In my experience the best thing to do is ask. You won't please everyone and your not expected to. Just try your best. No such list would be universally acceptable to everyone. Everyone is different. That APA list someone posted had some good suggestion (some not so great IMHO too). See the person not the "classification"
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2026
45 points (80.0% liked)
No Stupid Questions
49478 readers
660 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I was taught that for any form of disability, "put the person first," never "a mentally disabled person," always "a person with a mental disability," making the condition a descriptor rather than the core identity.
I'm not sure that would have helped you but feel like it's good advice generally
As an autistic person, no, many of us prefer to be called autistic people rather than people with autism. Person with autism makes it sound like an accessory that can be removed from the person. Many autistic people consider autism an intrinsic part of who we are.
You don't call gay people "people with homosexuality" or black people "people with blackness"
I appreciate you sharing that. I'd never heard of this exactly, but it fits my experiences with the autistic community.
Being a little pedantic, I don't think gay or black are disabilities, but, on the other hand, why wouldn't my reasoning apply to any descriptor? "Nobody's whole identity should be boiled down to a single trait, so wouldn't the same logic apply?"
This is just something I was taught as part of the secondary education program in university and was culturally popular at the time. There's no semantic algorithm we can follow that will instantly make us sensitive and kind. In fact, I'm pretty sure virtually every tactic would offend someone somewhere.
The hard work of it all is listening to people and caring about their feelings. So I hear you autistic brother and will try to bear this in mind. I just thought the person first mindset was a good one generally.
I guess many autists wouldn't even feel adressed by OP because they don't see autism as a disability.
I heard about that from the unmaking autism book. I think the person d applies more your two things that aren't party of who you are like autistic vs being in the foster care system. Since both my sons came to us through the system it was a easy example for them. They understood the difference between a foster child and a child in foster care.
Did you use "mentally challenged" as a way to call someone stupid or were you talking about someone with a learning difficulty or developmental disability?
Most of the time if you cause offensive with your words, it's not the specific words as much as the tone, context and implication.
I grew up in australia which has a very different understanding of offensive/acceptable language. Before i say something that might be touchy, i mentally double check - is this information actually relevant? Am i saying this in good faith?
With a humble tone and a clear reason the worst response i've had was a polite "oh i think X is a better word, but yeah". Speak in good faith, people will respond with grace.
I mentally double check
So you're saying you... mentally challenged yourself?
Mentally challenging is how I refer to the church people making life difficult for servers on a Sunday.
It's for a church, honey. Next!
haha, haven't thought of that one in a while
ugh, I'm going to hate myself for making this pun, but you can check my history and see I speak up about the "R" word, but here's an example of legitimate usage:
So you're saying you decided to retard your rate of replies until you mentally challenged yourself?
I'll… see myself out. :)
And on the flip side, if you're intentionally being offensive, don't be shocked when people get offended. There's no polite way to call someone a dipshit or any alternative similar word. Insult is insult. I always find this amusing when the person deliberately causing offense gets offended that other people are offended by them being offensive. Not that I can tell from OP if they did or not, this is just a bugbear I'm scratching.
ADL and Southern Poverty Law Center has some lists, iirc. Also useful for identifying hate symbols.
I'd use
Black instead of African American
Native instead of Indian
Indian for someone from the country of India
[Nothing] for someone with a mental disability unless it was required in the context of the conversation. And then I'd hopefully know what the specific condition is (ie downs syndrome or fetal alcohol syndrome)
Not an exhaustive list. But a start.
Native is fine in North America, but offensive in South America. Better to use Indigenous
load more comments
(12 replies)
For most of life, it is better to stick to objective facts than subjective opinions.
"Mentally challenged" sounds like an opinion.
"They didn't understand something until i used simple words and plenty of repetition." -- objective fact based on experience.
Just ask people want they want to be called? There's no list that's going to be perfect in every situation.
I got my shit handed to me because I said someone is mentally challenged.
Not to mention that this would get most people in trouble at work regardless of the term used for "mentally challenged".
Intent matters most here.
Intent SHOULD matter most here. Generally that's true. I've also seen some folks go apeshit on people for using the wrong terms while the person speaking was actively trying to use the correct terms but just isn't up-to-date. People of all groups, nationalities, genders etc can be dickheads, even when I agree with them broadly politically
Did they provide you training and information? Maybe that would help. You could ask them.
Also, terms vary from region to region, so your local diversity organisation probably has information to help.
Also, "HR speak" and common language are different in the way they handle things. "Black person" works in casual speech, and "African American" doesn't. Also, in Britain, while "Black person" also works in casual speech, the HR phrase is "Afro Carribbean"
I almost got fired because we have cubicle's. And my boss asked where a co-worker is at and (I meant the hair color) I just flippintly said oh you can see his black head over there. I got a major write up and had to appologize for being insensitive
I think you had a foot in mouth kinda day. Referring to a co worker as a black person is fine, or "you can see his head over there" is fine, but mixing the two makes it seem the wrong thing is being highlighted.
Black is definitely the most standard term for people of african descent, yes?
For intelectual disability I guess "intelectually disabled" should work fine.
I'm not aware of such a website, unfortunately...
My nigerian friend swears he's not black but fair-skinned because one of his ancestors was white. Apparently once the bloodline gets dilluted, they don't count as black amymore.
Well, maybe in Nigeria...
Then again, race is a social construct anyway! Fair enough I guess (pun intended).
Yeah his reasoning was how it's defined in Nigeria. Had some fun conversations like "dude, you're black"
That's remarkably similar to British colonialism. IIRC, they believed you "removed" that part of their lineage after 3 generations.
Black for Sub-Saharan African descent, sure. Things get a bit more difficult if you want to talk about north Africans.
load more comments
(1 replies)
There is a mild push to "emphasize people first", i.e. not someone who is mentally disabled, but a person with mental disabilities.
Although having worked with clients who were, the term I learned and used as optimal was "adults with cognitive and developmental disabilities".
:shrug; I'm not suggesting that's "more correct", mind.
I find nothing wrong with mentally challenged.
Side note, this is one of the biggest reasons people hate the Left. Like, theres bigger shit to worry about than a word.
I think the currently accepted term is “developmentally disabled”.
As far as a racial term for Americans with African heritage, I’ve met some people who prefer African-American, and others you consider it stodgy and misleading and prefer black.
There's a mild pref to put people first, e.g. "a person with cognitive or developmental disabilities", but I don't think yours is offensive, although it might get a comment.
Like when I first became a wheelchair user, I would say I was "chairbound" or "wheelchairbound" - but someone pointed out that some people won't help people in wheelchairs in emergencies because of a mistaken belief that anyone in a wheelchair can't be removed from it (many can stand and/or walk some short distance, others can't). So "chair user" is much better. Not to correct anyone, just because it can help in emergencies or whatever.
view more: next ›