[rgifford]

This always cracks me up. Handicap, disabled, retard, and on and on. The origins of the latest epithet in vogue are harmless. But as soon as a term gets co-opted as an insult, we all agree to ditch it. And why? From what I can tell it's just to placate, to pretend Darwin doesn't exist. Reminds me of my two favorite quotes from The Office:

"There is one person in charge of every office in America, and that person is Charles Darwin..."

"You don’t call retarded people retards. It’s bad taste. You call your friends retards when they are acting retarded."

Is it worse to have some condition of your birth used as a casual insult -- a reminder of your misfortune? Or is it worse to be constantly patronized, often behind your back by throngs offended on your behalf?

The answer depends on your culture and outlook on life I suppose.

[diydsp]

> the latest epithet in vogue

These don't happen because they're fun fashion choices. They happen because people are becoming aware. The dynamics may resemble whimsy, but it's more than aesthetics underlying.

[rgifford]

Can we abstractly use the terms "bald," "stupid," "fat," "anemic," or "impotent" abstractly and negatively?

All describe generally disfavored conditions folks don't have much control over. Referencing that disfavor abstractly doesn't bring it into being. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

This isn't about awareness in my opinion. We're pretending status doesn't exist. We're assuming folks with some condition will be offended and won't be able to handle those emotions with their own agency, so we're patronizing them by carefully policing language. That is, in my opinion, as ableist as it gets.

[jasonshaev]

"The origins of the latest epithet in vogue are harmless." The origin of the word is irrelevant. Words mean things and can be harmful, regardless of the origin of the word. The meaning and context of words can change over time, regardless of the origin of the word.

Bringing Charles Darwin into the conversation does not help your point.

"Is it worse to have some condition of your birth used as a casual insult -- a reminder of your misfortune? Or is it worse to be constantly patronized, often behind your back by throngs offended on your behalf?"

This is a false trade-off. The whole conversation started because someone used a harmful word, knowing full well it was harmful. If they refrained from using the offensive word they knew was offensive neither condition would have happened (casual insult or patronization).

[rgifford]

Are the terms "bald," "stupid," "fat," "anemic," or "impotent" harmful when used abstractly and negatively?

Come now. At the root of all of this is an ableist, patronizing assumption: People with mental disabilities must have the language used around them carefully policed because they can't handle the implied disfavor and emotional harm that language may communicate via their own agency, not like the rest of us.

It's hypocritical virtue signaling.