it used to be one of those, i guess los just took it off nowjoviwan wrote:EDIT:doesn't seem to be any of those.
regardless all those words are uncool
it used to be one of those, i guess los just took it off nowjoviwan wrote:EDIT:doesn't seem to be any of those.
Honestly, I don't get it. Not in this case. What was wrong with neurotypical?Infinity Biscuit wrote:I'm not sure of the etymology but it came from people being dissatisfied with "neurotypical" as a word (and while it doesn't affect me so I don't really get much say I can see where that distaste comes from)
Sorry, I probably should and could have found a better way to figure out what word was being bleeped. I was not motivated by any kind of malice or trolling or anything, I was just genuinely curious what word was turned into juggaloing.Infinity Biscuit wrote:Please stop
Quiteadr wrote:it used to be one of those, i guess los just took it off nowjoviwan wrote:EDIT:doesn't seem to be any of those.
regardless all those words are uncool
you were close. it was retard-ed, you just didnt add the ed' (which is why tedious referenced noun and adjective.) I was commenting on how I tried breaking the habit of using it to refer (wrongly) to stupid things (something many people I've noticed still do casually, like on Spacebattles.)joviwan wrote:Sorry, I probably should and could have found a better way to figure out what word was being bleeped. I was not motivated by any kind of malice or trolling or anything, I was just genuinely curious what word was turned into juggaloing.Infinity Biscuit wrote:Please stop
The fascinating thing about 'neurotypical' is that as much as it sounds like it was made up by out-of-touch behaviourists it was apparently coined by autistic people. Jim Sinclair uses it, for example. Obviously times change, and people come up with new terminology to reflect how they feel about this that and the other. Democratisation of movements like I mentioned pages ago.Infinity Biscuit wrote:Because it's basically a very specific way of saying "normal", the avoidance of which is much of the point of the kind of language I'm talking about here.
I've seen it used by some members of the lesswrong.com community, but they might as well be members of a modern iteration of the Cult of Reason. But without self-consistancy or anything but shallow philosophy.Losonti Tokash wrote:i only ever heard neurotypical used as a slur by what i could only describe as autistic separatists so i'm not exactly sorry to see it go
It's weird though, because "allistic" would seem to imply you have, well, all of the "isms" from a literal interpretation anyway. Unless I'm missing an alternate definition of "all" combined with "istic" which I guess is possible.Infinity Biscuit wrote:The whole point is that by putting the privileged position as "normal" it helps give a lot of weight to otherisation of people who aren't in the privileged group. It's the same reason het/straight is used instead of something like sexuotypical.
It's still screwed up for you? Does NY have a huge uninsured population?adr wrote:there's still ads for the NY health marketspace that goes "today's the day you don't have to have a rabbits foot to get health insurance. today's the day........ today's the day"
but the website still doesn't actually work right....
I think the reason you get what I assume this is talking about is the gap between what people think they should feel and what they actually feel.somebody on Infinity Biscuit's tumblr wrote:When men say that they “love to see the woman underneath the makeup,” they’re not saying they want to see your leg stubble and greasy bangs—they’re saying they want you to be better at hiding your maintenance routine. Because the maintenance spoils the fantasy.
How did you get from "you don't need make up" to "you don't need basic personal hygiene"? I don't mean not shaving your legs, either. I don't care what you do with your legs.somebody on Infinity Biscuit's tumblr wrote:When men say that they “love to see the woman underneath the makeup,” they’re not saying they want to see your leg stubble and greasy bangs—they’re saying they want you to be better at hiding your maintenance routine. Because the maintenance spoils the fantasy.
Man labels are a funny thingInfinity Biscuit wrote:I can't remember if I've said this before but again the issues with labels deal with whence and why they're used. A label put on someone else by someone who has power over the other is very different from a self-applied label used by someone who is othered or a label the oppressed puts upon someone over whom they have no structural power. Criticism of labels should be aware of this distinction since the two have basically opposite outcomes.
How did YOU get from "no makeup" to "not showering" :LRyanThunder wrote:How did you get from "you don't need make up" to "you don't need basic personal hygiene"? I don't mean not shaving your legs, either. I don't care what you do with your legs.somebody on Infinity Biscuit's tumblr wrote:When men say that they “love to see the woman underneath the makeup,” they’re not saying they want to see your leg stubble and greasy bangs—they’re saying they want you to be better at hiding your maintenance routine. Because the maintenance spoils the fantasy.