is a lie created by the pharmaceutical industry to make profits. It's resulted in children who did not need stimulants being given them (often only giving them negative side effect of being "turned into zombies"), while making it more and more difficult for people who would benefit from diagnosis/treatment for ADHD to be taken seriously and not seen as people who "just want something to blame for their own lack of discipline".

[–]GreenFiskShould've been RedFisk 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Full disclosure, I suffer from ADHD (primary inattentive) myself. I feel this, pretty much exactly the same. My point being about this is that the reason ADHD and ADD are seen as something that needs to be heavily medicated (and not just the top 5% worst cases) is that there is absolutely no middle ground in current society to contribute to ones ability instead of the expectations.

ADHD and ADD is by no means a problem taken lightly and I did not wish to marginalise the struggles and inconveniences of those who do actually suffer from it.

For a lot of us, just making the rules less restrictive, bureaucratic and more humane would result in not having to take extremely unhealthy medication.

I do not doubt the existence of it, nor do I inherently oppose the use of medication. I doubt our interaction towards it (dumping the problem with the person, instead of looking towards less standardised options)

Thank you for your story, comrade.

[–]WorldCommunismNowHasta siempre, comandante! 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

there's disorders like ADD which is almost a label just purely based on the fact 8 hours of concentration a day is just too heavy for a lot of people

That's not what ADHD is. That is what the pharma industry wants you to think ADHD is, but psychiatrically it isn't.

[–]LinuxFreeOrDie 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (12子コメント)

If intelligence doesn't exist, what do you call it when someone successfully applies their brain to solve a problem at hand? Or when someone uses their brain to employ an effective strategy? Without the concept of intelligence we would have no sensible way to talk about the aptitudes of the brain.

So I can say things like, "Magnus Carlsen played a smart move sacrificing his bishop" or "Magnus Carlsen was smart to play for a draw in the final game, because it put him through to the next stage of the tournament." Or even something like "Magnus Carlsen is has a great mind for chess."

Without intelligence as a concept those sentences are incoherent. Also, I don't see how you can have concepts like "smart" without corresponding concepts that mean the opposite. It's fine to get rid of offensive words, like slurs, but I just don't see how you can do away with the whole concept without literally banishing ever speaking of differences between people's mental abilities, and pretending everyone's brains were just as good at everything, which is clearly not the case.

I don't really see how your link resolves any of this. Even if we abolish "disability" as a social category (which is great), as a conceptual category you can't banish "intelligence" from the language. They say that "from each according to their ability" is the basis of this, but we still need a way to talk about what "abilities" people have, intelligence in this or that area being one of those abilities.

[–]LazDude2012Try Discord for realtime shitposting![S] 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (9子コメント)

intelligence does exist, as a thing that people have. we're intelligent. smart doesn't necessarily mean they are better at thinking, just that they're thinking better things. they've been educated. and clearly, different people are better at different things. but that's not what we're talking about, nor is anyone else when they try to use a comparative concept of general intelligence. different people definitely have different levels of skill at different things, but that's no factor of whether they are more or less "intelligent" in the general sense, especially when that gets applied to "shouldn't be taken seriously."

also, big fan of the comics. :)

[–]LinuxFreeOrDie 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (7子コメント)

But what do you call a person who has a wide array of intelligences across a variety of subjects? It is offensive to call Goethe a genius? I mean, are we not able to admit that some people are generally more intelligent than others? Can we say that dolphins are more intelligent than frogs?

I just think that there is a big difference between banning a concept and banning a slur. So far as I know, I can't remember another time when people tried to ban a concept, which seems to be the case since apparently there is no inoffensive substitute.

And I'm not trying to say "smart people are good, stupid people are bad" anymore than I would say "athletic people are good, unathletic people are bad", but I don't see how we could do away with the concept of athleticism either. I mean, surely Lebron James is more athletic than myself, and no one would disagree with that, right?

[–]aruraljurorLABORWAVE 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (5子コメント)

the key is to be precise. as i stated elsewhere in the thread, intelligence is subjective, and there are many kinds of intelligence. under capitalist society, however, it is measured and valued in a way that reflects its ability to be exploited for labor. i guess you could call Goethe a genius, but that wouldn't really be very helpful or descriptive to someone who had no idea who Goethe is, would it?

[–]The_Real_AzorAhai 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

under capitalist society, however, [intelligence] is measured and valued in a way that reflects its ability to be exploited for labor

So I don't necessarily disagree with this sentiment, but I remember seeing a chart listing out roughly 25 US professions and contrasting the median incomes of professionals in that field with the results of a survey detailing the public perception of the intellectual aptitude necessary to excel in the field. The results showed a very weak correlation, if one exists at all (of particular note are academics and researchers who made significantly less than average among the professions listed despite rating the highest in prestige and perceived intellect). My question is, how do you reconcile that with your contention that the only useful measure of intelligence culturally speaking is the one that can be exploited for capital?

tl;dr: if the concept of intelligence is so inextricably tied to exploitability in our culture, why are some of the "smartest" professions filled with poor people and why are so many rich people commonly denigrated as unintelligent (most notably artists/musicians)?

[–]aruraljurorLABORWAVE 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

this would be easier to respond to if you could find the study you're referring to

[–]The_Real_AzorAhai 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Apologies, I'm currently searching for it but to be perfectly honest it's a study I last read 10 years ago in a sociology class so it'll take some time. I just know it used occupational prestige as a metric and tied that to cultural understanding of intelligence but I could be mistaken.

Mostly I'm just asking how "smart" professions like college professors make so little if intelligence culturally speaking is only tied to profit? Maybe I'm confusing the concept of valued intelligence with recognized intelligence (it could be recognized by people living in the society without being valued and appreciated by society as a whole?) but I was just curious what your thoughts on the matter would be

[–]LinuxFreeOrDie 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, I get that there are many kinds of intelligence, and the ones "valuable" now are the ones valuable for capitialist labor, but that's not really the point. People are athletic is a variety of ways also. You can be strong, fast, coordinated, etc. But when someone says "I'm an unathletic person", everyone knows what they mean. It means that, generally speaking, if we were to hold some kind of atheletic competition, they would probably end up towards the bottom of the spectrum. Athleticism is likewise subjective, and there are many kinds of athleticism (i.e. you can argue over what it really means, and never resolve those debates), but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Some people are, unquestionably, more athletic than others. Would it be possible to outright ban the concept of "unathletic"? Again, I'm not talking about an offensive word here, because it seems like some people don't want to offer up any kind of alternative to talk about a range of intelligence at all.

I'm not going to continue debating this anymore, like...I don't have some kind of need to call people "stupid" on /r/fullcommunism or anything. It's fine. I just think everyone need to think carefully about what it is that makes a word offensive, and be careful that you aren't banning conceptual categories when you actually want to ban value judgements. Those are two different things, and require two different strategies.

[–]CrisisTheory 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Classic IQ tests measure very specific reasoning abilities which are influenced by wealth and cultural factors. This is well-known to psychologists, but not expressed by the words 'stupid' and 'smart' which have the connotation that IQ is some quality innate to a person, and not to a large degree based on social relations.

So what are we really saying about a person when we call them 'stupid' or 'smart'? In part, this is an attack or validation of their class and culture. If we want to discuss intelligence, it's best discuss what it is and what it isn't. And to refrain from denigrating anyone's intelligence with insults.

[–]analienablerightChuck Tingle 2016 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Given that the normative definition of intelligence covers only that which is of service to the oppressors, what sort of insult would a leftist use to indicate that someone lacks the sorts of intelligence that would be conductive to liberation?

When leftists use the terms that are now banned that's usually what they mean, is it not? "Our" stup-d is not "their" stup-d. How do you reconcile this?

(I'm mostly playing devil's brocialist's advocate here so hold off on the downvote brigade.)

[–]aruraljurorLABORWAVE 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (1子コメント)

man, i really love your comics. you already broke my heart telling people to vote for Clinton, don't shatter the pieces by choosing this hill to die on. pls.

[–]ThhuerosUphold Debism-Posadism 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (10子コメント)

The claim that disability is particular to capitalism is ridiculous.

[–]LazDude2012Try Discord for realtime shitposting![S] 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (9子コメント)

it isn't. it's particular to class society, of which capitalism is simply the latest incarnation.

[–]rebelcanuckleft opposition to the left opposition 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I find that claim rather strange actually. Disabilities can be less disadvantageous in an egalitarian society but that doesn't mean they cease to exist, nor were they non-existant in pre-class society.

[–]HyeMarxist 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Thanks for doing this.

[–]Terran117I submit Countryball Comics 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No prob ynker.

[–]Zymos94 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Ignorant, foolhardy, clueless, "you dingus",

See, the problem I have is that these insults also make reference to essentialist claims about people. Can someone help being a "fool" more than they can help being of "low intelligence"? Can someone be unaware of a certain set of things such as to be called "ignorant"? These insults aren't essentially better, they're just less common and more pretentious. They can fulfill the exact same dehumanizing role that the insults you are blacklisting can. There's nothing innately better or more morally pure about hollow upper-class talk versus common language. This move invalidates and ascribes false motivations to the enormous amount of people who do not have the privilege to feel comfortable using $3 words to make day to day criticisms of people.

While I agree that intellegence-based insults aren't productive in some settings, consider that they aren't necessarily referring to the sort of scientific essentialist sort of intelligence that you've presented evidence against. Someone could be deemed unintelligent because they are aspect-blind to class struggles, the consequences of their actions, their political role and power in society (the origin of the greek insult idiot, incidentally). The understanding of these concepts is usually what we ascribe to the intelligent, such that we can say that someone who does not consider (let's say) the ethical consequences of supporting an exploitative state is somehow intellectually lacking. Is it better because I spell it out slowly, even if the content is the same implicit critique?
To make a negative comment about the intelligence of someone is not necessarily to subscribe to an essentialist view of intelligence.
It's also somewhat contradictory to claim both that nothing we could call intelligence exists, and that the insults are ablist because they refer to an intellectual disability. How would we measure a disability without a measurable ability?

[–]stardust_witchNoot Noot Motherfucker 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's also somewhat contradictory to claim both that nothing we could call intelligence exists, and that the insults are ablist because they refer to an intellectual disability.

This is tantamount to the age-old "If race isn't real then how can racism exist?" argument. Just because social constructs (or if you're a Stirnerest, ghosts/specters/spooks and cetera) aren't grounded in any real physical/demonstrable basis doesn't make the construct itself not-real in the way that it is used to oppress or control.

[–]Zymos94 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

But race is real in a physical and demonstrable way. It's demonstrable only in so far as the social institution itself has a physical and demonstrable presence. There's no contradiction in that. Even if our measures for the presence are arbitrary, that is to say not something we want to call a natural kind, they must exist. Anyone who says "race isn't real" must be making a more particular case about biological categories, or else it begs the question of what exactly they're saying doesn't exist.
My argument is different, "general" intelligence may not exist. But insults related to intelligence still fulfill a valuable role, because the uses of intelligence as a concept in language are not exhausted by scientific notions like mental retardation (as a clinical concept) or by insufficient IQ (as an arbitrarily tested measuring stick). We shouldn't assume that someone using such an insult in one context is making any judgments about the aforementioned sorts of affairs.
Insults about the mental capacities of other people are older than psychiatry or neuroscience. Therefore, we are making a mistake if we claims that all refernces to "intelligence" are equivalent to endorsements of those particular systems of classification and control.

[–]aruraljurorLABORWAVE 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

wew lad

[–]lurker4evar 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Other suggested terms: "chuckle fuck", "chuckle fucker", "douche-nozzel", "dig-bat", "putz", "dill hole"...

[–]analienablerightChuck Tingle 2016 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

"douche-nozzel"

Are douche-based insults not implicitly sexist?

[–]lurker4evar 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Not are douches are for vaginal use. There are, in fact, anal douches.

[–]analienablerightChuck Tingle 2016 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Those are more commonly called enemas. Douche, I always thought, implies vaginal use.

[–]lurker4evar 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I thought enemas actually involved adsorbing the water into your colon while an anal douche you just sprayed some water up in there and then quickly excreted it. My last partner who was into butt stuff always called it an anal douche and said an enema was a more involved process that was for "deep cleansing", not just cleaning up the butt for play time.

Maybe he was talking out his ass (pun intended).

[–]analienablerightChuck Tingle 2016 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I think "enema" just specifies the rectum, colon and lower GI tract. In the context of using them for cleaning before butt stuff I've always heard them called enemas. When putting things up your ass to be adsorbed I always thought that was just called plugging. For cleaning with just water or saline some of it will always be adsorbed, more of it the longer it's left in, so I don't know how one would differentiate on that basis. For deep cleaning I'd think it would be undesirable to adsorb a lot since you'd have less of a sweeping tidal wave on the way out.

This got off-topic really quick....

[–]lurker4evar 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Tends to happen whenever people start talking about "butt stuff" on reddit.

IDK, if you goggle "anal douche" you get results, some using it interchangeably with enema, others making some distraction. How the medical community uses the terms I'm not sure.

[–]SpaffyJimble/r/KillingFascists 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I always thought enema was just a catch all for shoving some kind of liquid into one or both holes to clean them out. And douche is just the French word for shower.

I always thought that douche and douchebag was the precursor to fuckboy.

[–]micahxACAB 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (6子コメント)

that feel when we can make gulag and icepick jokes but can't say "d-mb"

You realize that censoring the word when typing it does nothing by the way right? We all know what it means and it doesn't take away the effect of it.

edit: Also I do somewhat understand the whole "low hanging fruit insults" thing, but honestly this isn't the sub I come to for intelligent discourse. I come here for zesty commie memes. When someone uses those words as insults, they are meant to refer to people who say or do something ill informed, illogical, ignorant, etc. They're not slurs. If being used to refer to the mentally disabled, then yeah, that's not good.

Multiple times in this sub I've seen insults based on appearance, sexual activity, etc, which I personally still don't care about, but I find them worse than the words that have now been banned.

[–]tinwooki 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

it's definitely strange, and in my opinion, out of place on this sub. there are numerous types of posts such as those mocking zizek's tics and people's appearances that i feel should be banned before this. this subreddit is not a place for actual discussion, it's for shitty memes and circlejerking.

i do support the no ban policy though. i can't count on my hands how many times i've been instantly banned from /r/socialism with no moderator response or information on my ban. it's very frustrating.

[–]CGracchus 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Multiple times in this sub I've seen insults based on appearance, sexual activity, etc, which I personally still don't care about, but I find them worse than the words that have now been banned.

None of these were ever okay. If you are seeing this, you should be reporting it, pinging moderators with username mentions, or both ideally.

[–]loki2009Best beard on FULLCOMMUNISM DISCORD -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Then call them informed, illogical, ignorant, etc. And just censoring "dumb" isn't the idea here, it's to stop using it. And if you come across someone insulting someone and you believe it to be problematic, please report it so we can take proper actions.

[–]micahxACAB 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Why do you feel those words are less harmful though if they're implying the same thing? If you're going to ban insults and try to become a sub for high quality communist discourse then go for it. But this doesn't seem consistent at all.

[–]RennisDeynolds 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

"Don't use harsh words to convey your point because what it points to doesn't exist. Describe it more intricately or use less harsh sounding ones instead."
All this accomplishes is adding words to the taboo-list, effectively saying "being a idiot is so, so bad and you should be offended by the mere word." This is not progressive, it's regressive. It's all about the intention behind the words and if we fail to realize that it's just going to keep going. In 10 years will we ban the word dingus because it's hurtful? "Say dingalingdong instead."

[–]_MissFrizzleTITO FLAIR NOW! PARTISANS DID NOTHING WRONG. -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Congratulations, comrade! You've just earned yourself a 4 year stay at our 5 star Mediterranean Island resort! The Goli Otuk off the beautiful Dalmatian coast awaits you!

[–]Akkadi_NamsaruSPOOKY SCARY STIRNERISTS 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'm not gonna ban people for discussing the policy, but any posts with those words, or posts that simply attack intelligence, can and will be removed until they're edited.

I support this. This is the policy which /r/socialism mods should have adopted in the first place.

[–]OccultRationalist 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (2子コメント)

The biggest difference I see between what happens here and /r/socialism is that on /r/socialism it just seems to be dripping with the stereotypical "it's not my job to educate you" pseudo-leftist drivel that the right can easily make fun of, while /r/FULLCOMMUNISM just tries to make people adjust the way people talk both in a gradual way (your example) but also by engaging in a conversation. I'm seeing a bunch of mods talking about why/how instead of being told that it's just the way it is and if you don't get it there's the door. I think this policy is going to be more successful because it doesn't alienate people who don't understand but want to, which is what I see in /r/socialism.

[–]darthh_patriciusThälmann ist niemals gefallen! 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

There was a whole lot of education done in the announcment of the new rule, tbh. And that is still linked too in the sidebar under "ableism".

[–]OccultRationalist 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is it? I honestly saw more people complaining about being banned for asking questions (the genuine kind) instead of discussion.

[–]JackissocoolDankskyist-Freshist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

And also was the policy the miss of soc practiced from the start and continue to do.

[–]cervanceDemocracy is dead 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Some dialectics on the issue: many of the words whose usage is now questioned gain their meaning in two ways.

One way is the relative meaning - the word stupid gains its meaning from its opposite, brilliant. If one person's actions can be brilliant in a specific field, than another person's actions may be stupid in comparison. The relative meanings of the words is not banned, precisely because its impossible to ban it - such relativity is a fact of nature. That's why ignorant, foolish and clueless were suggested as replacements.

The problem with the words comes from the second meaning, the general meaning. This meaning comes from a logical fallacy - that if an individual is relatively stupid in one instance, they must therefore be stupid in all instances in the past and future. This is, of course, utter nonsense. It's also sadly the dominant usage of the words at hand, and why they're now banned.

It is also worth noting that only actions, based on mostly arbitrary measures of success can be judged as brilliant or stupid in a relative manner. Just as I would say Marx is brilliant, a capitalist will call him stupid. Furthermore, when judging our mostly arbitrary standards of success, we have to consider that the intent of the action we're judging could be opposite. If the publicly stated goal of a program is to help the poor, and in reality it helps the rich, then we would call it's planners clueless failures. However, if the real intention of the program was to help the rich all along, the planners would in fact be brilliant. (I would still call them foolish however, since the best way to help the rich is to put them in the gulag.)

[–]WorkerMilitantBolshevism ✓ 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Good to see more subs follow r/Socialism's lead on the issue.

[–]aruraljurorLABORWAVE 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (2子コメント)

i look forward to the dozen or so FC splinter subs dedicated to being able to call people names

[–]tachibanakanadeFull Maoism Now 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (0子コメント)

/r/FULLCOMMUNISM2 is probably on its way as we speak.

[–]matthewmaticsMarxoid 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That just makes the revisionists easier to find, comrade.

[–]Novel-Tea-Accountnumber of nazi scalps ---> 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Exactly. I would honestly be embarrassed if this sub were falling behind /r/socialism of all places.

[–]CGracchus 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think we would all be embarrassed, comrade.

[–]HamburgerDudeBernie killed Rosa 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Great move!

Intelligence is a really vague hard to define concept. It's essentially a philosophical question and not something you can show through psychology, psychiatry, neuroscience....etc. I don't feel comfortable judging a persons intelligence because how incredibly abstract it is. An illiterate peasant for example has far more knowledge on agriculture than I ever could through experience.

HOWEVER it's important to note too that there's a difference between wisdom and intelligence. Wisdom is something else entirely and doesn't reflect intelligence but rather experience and knowledge primarily. It's funnily more concrete than intelligence.

[–]moodymama 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I'm guilty of this. I haven't removed these words from my vocabulary yet. But working on it.

[–]LazDude2012Try Discord for realtime shitposting![S] 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

hey, that's all we're asking. help us build a better world, both in the streets and in our minds.

[–]aruraljurorLABORWAVE[M] 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (4子コメント)

we're all guilty of it. no one is perfect, and ableism is by far one of the most insidious forms of oppression that's ingrained in us. that's why we're not banning people (i mean, unless you're calling people r----d or something like that), simply removing comments and asking you to edit them. everyone needs a little self-crit now and then.

[–]Terran117I submit Countryball Comics[M] 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Yeah. Most are gonna continue to use it in everyday conversation anyway, but on a place where we have time to think before we write and are public, we have little excuse other than an "oops I'll redo".

[–]aruraljurorLABORWAVE 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

exactly. not to mention there's a difference between a communist circlejerk/safe space and public spaces.

[–]doeslikecheesecakeTrotsky was right 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Honestly this is a point that wasn't really brought up during the whole /r/socialism debacle, and it's a much more convincing reason I think. Idk, something about recognizing that as much as this feels like an internal monologue, it's actually content viewable by anybody, and we should conduct ourselves accordingly.

[–]Terran117I submit Countryball Comics 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thanks. I love them but I wish the mods were better at phrasing this point.

[–]tachibanakanadeFull Maoism Now 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm glad /r/FULLCOMMUNISM is doing this.

[–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

[removed]

    [–]Oh_Henry1 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I'd be interested to see some evidence re: where the people are on this linguistic point before getting too far ahead of them. Sorry for the apostasy.

    [–]analienablerightChuck Tingle 2016 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    It seems like we're deciding whether an insult is ableist or not based on whether it is a noun or an adjective, not based on what it describes about the person being insulted. I think most of these replacements are really just as bad, to be honest.

    The adjectival insults don't make a sweeping description of the person, this is true, but nouns like those being banned are aimed at the impression created by whatever post the insult is a response to. The context always narrows the scope so it makes little sense to say that the noun forms are any worse.

    Regarding things like "brainless", how is this not oppressive?

    [–]TheGerryAdamsFamilyWe must seize the means of postal delivery 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I like how the OP added "(apparently it's not one) after that... like who's deciding whether these are or aren't slurs or ableist? Is there a council I'm not aware of?

    [–]the_red_cyclist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Agree with the policy. but,

    1. What's with the dashes, is that a thing leftists do? I always thought it was goofy when that's done with "G-d"...to not offend him I spose. I mean, am I missing something? It just seems unnecessary particularly if you're just discussing or listing the terms in question.

    2. Intelligence doesn't exist? Wholeheartedly agree that it is not productive to think yourself better than others based on arbitrary and highly subjective measures of cognition, to not be ableist (still learning a lot about this as you can see). But to say there are no differences between individuals re: cognitive ability...my entire life experience contradicts that.

    Cheers

    [–]KatamariguyBETTER DEAD THAN (GOP) RED 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    What's with the dashes

    I think it's better to use a healthy mix of punctuation marks and symbols when replacing letters in a word you don't want to type out in full.

    But to actually address your point, when you recognize a word as harmful, I think people'll want to avoid it more entirely, and you may want stick away from even using it in a context that clearly isn't intentionally harmful, you know?

    [–]the_red_cyclist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Thanks for the response! In my opinion words are words - for a handful of terms I can understand avoiding them like the plague. But I feel that treating words like this - particularly ones in such common usage - gives them a false power/import they don't deserve. It seems like unnecessary moralizing to me. Is that position a minority among comrades?

    [–]borealespessDialectical Battle-mage 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (6子コメント)

    Not questioning it but why has this only become an issue within the last few weeks/months and not earlier if it is so important?

    [–]aruraljurorLABORWAVE 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    not questioning your motives here but why does it matter?

    [–]borealespessDialectical Battle-mage 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    It doesn't. I'm just curious why it has had mod action taken on it now rather than before.

    [–]aruraljurorLABORWAVE 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    we've always removed ableism from the sub. in light of the reaction to /r/socialism's ableism policy, it became clear to us that some clarification and gentle reminders were in order.

    [–]AnonSocialist 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Our friends over at leftpoly apparently weren't in love with us stifling their creativity.

    [–]MeedinaWe're all accelerationists now. 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Which means it's good

    [–]2557z 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    this is kind of an odd question, i think. whose to say that ableism hasn't been an issue for a very very long time and it's just never been brought to light as it has in the last couple years-- and as more people become aware, they gradually come to recognize the gravity of the issue. i mean, women's rights were being fought for for how long exactly? (please excuse grammar/word choice, it's really late)

    [–]mickstep 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (7子コメント)

    I called myself stupid earlier, is that ok?

    [–]LazDude2012Try Discord for realtime shitposting![S] 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (6子コメント)

    why is it better if directed towards yourself? remaining in thrall to bourgeois societal constructs is bad.

    [–]mickstep 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

    Well I said I did something stupid, rather than I was stupid.

    [–]LazDude2012Try Discord for realtime shitposting![S] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Okay, but again, why not call it something better. why not say you did something unwise, or wrong.

    [–]mickstep 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

    I'll do my best.

    [–]LazDude2012Try Discord for realtime shitposting![S] 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    that's all we're asking. it's a long road to a society where all are free and equal, but we'll never get there if we don't take those first steps.

    [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

    [removed]

      [–]happylittelclowds[M] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Nah , we can do better

      [–]dankcommiemaymaysLeon Danksky 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      the fact that all the reactionary elements of reddit leftists (democratic socialists, market anarchists) are losing their shit over not being able to spew hate speech tells us that this sort of policy is good, as it smothers the voices of bourgeois ideology.

      We should support whatever the enemy opposes and oppose whatever the enemy supports.

      ~Mao Zedong

      [–]ascasco 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I love y'all for this

      [–]alexanderhuntsman 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Uphold Lazdude-Jurorist thought!

      [–][削除されました]  (7子コメント)

      [deleted]

        [–]LazDude2012Try Discord for realtime shitposting![S] 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        did you seriously just "muh idpol". if we wish to convert the liberals to the cause, how about we go out and actually do shit and fight for people instead of arguing about why we can and should uphold bourgeois societal constructs on an internet meme board.

        nothing we do on this subreddit is here to convert liberals, it's a circlejerk for the radical left. if some liberals are converted, awesome. but we're here for us. how we convert liberals is by going out into the world and actively fighting to make it better.

        [–]moodymama 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        Liberals aren't concerned with destroying social and economic classes. They do however love superficial ideas. Wish I had 1 worker co-op for every liberal who said "I think we need a mix of socialism and capitalism". Just fuck them.

        [–]aruraljurorLABORWAVE[M] 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (3子コメント)

        i'm not particularly interested in converting middle class cishet white neurotypical men who are unwilling to self-crit. the "intelligentsia" is a social class, and intelligence (in the arbitrary way it's measured under late stage capitalism) is a factor in economic discrimination. people who are turned off by the idea of removing oppressive language from our community were never going to be our allies in the first place. seriously, think about how absurd that sounds. "you know, i really want to liberate the working class, abolish capitalism, and smash the state, but - it's really important to me that i be able call people st---d, so i have to pass." fuck that noise.

        [–]femimarxiLWSE DID NOTHING WRONG 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

        inb4 "but muh if we abolish class structures, there will be no discrimination anyway!!!11!!!1"

        [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

        [removed]

          [–]Terran117I submit Countryball Comics[M] 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Careful, reee may be the sound frogs make when they scream, but channers are hijacking it to make fun of autistic people and "how they speak" and that shit. Please change. Pleaseeeeee :D

          [–]AlbertCamusltoeEl legado nunca muere 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

          You claim to support the abolition of hierarchy, yet advocate for the right to use derogatory terms that do nothing but advance (at very least) the subconscious preservation of hierarchy. If you advocate for the preservation of a hierarchy belittling those born with/having developed conditions that place them lower on that hierarchical scale for no reason other than socially constructed taboo surrounding those conditions, how are you any different from the bourgeois oppressors?

          [–][削除されました]  (3子コメント)

          [removed]

            [–]LazDude2012Try Discord for realtime shitposting![S,M] 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (0子コメント)

            reading through your comment history, you will no longer be participating in this subreddit, ever. go fuck yourself with a rusty nail.

            [–]aruraljurorLABORWAVE 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (0子コメント)

            you'll be missed, unflaired user who barely participated here anyway

            [–]xSkiller 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

            I dont know how you type all that up and reach the conclusion that we SHOULD be using ableist terms. If you can reach the same conclusion about "ignorant", maybe don't use that word also? Did you read the rest of this post?

            [–]SocialismMods 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

            /r/Socialism stands with /r/FULLCOMMUNISM

            We invite you to share your support at our post on this as well. It's been brigaded fairly hard, the more visibility from our comrades the better!

            [–]Alwayswrite64 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

            YES. Also, though, there are a shit ton of slurs for mentally disabled people like myself and we need to not use those either. So can we please stop using "crazy", "insane", etc.? These are very hurtful terms that have been weaponized against me and it's not cool.

            [–]aruraljurorLABORWAVE 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

            these are definitely included in our ableism policy, sorry if that wasn't clear

            [–]Soviet_ComradePrememevant Revolution 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

            I like 'dingus'. Fun word, fun to say.

            [–]_MissFrizzleTITO FLAIR NOW! PARTISANS DID NOTHING WRONG. 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

            This is by far my favourite subreddit. Can we make a serious effort to take over r/all?

            [–]chinggis_khan27Hoxhaist anarcho-annihilationist 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (9子コメント)

            This policy of excising 'intelligence-based insults' from your vocabulary is an entirely futile one. First of all, intelligence (I claim) is a broad concept encompassing mental flexibility, capacity to understand complex ideas, insight, and so on — basically the sum of mental capability.

            Fixed IQ might be a myth, but 'intelligence' as I describe is obviously real and varies in the population, and insults like 's----d' etc., are very much as general as that.

            The problem is that intelligence is absolutely important in just about every walk of life, including politics. Everyone values it and always will; I expect even when communism is achieved, intelligence will still be valued and important.

            So if intelligence is always important, then denigrating it will always be possible and insulting, even under communism. Unlike racist slurs & sexist slurs, then, which will be harmless when structural racism and sexism are destroyed, these insults will always sting.

            By banning these words, you aren't fighting any harmful societal values, you aren't combatting any structural oppression, you aren't correcting anyone's wrong attitude, you aren't helping anyone. All you're doing is feeling holier-than-thou while you restrict the capacity of good communists to verbally attack our enemies.

            [–]AlbertCamusltoeEl legado nunca muere 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (5子コメント)

            Dispelling intelligence-based insults is about the protection of people deemed as less valuable to society because of uncontrollable conditions and the abolition of (at least) subconsciously advanced hierarchy by use of such terms, not about shackling your ability to say someone's ideas or beliefs are impractical and ignorant. No one is telling you that you can't say an ancap is utterly foolish for believing their ideology, we're telling you that it's not okay to use a derogatory term for a marginalized group to communicate how ridiculous their ideology is. It's not about saying whether or not someone's idea or thoughts are considered smart, it's the way that you go about saying it.

            [–]chinggis_khan27Hoxhaist anarcho-annihilationist -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (4子コメント)

            Except that — those lacking intelligence are not necessarily marginalised, as anyone who has ever suffered under a corporate hierarchy knows. Defining exactly what sort of abilities are real 'intelligence' and what is low cunning (wisdom, the capacity to make good decisions? Insight? Communicative ability? Creativity? Calculation? Manipulation?) is important ideological work that you forestall with this policy.

            Dispelling intelligence-based insults is about the protection of people deemed as less valuable to society

            This is a noble goal but I believe it is better to selectively condemn these insults against people who are actually disabled or otherwise vulnerable.

            [–]AlbertCamusltoeEl legado nunca muere 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

            But you're missing the point. It isn't dealing with "those lacking intelligence," it's dealing with those living with mental conditions that are marginalized and devalued for no reason other than their mental condition(s).

            I believe it is better to selectively condemn these insults against people who are actually disabled or otherwise vulnerable.

            So using derogatory terms for people living with mental conditions to insult someone who isn't living with those mental conditions does nothing to hurt or advance hierarchy oppressing those people living with mental conditions?

            [–]chinggis_khan27Hoxhaist anarcho-annihilationist 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (2子コメント)

            As someone who is definitely not 'neurotypical', I think the best way to deal with the devaluing of certain mental conditions is to argue that those conditions are not defective, not to excise terms for mental deficiency from your vocabulary, or pretend that intelligence doesn't matter.

            So using derogatory terms for people living with mental conditions to insult someone who isn't living with those mental conditions does nothing to hurt or advance hierarchy oppressing those people living with mental conditions?

            No, and I explained why in my original comment — because the stigma against this 'mental condition' (the very general mental condition of lacking intelligence) is not a malleable social construct like racism, it's an inescapable result of the likewise inescapable fact that intelligence is very important in this world.

            ETA: I mean you can try to change the various complementary abilities that are regarded as constituting 'intelligence', e.g you can argue that empathy is intelligence & manipulativeness isn't, but you can't stop people valuing mental ability and therefore necessarily de-valuing the lack of it.

            [–]AlbertCamusltoeEl legado nunca muere 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

            As someone who is also most definitely not neurotypical, I agree that arguing against conditions as defective is important, but a major part of that is eliminating the vocabulary that pins those conditions as defective. For example, it's important to fight racism by arguing against the belief that black people are inferior, and in doing so one should also limit the use of the n-word. It's important to fight homophobia by arguing against the belief that LGBTQ+ people are inferior, and in doing so one should also limit the use of "t----y" and "f----t." The issue isn't so much the attack on intelligence (we can all agree on the ignorance of ancaps), the issue is that the words used to attack people's ignorance are words that have been/are used to derogatorily refer to people living with mental conditions that society devalues. I definitely do not see ancaps as smart whatsoever, and I will definitely communicate that to them. But the way I go about it has to be clear of vocabulary damaging toward people living with these mental conditions. Additionally, an ancap may not be considered "smart" in economics or politics, but may be an absolute genius when it comes to wilderness survival, or literary analysis. One can be ignorant in one area and exceedingly knowledgeable in another.

            [–]chinggis_khan27Hoxhaist anarcho-annihilationist -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

            Yes, but the words we're talking about are very general, do not support or suggest any ideology in particular and aren't slurs. Sure, using them against someone with severe autism is oppressive and nasty, but calling a woman ugly is (usually) sexist — that doesn't mean the word 'ugly' is a slur.

            Additionally, an ancap may not be considered "smart" in economics or politics, but may be an absolute genius when it comes to wilderness survival, or literary analysis.

            True — indeed they might be a celebrity in the field of literary analysis and use their fame to spread their politics. Their intelligence is why people listen to them. That's why it's important to attack their reputation for intelligence, and not pull any punches.

            [–]LazDude2012Try Discord for realtime shitposting![S] 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

            I would strongly disagree. Some of the most poignant insights I've ever seen have been from the mouths of people who everyone assumed had "low intelligence". They didn't. They just had different intelligence.

            [–]aruraljurorLABORWAVE[M] -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

            The masses are the real heroes, while we ourselves are often childish and ignorant, and without this understanding, it is impossible to acquire even the most rudimentary knowledge.

            • Mao Zedong

            also lmao at calling us holier-than-thou while in the same breath calling yourself a good communist for calling your "enemies" st---d. are you a fucking joke?

            [–]chinggis_khan27Hoxhaist anarcho-annihilationist 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

            I wasn't intending to include myself in that. I meant the people who believe this is a good idea, who are also good communists.

            [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

            [removed]

              [–]LazDude2012Try Discord for realtime shitposting![S,M] 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

              Simple. Two different people may have differing views, and one will be wrong. Or both will be wrong. But to say that someone's capacity for thought is somehow flawed or broken because they have a higher percentage of wrong conclusions not only devalues them while giving you a convenient ego boost, it also makes them less likely to speak up in the future, and they're not always going to be wrong. I'm one of those people. People come up to me on the daily and tell me that I'm "stupid" because I think differently. Not I have different thoughts, I think differently. But once in a while, someone will also come up to me and say "holy shit Laz, how'd you think of that? I hadn't even thought that was a possibility." Denigrating people with different kinds of thinking and calling them lesser makes it less likely that they'll speak out in those moments where they're needed the most. Also, first post in 4 years, congrats!

              [–]AiMJglorious gulag man 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

              o shit i have to actually think before i write now

              [–]PauloGuinaSupressin' Revisionists since '41 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

              I know we all get defensive on this,but we need to be D I A L E C T I C A L and self-improve. I just don't agree with insta-banning anyone who uses the terms.

              [–]ReagalanHuggle Struggle 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

              After a great amount of self-criticism and struggle, I have realized this policy is a good one. I fully support this and hope that it leads to true liberation for all involved.

              [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

              [removed]

                [–]tachibanakanadeFull Maoism Now 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                what an edgy guy.

                [–]SpaffyJimble/r/KillingFascists 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                I wrote this a while ago when I was a bad communist. Self criticism is important comrades.

                Ableism and the Internet

                A Self Criticism

                   

                Everybody, everywhere is guilty of doing this at some point. Everywhere you go on the internet, except for some circles, you will find ableism. Your favorite YouTubers and actors are likely guilty as well. We all have said or continue to say things like, “that’s stupid,” “(s)he’s an idiot,” “look at this libtard/conservatard,” and so on and so on. Being a connoisseur of shitposting and breaking circlejerks, I occasionally go on right wing dominated websites to see what kind of a shitstorm I can rustle up. Each time I do this, you would not believe the kind of names I get called. Actually, you probably would. Just go visit /r/altright, (wash your brain out with the strongest bleach you can find afterwards), and you will probably get the idea. I said something ableist as well on my favorite community reddit.com/r/FULLCOMMUNISM. Of course, I got banned almost immediately and told to self criticize. The ban was for referring to libertarians as “libertards.” Instead of attacking their disgusting ideas, I used a dehumanizing term to refer to them. After some time, I decided to finally write down my thoughts and hopefully rejoin the community.

                    Ableism is discrimination against a person based on a disability they were born with, or acquired. For example, it would be ableist to deny a person who is paralyzed from the legs down an office job, because you do not want to deal with their disability. Some ableist slurs include “cripple,” “vegetable,” “retard,” “stupid,” “idiot,” and so on. While much of this language originated in the medical community, for example, “cretin” used to be a medical term and “mongoloid” originally referred to someone from south or eastern Asia (this term is now not only ableist, but racist as well). However, many of these harmful terms have migrated to the vernacular as a way to insult people. Mentally disabled and neurodivergent people are the butt of this insult. For ages we have called these people and others such harmful terms despite their clear history. And it is now happening again. As you peruse the internet, you will find people calling other people “autists” as an insult, as if being autistic would imply that you are unable to have valid opinions or that you, as a person, are worth less because they have autism. This clear dehumanization should be seen as unacceptable by anyone who claims that they are against discrimination, but even our most anti-discriminatory peers are still guilty of using these harmful, dehumanizing terms. These terms, this dehumanization, is in the very core of the ideology of the amoral capitalist society, part of which states that you are only worth as much as your production value. Of course, this is absolutely nonsense. If this were true, we would not take care of our elderly and let them die of starvation. Ancient civilizations and even tribal cultures would take great care to ensure that the elderly and even the neurodivergent and physically disabled are cared for.

                    So, what is to be done? We should eliminate these harmful terms from our collective vocabulary. Instead of calling someone’s argument “stupid”, you can say it is “nonsense,” “unreasonable,” or “unfounded on any logical base”. Calling somebody “stupid” is also illogical. We do not know their whole story, and while we may see some of the things they do in public, they may excel at other activities that we overlook or that they do in private. I, personally, will aim to refrain from judging people based on one facet of their personality that I see. I will also abstain from using such ableist terms in speech as well as in writing. I personally experienced being called these dehumanizing terms my entire childhood, and I will ensure that others will not be dehumanized as I have been. Einstein, one of my favorite socialists, said “Everybody is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”

                [–]mickstep 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Ancient civilizations and even tribal cultures would take great care to ensure that the elderly and even the neurodivergent and physically disabled are cared for.

                I am drawing random facts from the depths of my head here and they may be very wrong, but didn't ancient spartans throw their elderly relatives off cliffs, and Inuits take them out into the vast frozen wastes to freeze to death?

                [–][削除されました]  (8子コメント)

                [removed]

                  [–]LazDude2012Try Discord for realtime shitposting![S] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  Oh shit you got me I'm actually the deep state here to make the left disappear by saying they need to self crit

                  [–]aruraljurorLABORWAVE 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  tl;dr

                  [–]loki2009Best beard on FULLCOMMUNISM DISCORD[M] 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  Instead of calling incorrect thoughts "dumb" why just not call them incorrect? And I still can't figure out how not using ableist terms is denying that people have different abilities.

                  [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

                  [deleted]

                    [–]loki2009Best beard on FULLCOMMUNISM DISCORD 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                    "Incorrect" is a blanket case where the thought merely needs to be false.

                    why not just use a modifier for incorrect then? Outrageously false. Dangerously incorrect. Intentionally misinformed. Again, why is there any reason to use ableist and oppressive language to point out someone is wrong?

                    [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

                    [removed]

                      [–]CGracchus 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      Are you here to idealize an educational system formulated under generalized commodity production?

                      [–]chinggis_khan27Hoxhaist anarcho-annihilationist -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (6子コメント)

                      I see the ethics of using intelligence-based insults as similar to those of mocking people's appearance — you should be very careful when mocking women in this way because sexism makes them particularly vulnerable, and it also feeds into sexist tropes. Anything beyond e.g this is probably misogyny.

                      On the other hand, mocking the appearance of able-bodied white men is more-or-less harmless, and occasionally fun.

                      Likewise, mocking the intelligence of working-class people who lack easy access to education is usually class snobbery, mocking the intelligence of e.g people with Down's syndrome is ableist, but against academics and media personalities, whose influence comes from their reputation for being wise and insightful (e.g Paul Krugman, Thomas Friedman), mercilessly mocking their intelligence is the perfect attack.

                      That is why I think we should handle insults to intelligence selectively — sometimes they're appropriate but sometimes they are nasty or even oppressive. I would support a rule against using them against other comrades on this sub for example. I don't agree though, that these words are slurs that should never be used.

                      [–]LazDude2012Try Discord for realtime shitposting![S] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

                      You don't have to agree, although we'd love it if you did. We're not even asking that you change your mind, just that you not use those words here.

                      [–]chinggis_khan27Hoxhaist anarcho-annihilationist -4 ポイント-3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                      I've intentionally avoided them in this discussion.

                      We're not even asking that you change your mind, just that you not use those words here.

                      I'm asking you to change your mind.

                      [–]LazDude2012Try Discord for realtime shitposting![S,M] 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      Okay, let me consider it.

                      Request denied.

                      [–]Bushmo_Inc 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

                      ...whose influence comes from their reputation for being wise and insightful (e.g Paul Krugman, Thomas Friedman), mercilessly mocking their intelligence is the perfect attack.<

                      It's more effective to describe those kinds of people by using accurate terms describing those kinds of folks.

                      Unemphatic, deluded shills, who are reason we should Build That Wall

                      [–]chinggis_khan27Hoxhaist anarcho-annihilationist 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      Err no. 'Deluded' is in the eye of the beholder (everyone can see that), as is 'shill' which might make you sound like a paranoid Alex Jones fanboy to some, and I assume you mean 'unempathic' which is... bad but obviously not a devastating line of attack on an academic or pundit.

                      Mocking their intelligence is a much stronger attack.

                      [–]MotoTheBadMofo 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      On the other hand, mocking the appearance of able-bodied white men is more-or-less harmless

                      Especially when it's done against fat poor mentally disabled white men amirite? Fucking neckbeards xD

                      [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

                      [deleted]

                        [–]LazDude2012Try Discord for realtime shitposting![S] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        I would go into detail about all the various bits of bourgeois propaganda you're falling for (I'm an anarchist btw, no tankie) but instead I'm just going to ban you for breaking rule 3. Have a nice day . . . In gulag.