A sociolinguistic and etymological challenge

[doe_witch]

Not to beat a dead horse, but while r_blackcat's post on ableist language was mostly struck through, it's prompted me to make an inquiry about something I've wondered for years. It's arguably the kind of question that belongs on a community more directly centered around issues of privilege, discrimination, etc., but since we have a bunch of etymology-

Comments

[nenena]

Adding: I think that English has a whole group of nature-based insults that are fairly baggage-free, too.

Dirtbag. Scum. Scumsucker. Bottom-feeder. Etc.

Most of the examples that I can think of, however, are only used to insult somebody that is deliberately hurting or taking advantage of others, not necessarily being stupid.

[lacunaz]

I'm a fan of "fuckwit" in that case. Pretty much just add "fuck" to any adjective, and Presto! Instant insult. It's like magic!

[nenena]

Oh yes, fuckwit! Argh, how could I have forgotten about that one?

"Fuckwit" is lovely for use in so, so many circumstances.

[lacunaz]

Really, the English language may as well just stop. It's reached its zenith.

[gindaisy]

Anything ended in -wit can be considered ableist as well.

source: http://disabledfeminists.com/2009/11/16/ableist-word-profile-wit/

[lacunaz]

Thanks for the link to this. I didn't agree with the crux of the article, but it was an informative read.

[nenena]

Seconding the thank-you for the link. That's definitely a connection that I wasn't aware of and hadn't really thought about before.

[corinn]

Hmm~ I have to think about that one a bit more.

A thought prompted by that article: "Dimwit" is bad. What about saying someone is "dim"? ("Susie's a bit dim.") Is the "-wit" implied?