Hello, Psycho : Using Ablist Slurs That Aren't Slurs

I typically refer to my friends with disabilities as "psycho". Now, some people might be butthurt that I can use it, but they can't.
You might see African-Americans refer to another by the "N" word. Now it is totally fine when they use it, but it is wrong when a European-American uses it. Why the difference ? I think because they don't mean it in a demeaning way.
Similarly, when I call my friend "Psycho", I basically reflect what people have said, are saying or will say. I have been disabled all my life ( learning disabilities, and later mental illness), and I have been called all sorts of names from "Retard" to "Sped" and so on. My friends know this, so they don't take offense.
Others don't have permission to use those words. They can only be an insult when used by non-disabled people.

Paranoid Android said:

I typically refer to my friends with disabilities as "psycho". Now, some people might be butthurt that I can use it, but they can't.
You might see African-Americans refer to another by the "N" word. Now it is totally fine when they use it, but it is wrong when a European-American uses it. Why the difference ? I think because they don't mean it in a demeaning way.
Similarly, when I call my friend "Psycho", I basically reflect what people have said, are saying or will say. I have been disabled all my life ( learning disabilities, and later mental illness), and I have been called all sorts of names from "Retard" to "Sped" and so on. My friends know this, so they don't take offense.
Others don't have permission to use those words. They can only be an insult when used by non-disabled people.

Click to expand...

Some of my best friends are psychos.

BSM1 said:

Some of my best friends are psychos.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know. Psychos and cripples are the best.

You're not allowed to use the word "ablist". That's our word. When you use it, it's a slur.

freethinker44 said:

You're not allowed to use the word "ablist". That's our word. When you use it, it's a slur.

Click to expand...

HA Ha. Yeah, 99.99% of people don't know what it means.

freethinker44 said:

You're not allowed to use the word "ablist". That's our word. When you use it, it's a slur.

Click to expand...

As a proud cisablist, I can use "ablist".
But I just can't think of a reason to do so.

I am schizophrenic and I call myself psychoslice, I'm psycho and proud of it, yea yea.

Revoltingest said:

As a proud cisablist, I can use "ablist".
But I just can't think of a reason to do so.

Click to expand...

l only use it to correct non-ablist social justice warriors when they use it, beyond that I just say "normal people", like a normal person.

psychoslice said:

I am schizophrenic and I call myself psychoslice, I'm psycho and proud of it, yea yea.

Click to expand...

You know, people use ablest slurs all the time. I ignore it, of course.

freethinker44 said:

l only use it to correct non-ablist social justice warriors when they use it, beyond that I just say "normal people", like a normal person.

Click to expand...

"Normal" is the worst slur of all.....unless one is saying that some defect is normal.

Revoltingest said:

"Normal" is the worst slur of all.....unless one is saying that some defect is normal.

Click to expand...

Dang, you're right. How about we just use "defective" and "non-defective" for non-normal and normal people respectively. Or is that offensive to normal people because it highlights the fact that they are different from crazy people and mutants? I don't know, keeping up with all this SJW stuff gets to be exhausting, it's much easier and satisfying to troll them instead.

freethinker44 said:

Dang, you're right. How about we just use "defective" and "non-defective" for non-normal and normal people respectively. Or is that offensive to normal people because it highlights the fact that they are different from crazy people and mutants? I don't know, keeping up with all this SJW stuff gets to be exhausting, it's much easier and satisfying to troll them instead.

Click to expand...

Or defect challenged...

Instead of "normal", I'm going with cisnon-disabled.

freethinker44 said:

Dang, you're right. How about we just use "defective" and "non-defective" for non-normal and normal people respectively. Or is that offensive to normal people because it highlights the fact that they are different from crazy people and mutants? I don't know, keeping up with all this SJW stuff gets to be exhausting, it's much easier and satisfying to troll them instead.

Click to expand...

This idea strikes me. How about we call each person a "person". I know. it's radical that we should treat people with respect. But since there not an alien, and they belong to Homo Homo Sapien, "person" would be( I don't know) more respectful.

BSM1 said:

Or defect challenged...

Click to expand...

Or possible Psychopathic Individual or morally challenged.

Paranoid Android said:

This idea strikes me. How about we call each person a "person". I know. it's radical that we should treat people with respect. But since there not an alien, and they belong to Homo Homo Sapien, "person" would be( I don't know) more respectful.

Click to expand...

Aliens aren't people now? That's kind of elitist don't you think?

Also, isn't saying, ignoring any descriptors normally attached to the word "person" is more respectful, is kind of implying that those who qualify for those descriptors are shameful in some way and/or deserving of less respect than those without descriptors? I mean, the converse of "'person' (without acknowledgment of impairment/condition/affliction) is more respectful" is "'person' ( with acknowledgment of condition/affliction) is less respectful". Furthermore, the converse of "people deserve to be treated with respect of a person without descriptor label" is "people with a descriptor label do not deserve the respect of a person without a descriptor label".

Now, I know you are implying that they deserve respect with or without a descriptor, but why is ignoring the descriptor more respectful than not? And if it's not more or less respectful with or without the descriptor, why leave the descriptor off in the first place?

That is how we think. There will always be the "Other". The "Other" we give our worst attributes to, but in reality, were really talking about ourselves. When ever you hear blanket statements, that is because harms been done to that person. Be careful in looking for it, because what is behind it is great rage.