On Calling People Stupid: Bitch-slap
Calling people stupid is synoymous to calling them retarded. Opinions, arguments -- words -- are stupid. People are not stupid.
I just searched my friend's list and am prepared to call people out for using this label. Before blasting half my friends away, I want to note a trend. A person usually calls kinds of people stupid, and this lends ( Read more... )
I just searched my friend's list and am prepared to call people out for using this label. Before blasting half my friends away, I want to note a trend. A person usually calls kinds of people stupid, and this lends ( Read more... )
"Johnny is stupid", meaning "Johnny *is incapable* of reasoning well.
"Johnny is stupid", meaning "I don't like Johnny beacause he threw a worm in my hair.
"Will Farrell's movies are stupid", meaning "Will Farrell's movies lack both substance and any but the crudest humor".
Neither of the first two is (so far as I can see), as 'classist' (a very loaded word, handle with care) as is the third usage which you specifically accept as legitimate.
So I have two questions for you:
1) How can a word, or argument, or object be 'stupid'? Words can be used ungrammatically, or in some other improper manner, but are not themselves lacking in the ability to think rationally (except in the trivial sense that words do not themselves think). Arguments can be valid or invalid, that is following the rules of logic or not, but - as words - are not lacking in the ability to think.
2) Several people have pointed out the use of 'stupid' as a purely descriptive term of people. Stipulated that it is grossly overused and (as you point out) used in a classist manner- would you agree that it is at times appropriate? Or should the word be purged from the English language? If the latter, what word should replace it and how would you prevent said word from picking up the identical classist connotation?
As for myself, I must plead guilty to using the word 'stupid' as a class descriptor. Having worked in a factory in rural Illinois, I can guarantee that there are some stupid people out there. People for whom no amount of exposure to education will help lift them out of their poverty. (This is not to say that all stupid people are poor, nor that all poor people are stupid, but that those who are poor and stupid will likely remain so).
Kerry took a lot of flack for saying that there are a lot of stupid people in the Army. As though those people in the military who are stupid somehow gain the ability to think by virtue of wearing a suit of clothes and swearing an oath that they may not be able to *write*! And while some of those men and women may be 'intelligent in different ways', there are a significant number that are undistinguished in any field.
My point here is that changing the name does not change the stigma.
'Retard' was a PC replacement for 'stupid' coined in 1895 (from the French word meaning 'slow'), and took a perjorative turn in the 1960's. 'Mentally challenged' lasted a little while, and currently there is debate over exactly which words should be used to describe those who are ... well, whatever you choose to call them.
Yes- the word 'stupid' has acquired a classist attachment, and while there is reason not to use it, the mere fact that it is classist (more often than not) is not really the reason it should be avoided in writing. A better reason to avoid the word 'stupid' is because it lacks precision. Even limiting its use to such constructions as "Your argument is stupid", really lowers the level of discourse. Instead, take the time to look at the argument in question and critically point out its flaws (if any), or question the assumptions on which it rests, but dismissing your opponent's argument without further comment is using 'stupid' in a classist way as well- "Your argument is unworthy of any effort to correct, so I'll dismiss it with a single word".
Whew- I have to get to my homework, so I'll stop my rambling here.
cheers-
Eric
Reply
I would like to point out that the adjective 'stupid' in English primarily refers to a person- though it can be used to describe objects (as you insist should be its primary purpose).
Hence my primary objection to it is a personal one.
as 'classist' (a very loaded word, handle with care)
Obviously, hence I defined it in my post.
1) How can a word, or argument, or object be 'stupid'?
It lacks reason, or whatever quality we want, in the objective sense of "reasonable". Ex. a bigotted statement lacking any specific person to utter its words.
2) [...] - would you agree that it is at times appropriate? Or should the word be purged from the English language?
Yes, and No. *evil grin*
If the latter, what word should replace it and how would you prevent said word from picking up the identical classist connotation?
It's fine as an English word because it conveys meaning. I'm not about to fall prey to Orwellian criticisms about manipulating language. *evil grin* The ultimate solution would be absolute equality, as I told Dr. K above, but until then a practical, temporary fix is compassion and multiple intelligences.
People for whom no amount of exposure to education will help lift them out of their poverty.
Then only rich WASPs merit educating. (I'll await your rebuttal on we can hypothetically educate only certain people yet avoid classism.)
As though those people in the military who are stupid somehow gain the ability to think by virtue of wearing a suit of clothes and swearing an oath that they may not be able to *write*!
I do not equate literacy to intelligence. See my comments on multiple intelligences above.
And while some of those men and women may be 'intelligent in different ways', there are a significant number that are undistinguished in any field.
It sounds like you like meritocracy. Assuming neither you nor I are stupid, I'll pressume we are also not distinguished. So we have earned nothing special. This spirals down towards nihilism unless absolute equality steps in (aka. anti-classist) ...
My point here is that changing the name does not change the stigma.
That was your solution, not mine. My attack is not against the word "stupid" but against the concept "Joe is stupid".
'Retard' was a PC replacement for 'stupid' coined in 1895 (from the French word meaning 'slow'), and took a perjorative turn in the 1960's. 'Mentally challenged' lasted a little while, and currently there is debate over exactly which words should be used to describe those who are ... well, whatever you choose to call them.
I'm well aware of the labelling band-wagon but it's not one I'm hopping onto. Again, the concept of my intelligence being superior to Joe's undermines any possibility of other ideals such as equality, and ultimately humanity.
[...] A better reason to avoid the word 'stupid' is because it lacks precision. [...]
For this last paragraph, we agree.
~Justin
Reply
Leave a comment