this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
1142 points (99.5% liked)

Microblog Memes

6619 readers
2983 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 90 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Interesting how these types of people seem to have a set of phrases with their own fixed meanings that don't necessarily correspond to the literal meanings of the words that make them up. "Can't trust the government" in this context really means "can't trust liberals/progressives". You can see that in her response if you watch the video. She's not stumped when the reporter points out the apparent contradiction. She expect everyone to make the same mental substitution, under which there is no contradiction.

Another good example is a 5 minute youtube video about homelessness from a fake university with an orange logo. They cite an example of a bridge between Los Angeles and Culver City that has a major homeless encampment on one side, but not the other, due to different laws in the two cities. To quote directly:

the Los Angeles side is full of tents and the Culver City side is empty. Why? Because the two cities have different public policies. Los Angeles has effectively decriminalized public camping and drug consumption while Culver City enforces the law.

If Los Angeles has no law against homelessness, then what law is it supposedly failing to enforce? This seems like a contradiction, until you realize that "Culver City enforces the law" has nothing to do with actual laws, but with the "law" of the moral framework that the authors are trying to propagandize.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

if LA has no law

They didn't claim their was no law, they said they decriminalized it. Which means it's still illegal but unenforced by criminal charges, just like weed is decriminalized in many states but still federally illegal.

I don't disagree with you that people put out bullshit but... Can we not put out bullshit to prove it?

ETA: Italics

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You're largely correct, "decriminalized" doesn't mean it's legal, but I just wanted to point out that it doesn't necessarily mean unenforced. Just that it's no longer a criminal charge. Something can be decriminalized and still be in violation of the law and enforced with fines or other deterrents, e.g. traffic violations. You're not a criminal for speeding, it's still illegal and enforced.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago

Thank you for that correction!

[–] [email protected] 26 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

Kristi noem isn't even a bootlicker for the conservatives, she's just stupid. I've seen her some of her interviews defending the tariffs and she has no idea what she's talking about.

You also can't ignore her cowboy hat in this interview

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa6eEVXIjgo

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 days ago (2 children)

I'm sure there are some smart people in South Dakota.

She's not one of them.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 37 points 6 days ago

When someone tells you who they are, listen.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Literal, actual retards are running the show now.

Placed there by literal, actual retarded Americans.

Wild that our country became so pathetic.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 days ago (2 children)

It would be great if you could avoid using ableist slurs to refer to people you don't like

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

How else should you describe them?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago (7 children)

Take your pick — There's a whole world of insults that don't involve punching down at marginalised groups. I realise that may sound hyperbolic, but I say it because I'm someone who is sometimes the recipient of that slur, and it's jarring to see it in spaces like this. I know that in this case, it wasn't at me, but a key part of why insults like this carry weight is because of the comparison it makes to people like me (even if only implicitly).

My hope is that we might be more creative with our insults when solidarity is our best weapon against these assholes

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago (4 children)

It's not a slur as much as it's a definition. To be retarded means delayed or slow. It has nothing to do with mentally handicapped people.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 days ago

It has everything to do with "mentally handicapped" people. The word "retarded", used as an insult, derived from the term "mental retardation", which was previously the actual clinical and legal term for a person with what we now refer to as "intellectual disability". The use of "retarded" as a slur/insult is the whole reason why the clinical term was changed. It had come to be seen as derogatory and ableist even when used in a clinical context.

Source: the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The term "mental retardation" was used through the fourth edition, which was last revised in the year 2000. It lasted until the 5th edition, which wasn't published until 2013. Various organizations/agencies changed their terminology prior.

Fwiw, I'm a licensed clinician and I have diagnosed people with intellectual disabilities. I understand your perspective on the word, and I even shared a similar opinion until I learned how it has been used as a slur toward people who do have intellectual disabilities and developmental delays. Because of learning that, I now don't use it as an insult. We do better when we know better.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (7 children)

This my friends is a distinction without a difference. Dude really implied that being "delayed", as in developmentally delayed, has nothing to do with the handicapped. Astounding.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

In the context of talking about people, that word has everything to do with the people who it has been used as a slur against, including, but not limited to "mentally handicapped".

OP was clearly using the phrase as a derogatory term for people, and the only dictionary sense that fits there is the one that has ableist allusions. If the context of use were different, we wouldn't be having this conversation. For example, I wouldn't have a problem with the phrase "The PCM responds by retarding ignition timing—either until the knock disappears, or until maximum spark retard is reached." or "The Friar's alibi finds him at the right place but always a moment in retard".

That you're taking such a literal reading here makes me wonder whether your comment was made in bad faith such that I shouldn't bother wasting my time, but I'm hoping that there could actually be some meaningful dialogue here (after all, there's a reason why I didn't just report OP and move on). It might not affect your opinion, but I have direct experience of the r-slur that has been directed at me (not infrequently) when I am people read visibly disabled. I'm not "mentally handicapped", but as a word, it has grown far beyond it's original context of use. I say this to give context on my original comment — I'm not just going about tone policing people for fun: I commented what I did because it hurts to see that word thrown at people when part of what makes it effective as an insult is its attachment to people like me.

Once upon a time, the r-slur was actually considered one of the more appropriate words to describe people who are intellectually disabled. If I were alive in that era, I'd have likely been left to rot in an institution, and allowed only a fraction of the independence I'm able to have nowadays. But times change, and so does our understanding of the baggage that words pick up.

To draw an analogy, it wouldn't be appropriate to call a black person the n-word, on the basis that it derives from the Spanish word for "black". That etymology isn't wrong, but it's still missing the forest for the trees.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Why are y'all downvoting this comment? This person is entirely correct.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›