Sounds like a weak hit-and-run but I suppose nothing of value was lost. Adios.

I refuse to argue with people this lazy, having critical-thinking deficits, and/or stoned.

Good day.

No, I’m saying that the utilization the slur midget against people who ARE short is still derogatory toward a person’s characteristics that are outside of their control, whether they are subject to dwarfism or simply below-average in height.

But let’s pause here for a moment. I wanna make sure you’re hyper-focusing on what I think you’re hyper-focusing on because I refuse to believe someone can be this ignorant as to ignore what I’m actually saying. Are you actually, truly being transfixed on whether we can insult people based on height versus dwarfism while ignoring the broader argument I am making? In your own words, can you please describe what that broader argument is so that I understand you get it? Consider this a “read-back.”

Your fallacy is: Ad Populum. Go to a conservative sub, and you’ll be in the minority and many users will say the same to you. Does that mean you’re wrong? If all I get are mostly low-hanging fruit responses, that’s not very convincing.

Sorry, are you victim-blaming here?

Sure sounds like that’s not for you to decide; that is of course, if you’re taking the opposing position to mine in this thread.

Interesting for you to decide, oh great arbiter. How convenient.

In a thread whose comment section is full of opinions, I stated my own. I offered an open invitation to change my view. You clearly disagreed and intended to change my view. However, I am not obligated to change it if I remain unconvinced. That’s not “funny,” that was just what you signed up for when you responded and accepted my invitation.

You then reassert a Circular Reasoning / Begging The Question fallacy because you are asserting a premise that has yet to be established in our argument — that is your belief that I apparently am being hurtful, but has not been established in the domain of discourse. Of course you are free to believe that. But how dare one presumes on my intentions to harm the vulnerable. Are you putting words in my mouth, too?

I will cede on one aspect: It’s not necessarily your “failure,” insofar as the invitation to change my view. It could be one side or both side’s failure to have a productive discussion in the mutual pursuit of truth. However, I am open to accepting that it is my failure to have fully understood your argument. It wouldn’t be the first time I was wrong; nor last.

No? I was obviously referring to other derogatory terms like midget, napoleon complex, etc.

Then I suppose we’re at an impasse because I “outright reject” the unsubstantiated accusation claim that this is victim-blaming — both by definition of the verb, “to blame,” and given my unchallenged aforementioned argument that the target is what matters, and now finally by the admission that one is choosing to blindly reject without merit the notion that, “Words only have power if you let them.”

I offered you the opportunity to change my view; you failed to make a compelling case.

Have a great day.

I understand you currently believe this — but that’s kind of the heart and point of contention in our discussion now, is it not? You’re just reiterating what has already been stated as the opposing side. I am aware.

Thoughts on the rest of my comment, or are you going just for low-hanging fruit?

To Blame has a very specific dictionary definition. Blaming the victim… For what?

To Blame (Verb): assign responsibility for a fault or wrong.

How am I “blaming” you If I were to use mouth-breather against a red hat loser or nazi — how is that blaming someone else for literally having a physiological issue that pertains to mouth-breathing? Did I ever state that it was your fault for having to breathe through the mouth? If I did, then that would be victim-blaming. Moreover, does that mean we cannot speak on any uncomfortable topic that may exert an undue trigger for any bystander reading? E.g., Maybe I raise the topic of cancer to talk about, but then someone says, “Hey, you’re victim-blaming me because you brought up cancer and that makes me uncomfortable because my mom just died from that and I don’t want to see those words online!”? Does that mean we can never discuss any topic or use any word that may be an emotional trigger for someone in an edge-case circumstance?

To your question on the N-word, no, probably not. I thought about this a bit and I perceive certain words that at least in modern terms have etymological origins or modern use to be strictly FOR slurs. That is, I don’t use the homophobic f-word slur, or N-Word in any context because I think they ARE inherently loaded terms. But being short? Breathing through the mouth? Missing a chromosome? I defend these vulnerable group every single day against asshole bigots of the right. The slur only works against bigots because they perceive it as a slur in the first place. I don’t. You don’t. That’s what matters.

Now instead of the f-word, what I might say to a machismo red-hatted straight guy to poke at their own macho-man complex, “Wow, buddy, that sounds pretty gay!”

Notice that I don’t believe the underlying term in this case is a slur because that’s a perfectly normal state of being, but I know they do, and that it would strike at their ego.

That said, I am very sorry for you experienced that. Anyone who mocks you directly for that is 100% a piece of shit.

Edit: Additional question: is it then wrong to say that either Biden or Trump is old and senile? Suffering from dementia because other people may have dementia or because they know someone who has dementia?

So you couldn’t find an example. Okay. Then provided the vast deflection of my myriad points, I will simply reiterate that which was deflected, “Words only have power if you let them."

By your logic, even when “taking back” a slur from a community, are they not trampling and speaking over those others who are less comfortable with its meaning — aka, “victim-blaming” as you say…? Let’s find some consistency here at the very least, shall we?

Please indicate in this thread where either I or you directly used such discussed words as a slur against the very people the slur was wrought from — as in being the target or object of the sentence.

One chance.

Ever hear of the adage paraphrased in many forms, “Words only have power if you let them”?

The intent is to let these words have power against the psychopaths. After all, they’re the ones who believe they’re insults. That’s dishing back what they dish out.

By contrast, the intent is to equip those vulnerable groups targeted by said attacks with the awareness to nullify their power against them; or if anything, to take pride. For example, I’m short; I’ve been called short and variations thereof. Idgaf. I guess you’d call that retaking the slur back?). But you know who I bet really hates being called short? Putin. In a way, every vulnerable group should take back the slur. I proudly wear bleeding heart hippie tree hugger woke sjw white knight with a badge of honor, after all.

Therein lies the difference. I’ll be the first to call out assholes who use such slurs in effort to attack truly vulnerable people, however.

Maybe it’s my own crass unsophisticated Appalachian roots but I was kind of taught that when the bully is so willing to use ableist attacks to attack vulnerable minorities to advance their own agenda, then they open the door to those same attacks against themselves since they’re the ones who actually believe them to be valid in the first place.

After all, any decent knows that it’s not the insult you’re using but rather whom the target is that matters most. And more to that, that you viewed it as an insult itself is kind of a problem in of itself — as though the word carries weight — is it not? Ultimately, no, nothing wrong with missing chromosomes. But they think that; which is why they being the subject of the attack hurts so much. We know psychopaths have thin skin and egos ready to burst.

We also are supposed to flatly say violence is wrong; but then every single one of you here with speak of tolerance of intolerance say violence is okay depending on context, so that too is another double-standard.

Like a black person using the N-word in, “what up my…” doesn’t mean they’re racist or demeaning like a slave plantation owner using it. Slinging insults to a fascist isn’t the same as demeaning an actual kind person. Change my view.

Rich, white, old, conservative billionaires

The hope would be that it would turn viral and covered by news voluntarily, but yeah it’s a gamble and I won’t pretend to know marketing.

Would be pretty good tradition if campaigns or advertisers competed to donate the most to charities for the superbowl. Would be pretty low-hanging fruit for a campaign.

Campaign advisor: “we’ve got 7 mil to spend on ad for superbowl”

Biden: “give it all to charity”

News reports politician giving all money to good cause instead of ad. Average Joe goes, “wow that’s actually kind of cool. A politician putting money to use!”

Win-win.

Dad (a mountain Appalachian man who did own guns but always hated gun nut culture) always said it was better to use your brain than bullets. I wholly agree with your assessment that if we’re at the point where we need guns, then we’ve already lost.

but it found that modern cars actually hit slightly more insects.

I assume this is from the larger more flat-faced grills, especially on SUVs and pick-up truck size creep.

This is the reality. A doctor is trying to see as many patients as possible who want to be seen. Not every condition requires the same amount of time. They do their best to estimate, but ultimately, if a doctor is willing to give you extra time, then the price is usually paying it forward by waiting longer in the waiting room for fellow patients. If you’re late when they are ready, then you drop the efficiency of the entire day. If you’re ready when they’re not, well, yes, their time is actually more valuable in this case.