I don’t think you actually have any interest in my first principles, and because the question isn’t genuine, I don’t care to discuss them with you.

I absolutely wouldn’t commit to the current “equilibrium”, as it’s dysfunctional all around. I don’t care about the overton window shift, because there’s an underlying objective reality that tends to keep it swinging back and forth. When we tip outside of that typical swing, it’s generally exploitation by one party and myopia by the other, or some similar dynamic. On top of that, i just don’t base my decisions on whether something is right or left.

I an not suggesting that we should be lobbing grenades at college protestors. I’m pointing out that this is occurring in a comparatively ‘liberal’ state (California) and in a comparatively ‘liberal’ context (academia), and that liberal ideals leave liberals open to authoritarian abuse, yet they are shocked when it happens.

This, of course, isn’t unique to liberals. If things get too authoritarian, you open yourself up to manipulation - case in point, the current state of the Republican party.

shrug I’ve already said what I need to, and nothing you said is unexpected or new. My opinion stands, yours stands, and time moves on. Have a good one.

So, not just to defend ourselves against government powers, but also corporate powers? Someone should update their hitlists.

I am, but all I can think is that the little bastards need some fucking culture!

The KKK are indeed a fundamentally social problem, but may need to be curtailed with enforcement at times.

This is the process of excessive liberality turning into excessive authority, and relates to what Republicans react to (with equally excessive zeal) by calling democrats fascist.

Democrats are not (necessarily) fascists. Republicans are not (necessarily) nazis. But the problematic tendencies of the extremes of the parties aren’t resolved by going more extremely partisan and authoritarian.

I had to ditch my girlfriend because she became an arch elitist. Debian ftw.

Oh! Yes, of course.

Did you even read what I wrote?

Those few Dems are clearly the ones pushing this. But that it should be bipartisan and should have more support in general has nothing to do with false equivocation.

The irony here, though, is that because of your partisan BS, you clearly interpreted that as an insult to the Democrats.

No. Not at all. That’s not the comment I replied to.

Hey bro? Calm down, it was a joke. It’s not that serious. Did you skip your meds today pal?

Supporting the person who does take it seriously, though, when you make fun of him with that dull take? Absolutely.

Solid take.

It’s called personal responsibility. You should learn to accept that some subjects are going to be taken seriously, because they are (literally) life and death circumstances. If you don’t, they’ll just be taken seriously anyways, and you’re the asshole.

If I had to trust some internet rando with my life, I’d have no qualms choosing @Etterra@lemmy.world .

Those three Democrat are focusing on the thing all of the Democrats and Republicans should.

Yeah, there’s stuff to like, but… but…

I just disable most of the Pop stuff and use vanilla gnome.

Ok, grumpy bear.

Beep beep coming though!

Mental retardation is no excuse for abuse. But it’s still an apt term, in denotation. But the connotation has become unacceptable.

A plant’s growth may be retarded due to various conditions, and that may interfere with it’s prospects for survival.

Fire retardant may prevent a fire from starting, or stop one that has started to develop.

But when considering people, there are a whole slew of subtle problems, including that people may include that in their identity, and give up. They can be treated, possibly, but that’s all for them now. You’re a retard. It leaves no room for other things. People still feel this way about some diagnoses that, if they didn’t lean into them so hard, leave plenty of room for change. But the social weight behind “retard” just carries too much crap, and speaks volumes - some of which may be true, but a lot of which is not.

‘Disabled’, ‘undeveloped’, and ‘inhibited’ can be good terms. But most of it depends more heavily on how we treat others and what has been taken into common use.

Retard is more recently used, and is still being cycled out.

Except that with “retard” and quite a few others, there are genuine traits that are undesirable to most people, thus the constant cycling of terms. Technical terms come in to general and pejorative use, then new technical terms come in to be less pejorative. This the terms more and more vaguely refer to the condition when referencing actual mentally handicapped people.

idiot moron cretin retard (from ‘[profound] mental retardation’)

All technical or health terms that have been cycled into being slurs in common use. Some more terms that have made their way into pejorative use:

Handicapped (not so much pejoratively used, but being cycled out anyways) Special Differently Abled

I’m sure any new technical terms that are used will be picked up for pejorative use soon enough. But “mentally retarded” was and is an apt description, it’s just not socially acceptable anymore because of it’s ease of use as an insult, and the concomitant public view and usage of the word.

I think you may be misunderstanding your “victory” here. I suppose that’s pretty contextual, when it comes down to it.