Disablist language and deletions

'I do use it to describe the socially disabled. I also use the term 'social cripple'.
I use them to describe a NT person who is being obtuse right up to being downright deliberately offensive. I would not use them to describe anyone else.'

And you really don't understand why some people with a physical disability might be offended at your use of gimp and cripple in this situation?
Or why someone who does have a social communication disability might be distressed by being described as a social cripple?
How thoughtful of all your friends and aquaintances to have stencilled NT on their foreheads, so you know they are not on the spectrum but merely rude, crude, insensitive and obtuse because they actively choose to be so.

well you should be ashamed of yourself.

Do you think so, zzzzz?

I thought I'd explained what I meant by my use of the terms 'socially disabled' and 'social cripple' and the context in which I used them.

I also thought this was a discussion.

If you would like further explanation, you have only to ask. It's more helpful in this context to challenge rather than to make bald statements of outrage.

My views may differ from yours but I will be polite and as accommodating as possible. Perhaps you can be too.

But if you just want to shut down debate, then this is not the thread for you.

i agree with the op

We no longer use words like "gimp" to describe the physically disabled

No, I don't and never have. I don't connect the word with that.

I do use it to describe the socially disabled. I also use the term 'social cripple'.

I use them to describe a NT person who is being obtuse right up to being downright deliberately offensive. I would not use them to describe anyone else.

You might count me amongst the NT people who were downright deliberately offensive because that is what I am being. Context is everything. I think my targets are legitimate but others wouldn't.

I have talked about gimp masks sometimes in the context of discussing Pulp Fiction and American Horror Story.

I have wide interests, but that's as far as my interest in gimp masks goes.

I have reported "moron" in a thread title recently, saying "is this OK?" I wasn't asking rhetorically (though MNHQ might have thought I was) - I genuinely didn't know the answer, so I was drawing the thread to their attention. I'm still genuinely unsure where the line should go - I do see the OP's point, but to me it does feel quite close in sense to "retard".

Language evolves. Moron and idiot are far distanced from their use in the early 20th C, to the vast majority they aren't in the least disablist. in use or intent and Mumsnet looks very precious, not to say daft, for deleting them.

Surely we are more than "occasionally" in the presence of people we don't know very well? Virtually and in RL?

I have stopped myself using 'moron' and 'idiot' after reading posts on here. They are not words that jump out at me in the way that 'retard' or 'spaz' would, but I can see that they cause hurt to some and there are enough suitable alternatives to use for it not to be too much of a hardship!

The word that my dds (6 and 7) think is the worst word to use and they refer to as the 's word' is 'stupid'.

I heard dd1 say 'are you stupid?' to ds the other day, when he said 'uh uh uh' (he can't speak), she said 'you didn't say no, so you must be stupid' - then she saw that I had heard her and looked horrified. It broke my heart because she knew that what she was saying was hurtful.

Words and the intentions behind them can be messy painful things.

For me, the word moron doesn't offend, or make me think it's a word used to define a learning disability which is being applied as an insult (in the way that "spaz" or "retard" is, or a more recent one, being called "autistic" as a pejorative). I don't think I have ever heard it used in that way.

But then I freely use the word "cunt" and "twat" as insults (usually not seriously!), which are offensive to some, being based on female genitals.

On the whole I agree with you.

Because it's impossible on the receiving end to separate out the intent of the speaker

No it isn't.

Occasionally it's possible to be mistaken about the intent of the speaker if you don't know them well or were not paying attention to the context.

Besides, although the speaker isn't required to be omniscient, once the dual meaning's been pointed out what sort of wally would honestly go around deliberately trying to be mistaken for being pejorative? Usually one who is trying to be pejorative, but thinks dual meanings provide cover?

I don't think most people would, but if you've been using a word for decades without anyone ever objecting to it then it seems reasonable, even after someone pointing out the relatively obscure origins of the term, that

a) you might still find yourself saying it without really thinking
b) you might question the significance of one person's opinion that a word is insulting against the fact that you have NEVER met anyone else who agreed

It seems almost as though the offensiveness of the word is spreading like a virus - one person finds it offensive, explains to another who begins to find it offensive and so on, but was that first person correct to believe that a large number of people were using the word in a derogatory way? Or is it just the knowledge of the origins of the word? After all, there has to be some word to describe people or actions which show below average intelligence, and some will always be derogatory.

And a relatively innocuous term like 'simple' would once have been a common way for all kinds of people to describe a range of characteristics, from those with low IQs to the very naive or even someone who is just immature. Can we ban the use of all words which could potentially be used to describe traits which are traditionally considered negative, but could also be symptomatic of a disability or medical problem?

These aren't rhetorical questions, by the way - I am genuinely pondering all this as I feel quite conflicted on the 'moron' issue, and BOFtastic has sort of summed up my internal debate over the word. (Except every time I decide I don't think it's disablist, I swiftly follow it with an inner conflict over whether that would be EXACTLY what disablist apologist would use to justify their stance and end up back where I started.)

("Woman" was a particularly bonkers insult from my youth, used exactly the way the derogatory "gay" is now. 'Twas an object lesson in the appropriation of entirely neutral words to express and reinforce contempt for the group described.)

Any word that has a current meaning should never be used in the pejorative sense. Be it "gay", "mental", "woman" or anything else.

Regardless of whether the individual saying it meant to insult.

Because it's impossible on the receiving end to separate out the intent of the speaker, and anyway the word carries with it the negative connotation regardless of that intent.

People are rightly revolted to find themselves labelled "X, the bad thing" even if the speaker didn't mean that.

Besides, although the speaker isn't required to be omniscient, once the dual meaning's been pointed out what sort of wally would honestly go around deliberately trying to be mistaken for being pejorative? Usually one who is trying to be pejorative, but thinks dual meanings provide cover?

I completely agree that if a word is only used in its ordinary insulting sense and has no other current meaning then it should not be considered disablist.

Of course even if it did have a current meaning it probably wouldn't be intentionally disablist, but I can see why someone wouldn't want the current medical name for their condition used as an insult.