We have decided some brain quirks are disorders (and get accommodations, as is compassionate), whilst others are flaws (and get slurs). But no one picks their hardware. You cannot earn a better prefrontal cortex or deserve a calmer amygdala. Nor does one get to pick the environment they are born in, which will inform their choices later in life. Even the capacity to "learn better" is a roll of the dice, some brains start the race with sprinting shoes, others with lead weights.

So when we call someone stupid, lazy or insane we are not describing a choice, but simply announcing which kinds of unlucky we’ve decided are worthy of scorn.

I'm not one to call people names with the intention of hurting their feelings, and I don't even believe in free will to begin with. But if I were to call someone an idiot, it wouldn't come from the assumption that they actively choose to be one or that they could choose otherwise. No, they're helplessly an idiot - and I'm just making a factual statement about the world.

I get what you saying, but do you really really REALLY want us to sympathise Trump supporter?

This is why I try to be mindful of using those words. They're really stuck in there but I understand that it would be hypocritical of me to call for understanding towards mental health and cognitive issues and then fault people for not having the cognitive capacity I think they "should" have.

I definitely fail frequently because I get angry when people spout total nonsense, even hateful stuff. I try not to let that get the better of me though.

It seems like every single person these days is neurodivergent so I just treat them normal. I guess thats normalising it.

When we call people stupid/lazy we aren't describing them as a person its usually describing their behaviour or actions in the moment. If an "normal" person doesnt want to get out of bed thats lazy. If an adhd person doesnt want to get out of bed thats still lazy.

Unless there's some Tourette syndrome going on I don't see why anyone should have to tolerate hateful speech.

I hate to say it but those words, especially said by someone else to describe a person they refuse to empathize with, I take it with a grain of salt.

Stupid & insane can mean not by choice and as we’ve seen in the case of politics, it can also be a choice, or more like very stupid and insane decisions.

That said it can also be words used by a shitty society meant to extract as much “value” from everything as possible and sees people as a commodity to be used up and discarded.

So every asshole with a LinkedIn calling people stupid, lazy or insane has me wondering if they’re not the ones who are so unaware they call anything that questions the status quo sTuPiD, or refusing to follow others blindly and just do what their told, LaZy.

If those who refuse to participate in this assbackwards “community” we’ve created are iNsAnE.

There is genuinely a prevailing theory which basically asserts that the genes that make us neurodivergent are uniquely human, that neurodivergence doesn't exist in other species, etc.

Sci show did a little video on it the other day. Better info here than what I know, undoubtedly. Sci show is well vetted content. Im some guy laying in his bed avoiding the start of his day.

https://youtu.be/0mffmUA7d_4

I don’t think OP is suggesting we sympathize with the ideology or the harm it causes. There is a vital distinction between empathy as an alignment and empathy as a diagnostic tool.

Understanding the cognitive or mental health mechanics that lead to radicalization isn't about giving someone a 'pass.' It’s about having the clarity to see the situation for what it is. If we don't understand the 'why' behind how people are manipulated, we can't effectively dismantle the systems that recruit them.

True compassion in a political sense isn't about being 'nice' to someone spouting hate; it’s about having the clarity to address the root cause of the behavior rather than just reacting to the symptoms with more hate. It’s possible to hold a boundary against someone’s actions while still being mindful of the human vulnerabilities that landed them there.

Interesting I'll check that out. Also I'm some guy laying in bed avoiding the end of my day

You can be autistic, ADHD, have some horrible upbringing, have some other genetic thing.. you can have any of those things, but you're still accountable for your actions.

Knowing that someone has those things absolutely helps increase empathy and understanding and assist them with those things.

But a killer is still a killer, even if they did it while suffering with other issues.

"Retard" has been making a comeback, too, I think.

Yeah exactly, the mentioned words like 'stupid' or 'lazy' aren't exclusive to describing neurodivergency at all. In fact I'd argue that's a tiny minority of their use.

Accountability? Yes, accountability is good. It’s proper and necessary to address harmful actions and ensure steps are taken to prevent recurrence. This is entirely possible, and likely more effective, without resorting to insult.

Insults are just punitive justice in a social context: a counterproductive way to discharge outrage rather than foster change. It is to temporarily soothe the egoic zealot lurking within the hearts of all. The research is clear: whether in criminal justice or interpersonal conflict, rehabilitative approaches (clear boundaries, restorative dialogue, support) reduce harm more effectively than punishment alone.

To believe that hate may be remedied with further hate is to mistake fire for water.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8196268/

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00938548251335322

Surely bonhoeffer would want the word stupid to stay in the vocabulary.

There's a difference between drawing a boundary and insulting others.

How do you know? How can you be so certain in your judgment, and declare that another’s "stupidity" or "laziness" is not the shadow of a mind wired differently? Can you see the gears turning askew?

What is stupidity to your mind? What is laziness? If they were born stupid, if they were raised without care, would you fault them? When did Gods descent from heavens and bestow you with the wisdom to always do what is right? Why may not all have this privilege?

If you are wrong, if that "laziness" is exhaustion, that "stupidity" a misfiring synapse: then you’re not just cruel, you are part of the problem.

Well most people aren't referring to a mental illness when they say retard yet u can't say that anymore. Well at least of left wing places like lemmy.

Society is confused and their issue is that lazy stupid and crazy people are using the label neurodivergent to offset their deficiencies, taken away actual help from true neurodivergent people.

Stupid, idiot, crazy, and lazy(?) have not been used for mental health long enough that their meaning has diverged significantly enough that they are no longer comparable to words like retard.

I’m not looking in their file and saying “ahh yea it says you have the stupid. I guess I’m calling you stupid.”

Add to the list:

Asshole, cretin, piece of shit, maniac, psychopath, pedophile, pervert, jerk, narcissist, self-centered prick, dickhead, douchebag, and incel.

There's probably some history behind why people act the way they do. Maybe they were molested as a child, so that's why they find sex with kids appealing.

Edit: I just remembered I made a similar comment in an Ask Lemmy thread recently.

Ah, first world boredom.

If I am wrong, the result is that everyone gets treated with more kindness.

If you are wrong, people who cannot help themselves get treated with cruelty.

I very much like the framing you used here. Words are to communicate about the world and the persons in it. This shouldn't be made unduely difficult and complicated. Individuals wishing a special treatment don't have a right to it, people should still try to respect the (handicapped) persons, with the respect comes a willingness to accomodate their wishes (within reason like with everyone else).

An important detail though ist the differenciation between calling someTHING stupid (action or words) and calling someONE stupid.

Every person has their right to be happy and at peace, everyone needs their self esteem (and this includes people with mental handicaps). Calling them stupid is a quality about them as persons. Calling what they said stupid leaves their quality as a person intact, next time they can choose again.

Someone might inform you about a handicap to explain their behaviour, it doesn't make the shortsighted actions any less shortsighted. But it might help to understand the reasons and limitations of said person.

Actually that ist also put into words how i feel about extreme reactions to someone mislqbeling or misgendering someone else. You can be whatever you like, if it stays reasonable i will accomodate your preferences. If you need me to make a handstand to accomodate your preferences i might choose not to.

I command not for policing of language. I put forth the request for people to examine if shaming and name calling impacts behavior towards a more desirable outcome.

(Spoilers: It does not)

Sry, but afaik there are some flaws with this hypothesis. Neurodivergence is no defined Illness but a catch-all-term for deviations from the norm. The thing with normality is, nobody really wants to be a normalo, and only very little people fit there. Everyone has his deviations. Neurodivergence refers to mental deviations from the (statistical) norm.

Whether you Like it or not, Person A with schizophrenia and Person B with depression only have in common that they both suffer from a ICD-defined Illness. That aside, theres not much in common between the two.

Calling the ability to be mentally ill, a defining trait of humanity is kind of strange. That would make normal people less human?

You state that words like "stupid" or "lazy" are mere descriptors for common traits, and in this, you are correct. But let us be explicit: these words are not neutral. They are not clinical. They are not even accurate. They are judgments masquerading as observations, and their function is not to describe, but to dismiss, belittle and shame.

It is not the existence of laziness or folly that demands scrutiny, it is the impulse to label a human being as such, as though their value hinges on productivity or flawless reasoning. When you call a person "lazy," you are not documenting a transient state; you are rendering a verdict. A judgment from a throne no higher than theirs. You ignore the depressed individual for whom movement is a Herculean task, the neurodivergent mind locked in executive dysfunction, the exhausted worker crushed beneath systems designed to extract labor without regard for humanity. The word "lazy" does not describe a choice. It erases a context.

Likewise, "stupid" is not a measure of intellect, it is a weapon. It presumes intelligence is a moral achievement, not a confluence of biology, environment, and luck. It assumes that those who fail to meet an arbitrary standard of competence deserve contempt, rather than inquiry. If a machine malfunctions, we do not call it "stupid"; we examine its design. Why, then, do we reserve such charity for objects, and withhold it from people?

The question is NOT whether we should "ban" these words. It is whether we recognize their purpose: to punish, not to understand. Language does not merely reflect reality, it constructs our perception of it. When we default to scorn, we architect a world where struggle is met with derision, where complexity is flattened into moral failure, and where the burden of proof always lies with the accused. This is not how justice works. This is not how compassion works.

Furthermore, if one desires a change in the conduct of one they would deem a fool, has shaming been shown to work? NAY! It has been demonstrated time and time again that shaming yields not the behavior of a distinguished individual but a seething hatred towards those that inflicted the wound. A resentment that easily turns what was once a mere human folly into a vitriolic conviction. You may then have no hope of opening this fortress of bitterness to see the harm their actions wrought, indeed they may feel justified in their actions. So as have been done unto them, they will do unto others.

https://drdevonprice.substack.com/p/laziness-does-not-exist

https://www.uva.nl/shared-content/uva/en/news/press-releases/2025/08/guilt-makes-us-more-prosocial.html

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216671499_The_longitudinal_links_between_shame_and_increasing_hostility_during_adolescence

https://neurosciencenews.com/guilt-shame-behavior-neuroscience-30065/

Of course, if your desire is merely to feel good for a moment as you unleash an insult upon another, by all means. But this is not the behavior of a paragon of virtue, rather it is base.

The question is not whether every insult is aimed at the neurodivergent, it is whether we accept that our language, carelessly or maliciously deployed, reinforces a world where those already struggling are further ground beneath contempt.

You assert that policing language is futile, that insults are a "basic part of human language,". This is the refuge of those who mistake tradition for truth. If language is merely a tool, then let us ask: what does it build? Does it foster understanding, or does it erect walls? Does it invite reflection, or does it demand submission?

You say, "It literally helps nothing even if you manage to ban these words." But who, pray tell, is asking for bans? I am not advocating for the eradication of words, I am advocating for the examination of their purpose. You are correct that words are ever shifting and changing. Sever the verbal head of one hydra and witness as two new nouns emerge. This is precisely the reason for my conviction.

"100% policing language"? It is 100% asking for accountability. If you insist on wielding words as weapons, at least own the carnage. But do not pretend that this reflects anything but a commitment to a cruel world.

I still suffer from the Dunning Kruger Effect...

https://youtu.be/JAV9Q_c82M4?list=RDJAV9Q_c82M4&t=60

Dude.

You are literally arguing for the right to be mean to others without consequences.

You realize the OP is doing a melodramatic bit, right? It's funny, at least to me.

You say that they are full of false assumptions but your arguments against them hinge on the assumption that they have been asking for banning for words. Can you point to a single instance where he says this?

If they're trolling and you like it, good for you?

I deleted all my comments here because this is a STUPID fucking conversation. I won't respond to further trollings.

You don't believe in free will, OP? Just curious.

No.

That makes sense.

Did you accidentally reply to the wrong post? I said something about word use and language, not about judgement and observations or decisions.

This begs the question how I'd negatively assert outcomes and efforts if I am not to use negative language to describe it lest it'd be cruel.

Why not, if I may ask?

I think 'normal' needs to be interpreted in evolutionary context. What population traits and prevalence helped with thousands of generations?
Not what traits helped individuals in the last handful of generations of modern lifestyle.

But anyone can fuck right off if they try to stop me swearing at them for doing dumb shit.
Or more likely, I'll be the one to fuck right off and minimize my exposure to them - since many of them likely have uncontestable social or economic power over me.

So far as I have been shown:

People ask not to be born.

People ask not to be born to the parents they are blessed or cursed with.

People ask not for the environment within which their formative formative years occur.

So far as I have been shown, no angel descents from the heavens to bestow upon everyone equally the magical gift of just knowing right from wrong. Indeed, the very idea of right and wrong are wholly dependent on the circumstance of one's birth. Did their mother whisper them tales of evil men who would lay with another, or did a kindly neighbor teach them the value of kindness and friendship? Or were they beset by men addled by inherited hatred and were they taught to wield a gun before they even knew love? 'Tis true most people will know pain from pleasure, but even what you perceive as pain and what as pleasure depends upon how you formed before you set eyes on the world. As we share most other features that make us human, we can assume what hurts you will hurt another, what pleases you will please another - but there is ever an exception to every rule. It is but a human tendency to associate most pleasure with good, and most pain as evil. Useful one to be sure, if one values the well-being of one's kin. But an universal truth it is not.

If you say some people turn to evil no matter how they were taught: how then could they choose to be different? If you say some people turn kind regardless of any suffering they had to endure: how then could they have chosen otherwise?

Furthermore, you yourself do not even know the nature of the next thought before it has already revealed itself. Think now of an animal.

Did you know what animal would manifest in your mind before it already found purchase within it?

If you say you may deliberate a thought before a choice is made, how did the choice to deliberate come about? You do not know if you will ponder a choice for an eternity before you have already done so. You may say "I'll think about it" but you do not know if you have thought about it, before you have thought about it. You did not choose the tendency. And if you say, you chose to learn: how did you know you were going to choose to learn, before you were learning it?

No, I do not believe in free will. It is but an artifact of ideologies that cater to our more base desire of being utterly beyond reproach of other women and men. It pleases the zealot in our hearts who wants to think of itself as the paragon of virtue. For if there is no absolute good or evil, and no inherent ability to choose one from the other, how would it partake in the joy of judging others to be lesser than it? It could not. It would have to see itself as no better than the most heinous of criminals, but for the circumstances of its life. This is the bitterest of pills to swallow, and thus even those of us most conscious to these realities gag when faced with that which truly offends us. Which is why this is no mere lever you pull in your brain and have it be set once and for all. No, it takes lifelong vigilance, facing the zealot every time it reaches for the gavel and fixing it with your unrelenting attention, until it recedes back into the darkest corner of your heart. There is may merely be an advisor to your desire to do good in the world, but no more.

You may communicate without violence.

https://www.cnvc.org/