688
Known nazi Nick Fuentes got doxxed lolol
(midwest.social)
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.
I think you mean "enabler". An ableist is someone who discriminates against people based on disabilities.
Still, your point stands. They're a fucking enabler clown, or put in a more polite way, a useful moron.
which they did, by using an ableist slur, as have you.
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?
No. "Moron" was the second slur.
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.
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?
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!
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 " 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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, ridicule or insults are generally not very helpful at promoting positive change, unfortunately. If they were useful, we'd tell parents to insult their children as a teaching method. The fact we don't recommend that might imply that ridicule is not great for personal growth. Insults usually only helpful as catharsis for the person using them. More reason to be considerate in choice, in my opinion.
Actual good actions are necessary to promote other good actions. I hope we both can do more good going forward.
I don't think ridicule will change the person being ridiculed for the better - I don't think anything really could until they make the choice to change for themselves, which people rarely have the desire to do. Ridicule is more to quiet people who are displaying bad behavior, incentivizing them to promote it a little less, and to send a message to others who idolize such people that they might want to reconsider who they look up to.
Especially given the events of the last week, that doesn't seem to have worked either, no matter how direct. The ineffectiveness would also explain why Fuentes has now been doxxed.
I honestly haven't seen a lot of real ridicule. Sure, there are memes and other internet things, but those are easily dismissed. I need people going up to them on the street and just laughing at them, like their entire persona is pathetic.
The internet has connected us, for sure, but it also stole the impact that real, in-person interactions can have, both positive, like having a friendly conversation with a stranger on the street, and negative, like with the shame that comes from knowing your behavior is being rejected by your peers.
I think that has to do with why doxxing is a popular way to up the ante in situations like these - things are a lot more real when they're not behind a screen.
On further consideration, "shit-for-brains" might just be the phrase you're looking for.
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!
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
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.
It's not the vulgarity - the other word is historically tied to eugenics.
No, I never said anything of the sort.
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?
The word is m*ron.
E: for some reason the link won't link properly, so here it is, with a good explanation of why:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0388000119302785#:~:text=2)-,Jacob%20is%20a%20moron,-. (it still won't link to the right part, the whole thing is relevant, but you'd need to scroll down a little for the example)
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?
You're good, apologies if I was a little defensive, people generally don't react well when you point ableism out, so I had my back up.
"Ignorant" is good, "wilfully ignorant" is better because it implies intent (or deliberate lack of intent) rather than the ignorance being out of their control like it might be for someone who actually has a learning disability for example.
In general, any derogatory term that berates someone for something beyond their control, like intelligence, or that used to be a clinical term and is now used as derogatory, is best avoided, not only because those terms are and have historically been used generally against disabled people, but because they also provide bigots with an "out", it's removing their responsability for their own actions.
There are quite a few lists out there with ableist slurs and alternatives for them, here are a couple of examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disability-related_terms_with_negative_connotations
https://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html
https://therollingexplorer.com/category/disability-advocacy/ableist-language-series/
https://web.archive.org/web/20240112142654/https://thebodyisnotanapology.com/magazine/stupid-is-an-ableist-slur-breaking-down-defenses-around-ableist-language-liberating-our-words/
https://libguides.ufv.ca/c.php?g=705905&p=5193383
https://genderbitch.wordpress.com/2011/04/02/words-offense/ this one is not a list, but a good breakdown on why it's important to avoid slurs (and spoiler, it isn't offense) .
Oh, nice, thanks! I'll check those out!
You're welcome!
None of the lists are exhaustive or perfect, of course, and there are many others out there as well as articles and blogs going in to more detail about ableist language, but the general rule behind which words to avoid stays pretty much consistent.
And also none of us are perfect and we will make mistakes (even those of us who are disabled have internalised and lateral ableism since we were socialised in an ableist world!), it's about being willing to learn from our mistakes and improve, rather than double down.
I wholeheartedly agree. Sometimes I feel overwhelmed, like every day a new word I use is considered offensive, but I try to remember that it's all coming from the desire to be more mindful of the people around us, and in the end it's not too hard for me to find - or even just make - another word to convey what I need.
Exactly, it might take us some minor adjusting (sometimes even because of our disability, like for example with poor memory or a learning disability that makes it hard to adjust to new patterns), but if it makes people around us feel safer and more included (E: excluding bigots, always excluding bigots, with accordance to the tolerance paradox/social contract!), it's 100% worth it, without any question.
People who consciously refuse to take such minor consideration of those around them are just broadcasting their intolerance.
If you describe something which you consider to be a bad choice as "going full retard", you associate making bad choices with cognitive disabilities. This is immensely harmful to people with cognitive disability who have to work every day to distance themselves from that prejudice. The association is discriminatory, and a bad choice.
The WW2 term for them is collaborator.