this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024
18 points (87.5% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35805 readers
1784 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.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Rooki@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
automodbeta@lemmy.world
L3s@lemmy.world
ja2@lemmy.world
_MoveSwiftly@lemmy.world
18
[CW: Slurs/pejoratives, morality] When is it considered immoral if someone is saying something that they know is pejorative and they are not intending it as disparaging towards the original group? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by moosetwin@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world
12 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I've heard this sentiment that it is immoral a lot on the internet, and I would like to hear more about it. It feels intuitively correct to me, but I would like to hear the reasoning behind it.

Examples to further the title's meaning

  • Calling someone 'queer' to mean they are weird, but not in a way intended as disparaging to those who are LGBT(Q+).

Not Examples




Discussion questions:

  • How does this factor into meanings of words fading away?
    • Does it still pack the same "punch" after it no longer is commonly used as a pejorative?
      • If not, at what point is it generally considered okay to use?
  • How does this differ/compare with reclamation?

Some potential reasoning that I've thought of on my own, feel free to discuss.

  • Bad actors can piggyback off of the use as a negative to help condemn the original target group.
  • It may directly harm the group, by them (also knowing the original context) coming into contact with it and causing/enabling self-hate.
    • This may apply irregardless of if they know it was intended as non-disparaging to them or not, but this is just speculation based off of my similar experiences.

‎‏‏‎

I apologize for any personal bias within this comment, I tried my best to limit it but I am fallible.

Though I would like a discussion in the comments, please refrain from insults and inflammatory statements towards your fellow lemmings, despite the hot topic. /srs

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Nemo@midwest.social 15 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I think it's a lot different with a word like "queer" that has a preëxisting use case that never completely went away.

Compare with people who still say "that's retarded". Now, they are probably not thinking about anyone with an actual mental diagnosis when they say that. But it clearly came into use as a broadening or misapplication of a term referring to a specific group.

Now, I would say that it's ableist, and a slur. But I know others disagree. Before continuing, may I ask if this is the kind of usage you're asking about?

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 4 points 7 months ago

Retarded also has a pre-existing use, for "slowed down". it's used a lot in engineering, chemistry, even sometimes art.

For instance the mechanism that regulates the shutter speed on a mechanical camera is called a retarder.

[–] moosetwin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 7 months ago

Yes, it is. I actually was originally planning to use that word, but I (oblivious to the history of the word Queer) deliberately chose a different one as I knew some people dislike the term.

Should I edit the post to change the word used?

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 10 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Queer to mean "weird or odd" dates from the 16th century, it didn't come to refer to homosexuality until the 19th century, so to me although it would sound dated the original meaning still has precedence.

It's similar to gay/gaily used in it's original meaning in a lot of ways.

[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 months ago

I'm in my mid-60s and I would still assume "queer" or "gay" when used about a human being refers to them being not-cishet in some way.

I can see them being used about something inanimate. A rainbow flag and a US flag can both flutter gaily in a parade. And a queer old Cabinet of Curiosities might be intriguing.

[–] JoBo@feddit.uk 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

These two examples are quite different, I think.

Gay was not originally a slur, AFAIK. It was adopted as a less clinical descriptor by gay people, especially gay men (again, AFAIK). There have been concerted efforts to make it into a slur and it is often used in a derogatory fashion, but it does not have a pre-history of being used as a slur.

Queer is the opposite. It was used as a slur and it is a rare example of successful reclamation of a word. A slogan in the 1980s on Gay Pride protests was "We're here, we're queer, we're fabulous, get used to it". At the time, queer was very much a slur so the chant had a bite that you wouldn't hear in it today.

[–] Drummyralf@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Wasn't gay "fun" back in the day? As in, "I'm having a gay old time"

Non-native, so don't know much about the history.

[–] JoBo@feddit.uk 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Yes. I never said any different. It was adopted as a descriptor by gay men, not bigots trying to denigrate them.

[–] Drummyralf@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Oh, my comment was more of an honest followup question about the language, not an attempt to attack the validity of your comment. I Didn't mean to come across that way.

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Context is king, queen, bishop, knight and rook. It's all about what you convey, within a context; what you mean or your "intentions" might be important for you, but other people don't have access to what you think - they only have access to what you say and how you behave.

That applies to any word, regardless of being considered a slur or not.

So, focusing on your example (calling someone "queer" as "weird"): by default people nowadays associate the word with LGBTQ+. Is there context to cancel that association?

[–] Tramort@programming.dev 4 points 7 months ago

This is closely related to the hyperstitious slur cascade:

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/give-up-seventy-percent-of-the-way

[–] RBWells@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

On the internet, not in person? Probably never. Too hard to figure out your tone.

In person? Just depends on your audience I'd guess, my actual gay friends don't mind being called gay, or queer, or jokes about meaner words when they are meant in a gentle and friendly way, they know me and I know them so we know how to communicate. I don't find the words useful in other contexts, really only use them to describe a person's sexuality.

With regard to things not people? Some of the "slur" words still work. I regularly retard my sourdough bread by putting it in the fridge for a day or two, the dough is retarded, slowed down.