More like “source for this image is clumsily half-explained and never properly pointed to in a Reddit comment and the data vis is still garbage.” This isn’t 1935; that word isn’t ableist, but I’ve removed it anyway so there’s at least a comment pushing back on this nonsense.
The word is used to disparage a persons intelligence, there’s no need for it at all and it only serves to belittle others. You can criticise something without such language.
As for the comment, there is nothing wrong with a person not having a slide from a presentation on hand to sate your lust for ‘sources’, especially when it links to other data/articles that back-up the graph.
Yeah, that’s the point of using insults. It’s 2025, and I’m completely sick and tired of watching society crumble around me because fine, sophisticated people can’t or won’t bother to take five seconds to evaluate the ragebait slop being presented to them. You’re talking about a term whose clinical relevance was dead over 40 years ago, so unless I’m a psychologist telling you this over ARPANET, it isn’t ableist.
As for the sources, why is that in scare quotes? No the fuck it does not sate any reasonable person’s “need for ‘sources’”, because it doesn’t link to the source. By the Reddit comment’s literal own admission, it does not link to a source for any of this. It just states there was some unnamed 2023 conference where this was presented then links to an article from The Guardian which has nothing to do with this particular graph’s data and just has a link to this document which doesn’t even classify groups according to the graph you posted. It also links to an ADL article, which equally lacks this data.
Because you’re insulting people with intellectual disabilities, they’ve done nothing wrong. There are better words you can use without being problematic. It doesn’t matter what it’s clinic relevance was because it’s meaning in popular culture is well established and that is the problem. If you dislike being told not to be an arsehole, go post elsewhere.
As for why it’s in quotes, because as far as I’m concerned you’re attempting to sealion. Likewise I did not say it linked to a source for this, I said it links to other data that backs up the claims in the graph allowing you to independent verify that it is accurate.
As for that PDF you so happily disregarded, it provided one the means to locate the CSIS briefing and additional information - https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states. You are being unreasonable in expecting everyone to simply hand you all the information for every single thing, you were given the means to find it if you so bothered to.
People asking you for sources isn’t what sealioning is; get a grip. You gave specific data points with no source, no timeframe (well okay, now you have a timeframe according to some random Redditor), and no methodology. That’s not sealioning; that’s asking after the fact for the basic common decency you owe readers when you post things like this but are plainly too embarrassed to admit you can’t provide.
As for the CSIS source, what are you even talking about at this point? Even assuming it has the data shown in the graph (it doesn’t), the chain for this evidence would be to prompt you for a Reddit comment which links to a Guardian article which links to some document which allegedly helps me find the CSIS article (it doesn’t; it doesn’t link to, let alone mention the CSIS article by name, a single time). Is this an actual joke? That you’re being snarky with “the PDF you so happily disregarded” like that’s a totally normal sequence for someone to follow?
You still haven’t shown anyone the source for literally a single data point in the graph, so I not only think I’m being perfectly reasonable but that you’re desecrating the corpse of the burden of proof.
I have very little knowledge of what happened in this convo, but the term “spazz” is not a super great look. It’s a slur. Like, use it if you want, but it’s a bad look.
“Words that I use as insults cut people deeper than I probably intended. Clearly it’s their fault for getting cut by them rather than something I could be introspective about.”
That’s how you sound. Sound like an asshole if you want, but don’t be surprised if people treat you like one in turn. That’s all I’m saying.
This is the issue with arguing because something made you mad rather than understanding what the other person is saying and then responding in a way that makes sense.
Asshole isn’t a slur. It’s an insult because it compares the target of the insult with something that is dirty and spews only filth.
A slur is a slur because it compares the target of the insult with a member of a lower caste in society, implying that the target is of the same value as those society has dehumanized. When you use a slur, you reinforce that that caste designation is correct and worthy of scorn. That you think that people are less valuable for belonging to that caste and that that belief is good.
So, when you use a slur as an insult, it tells those around you that you’re an asshole. But it also tells members of that caste that you think of them as subhuman and, therefore, you’re not safe to be around.
So, to reiterate my point, you can talk like an asshole if you like, but don’t be shocked when people treat you like one.
More like “source for this image is clumsily half-explained and never properly pointed to in a Reddit comment and the data vis is still garbage.” This isn’t 1935; that word isn’t ableist, but I’ve removed it anyway so there’s at least a comment pushing back on this nonsense.
The word is used to disparage a persons intelligence, there’s no need for it at all and it only serves to belittle others. You can criticise something without such language.
As for the comment, there is nothing wrong with a person not having a slide from a presentation on hand to sate your lust for ‘sources’, especially when it links to other data/articles that back-up the graph.
Yeah, that’s the point of using insults. It’s 2025, and I’m completely sick and tired of watching society crumble around me because fine, sophisticated people can’t or won’t bother to take five seconds to evaluate the ragebait slop being presented to them. You’re talking about a term whose clinical relevance was dead over 40 years ago, so unless I’m a psychologist telling you this over ARPANET, it isn’t ableist.
As for the sources, why is that in scare quotes? No the fuck it does not sate any reasonable person’s “need for ‘sources’”, because it doesn’t link to the source. By the Reddit comment’s literal own admission, it does not link to a source for any of this. It just states there was some unnamed 2023 conference where this was presented then links to an article from The Guardian which has nothing to do with this particular graph’s data and just has a link to this document which doesn’t even classify groups according to the graph you posted. It also links to an ADL article, which equally lacks this data.
Because you’re insulting people with intellectual disabilities, they’ve done nothing wrong. There are better words you can use without being problematic. It doesn’t matter what it’s clinic relevance was because it’s meaning in popular culture is well established and that is the problem. If you dislike being told not to be an arsehole, go post elsewhere.
As for why it’s in quotes, because as far as I’m concerned you’re attempting to sealion. Likewise I did not say it linked to a source for this, I said it links to other data that backs up the claims in the graph allowing you to independent verify that it is accurate.
As for that PDF you so happily disregarded, it provided one the means to locate the CSIS briefing and additional information - https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states. You are being unreasonable in expecting everyone to simply hand you all the information for every single thing, you were given the means to find it if you so bothered to.
People asking you for sources isn’t what sealioning is; get a grip. You gave specific data points with no source, no timeframe (well okay, now you have a timeframe according to some random Redditor), and no methodology. That’s not sealioning; that’s asking after the fact for the basic common decency you owe readers when you post things like this but are plainly too embarrassed to admit you can’t provide.
As for the CSIS source, what are you even talking about at this point? Even assuming it has the data shown in the graph (it doesn’t), the chain for this evidence would be to prompt you for a Reddit comment which links to a Guardian article which links to some document which allegedly helps me find the CSIS article (it doesn’t; it doesn’t link to, let alone mention the CSIS article by name, a single time). Is this an actual joke? That you’re being snarky with “the PDF you so happily disregarded” like that’s a totally normal sequence for someone to follow?
You still haven’t shown anyone the source for literally a single data point in the graph, so I not only think I’m being perfectly reasonable but that you’re desecrating the corpse of the burden of proof.
Republicans aren’t necessarily people with mental disabilities, some of them are just evil fucks.
Removed by mod
I would have been surprised that someone was such a blatant wanker and a bootlicker but then I saw “@lemmy.world”
Removed by mod
Lmao. Powertripping piece of shit. Ban me, you cunt. Do it.
Removed by mod
Oh… it was ‘Morons.’
Yeah, watch your tone, spazz.
I have very little knowledge of what happened in this convo, but the term “spazz” is not a super great look. It’s a slur. Like, use it if you want, but it’s a bad look.
Christ, you people are in-fucking-sufferable.
“Words that I use as insults cut people deeper than I probably intended. Clearly it’s their fault for getting cut by them rather than something I could be introspective about.”
That’s how you sound. Sound like an asshole if you want, but don’t be surprised if people treat you like one in turn. That’s all I’m saying.
Excuse me. But I find the word asshole to be demeaning, please check your privilege before using such hurtful language.
Or, failing that, maybe just grow the fuck up and accept that insults are meant to be insulting you fucking moron.
This is the issue with arguing because something made you mad rather than understanding what the other person is saying and then responding in a way that makes sense.
Asshole isn’t a slur. It’s an insult because it compares the target of the insult with something that is dirty and spews only filth.
A slur is a slur because it compares the target of the insult with a member of a lower caste in society, implying that the target is of the same value as those society has dehumanized. When you use a slur, you reinforce that that caste designation is correct and worthy of scorn. That you think that people are less valuable for belonging to that caste and that that belief is good.
So, when you use a slur as an insult, it tells those around you that you’re an asshole. But it also tells members of that caste that you think of them as subhuman and, therefore, you’re not safe to be around.
So, to reiterate my point, you can talk like an asshole if you like, but don’t be shocked when people treat you like one.