This is a screenshot giving personal information about that sexist rat bastard Nicholas Fuentes. Specifically: Full name: Nicholas J Fuentes Current home address: 1826 Home Avenue Berwyn, IL 60402 Telephone number: (708) 352-7859

Report all you want. This is not getting taken down. Fuck nazis.

  • Signtist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    12 days ago

    Wait, do you think the word “disability” is a slur? As someone with a disability, that’s… just unnecessarily confusing. A slur is a word so ingrained with malice that even someone saying it without harmful intent causes real harm. It takes a LOT to make a word that volatile. There are some things I can’t do, abilities I am disassociated with, disabilities. The issue isn’t that they exist, it’s with the cultural acceptance that they exist, and that I have to do things differently from some others to meet my needs. Trying to govern the word just makes it harder to do that, like you’re trying to sweep them under the rug. I mean, what am I supposed to call myself that someone would understand if I can’t say I’m a person with a disability?

      • Signtist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        12 days ago

        Ah, I see. Sorry, I thought they were highlighting that particular part of their comment to draw attention to the slur itself. I suppose that could be construed as a slur, though I do feel as though it’s more often associated with someone who COULD be smarter and more open-minded, but chooses not to be. Maybe it’s a bit pedantic, but I think it’s important that, while we don’t make fun of people for what they are unable to do, we absolutely DO make fun of people for what negative actions they CHOOSE to do. Is there a good word for someone like Nick Fuentes, who is unintelligent not due to a disability, but due to their own bad choices that should be shunned? I’m thinking “ignorant” but that doesn’t seem to have the same oomph.

        • Skydancer@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          12 days ago

          I can think of a few that might work, but they aren’t common or guaranteed inoffensive. One that does and also describes his role is “tool”. On the other hand, is it really necessary to be that specific when “scum”, " Nazi", “fascist” all fit so well?

          • Signtist@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            12 days ago

            That’s fair for his case. But I do think that calling someone something generic like “scum” doesn’t drive home enough what they did wrong. Making fun of such people likely won’t change the person themselves, it’s more sending a message to onlookers that the behavior is undesirable and shouldn’t be emulated, so being more specific about what it is they did wrong is still important. I suppose we’ll probably just come up with new words as the need arises. I’ll have to keep up on the scene so I don’t fall behind, haha!

            • s3p5r@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              12 days ago

              I think it’s great that you’re considering this, and would like to add some food for thought.

              Isn’t it strange how many words in English are insults derived from medical descriptions (and sometimes medical descriptions derived from insults)? Cretin, idiot, imbecile, dumb, moron, spastic… even words we don’t consider insults which do describe disabilities are used to describe bad things. Like being “blind/deaf to <something>” or making “short-sighted” decisions. Our language is a reflection of our culture, and the English-language culture really dislikes human variation.

              Finding words with the same harshness can be difficult, and it’s also great to consider what makes a word harsh. Sending a message that behavior is not ok is important too, but I think we need to consider who we include in the collateral damage. Even if we don’t intend it, many of our insults are historically created with bound associations which we perpetuate with their use. For example, moron has close ties with the American Eugenics Movement. That’s something I think anyone with a shred of empathy would want to very much not associate with.

              For practical advice on what to do, I’m a fan of using absurd metaphors. The Swedish have a good one for Fuentes. “Hjulet snurrar men hamstern är död” - the wheel is spinning but the hamster is dead.

              • Signtist@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                12 days ago

                That’s a great point. The use of a more indirect shunning methodology is interesting; I feel like it’s classic - what was used before the modern point-and-laugh method, but again I worry that it doesn’t drive home the message that the behavior is undesirable. It’s more something that 2 adults would agree is a scathing commentary on the bad behavior, but a child - who is more impressionable and therefore necessary to teach what not to do - wouldn’t understand is meant to be rejection of the behavior. But maybe that’s just another facet to the issue - maybe our society has become too reliant on fast, easy-to-understand quips, when we really need to subtly guide it back to the more thoughtful, introspective lexicon of yesteryear.

                • s3p5r@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  12 days ago

                  That’s definitely a fair point that it’s quite indirect, which I think raises another question - why not just directly call the actions cruel / contemptuous / arrogant or belligerent / whatever else? Do we need to describe the person at all if it’s really the actions that we’re trying to discourage? Calling someone a slur, while harsh, seems to be perhaps as indirect as the dead hamster metaphor - if the goal is to condemn their choices.

                  • Signtist@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    12 days ago

                    I would say that’s exactly what we’re doing now, and it’s not working. It seems people can live with being called cruel, and maybe even enjoy it. But I think the feeling of being ridiculed is something more fundamentally at odds with a person’s self-image, and eats away at their confidence more than other forms of societal rejection.

              • Signtist@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                12 days ago

                But if someone had shit for brains, that would definitely be a disability, haha! Good thing that’s not an actual condition, so it would work perfectly, thanks for the recommendation!

              • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                12 days ago

                Is “shit for brains” as ableist as “moron” (with added vulgarity)?

                (No doubt you’re the kind of person whose heart is always in the right place - love that.)

                Signed,

                Promise I’m not a nazi

                CC: @Signtist@lemm.ee

                • Signtist@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  12 days ago

                  I think the vulgarity might just be what keeps it from being ableist. I’m learning in this thread that most commonly-used words for “unintelligent” have historically been used for actual diagnoses in the medical field for people with actual disabilities, which inexorably ties the word to the concept of being unintelligent by necessity, instead of by choice. So, something vulgar that would never be used by the medical field for a real disability can, at least in theory, be used to describe someone as being willfully ignorant without the baggage of a medically-oriented usage history.

      • Signtist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 days ago

        Ah, alright, my mistake. That was the only word in the phrase “An ableist is someone who discriminates against people based on disabilities.” that I could have seen as being construed as a slur. What word was it that you would say is a slur, then?

          • Signtist@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            12 days ago

            Yeah, someone else corrected me, sorry about that! I’ll be honest, it’s a word I use myself to describe someone who is willfully unintelligent rather than being disabled. I’m trying to find another word now to describe Nick; it’s important to publicly make fun of such people - clearly being silent about their bad behavior has only made our cultural and political climate worse. “Ignorant” is the closest I’ve gotten, but I can’t see myself pointing and laughing at someone, calling them “ignorant,” you know?