I notice a lot of people use terms like "psychotic" or "psychopath" as insults and negative descriptions on here. These are clinical terms that are used to describe real people with difficulties, not boogeymen! I don't disagree with the sentiment that these people are doing wrong, but if you wouldn't use the r-slur or "autistic" as an insult (which you shouldn't) then you shouldn't use these words either. And I get the idea of calling someone delusional, but take care that you don't just mean "I disagree with them." Though by posting on neurodiverse I imagine I'm preaching to the choir.
Sincerely, a casual schizoaffective disorder haver.
yeah we need to do better on that. brainstorming alternate words might help. I've taken to calling people dipshits but that doesn't really work for this sort of unhinged, vile behavior.
Vicious, monstrous, sadistic, depraved, detestable or reprehensible (especially morally)
Depraved I think is an especially good one! It has that venom without (as far as I know) being unintentionally hateful.
This thread makes me think that maybe we could brainstorm a post which has common ableist terms to provide suggestions for alternatives to drive a bit of gentle culture change.
I use words like ridiculous, laughable, senseless, absurd, and wild (e.g. wild idea/let's not get wild) a lot in the place of crazy. I could do better but I'm reasonably good on it.
I need to do better on terms like stupid and dumb. I know on the slur scale they're very mild but that's not a good excuse.
This sounds like a great idea! I don't know a lot of slurs, but I know the ones that bother me. (Most of them were in the post already) But we could invite others to share ones that bother them and we can hopefully achieve this!
we've tried a few times but it's basically impossible to find drop-in 1:1 replacements that are concise and evocative. Scatalogical is usually safest but even something like shithead is ableism if we're strict about it.
"Despicable" is my go-to.
(Also, greetings fellow Cupcake).
Am I wrong for thinking psychopathy should be treated
just as badin the same way as sadism?So as I understand it, psychopathy is a disorder that incorporates low empathy and antisocial behaviors. A psychopath need not be a mass murderer and can, in fact, be indistinguishable from any other person on the street. The connotation of being a harmful, violent person is not necessarily the reality. My stance is "Any person is capable of any thing."
Some would argue that being indifferent to others’ suffering is
just as bad asequal to taking pleasure in it. If we’re going to treat the word psychopath as derogatory, you could say the same about sadist.I'm pretty sure "sadist" isn't used to demonize and stigmatize neurodivergent people the way "psychopath" is (at least, I haven't personally come across it in that context but if someone else has pls lmk.) Therein lies the difference imo. Low empathy is not an inherently "evil" trait btw, it is a very common trait among neurodivergent people in fact. Painting people with low empathy as bad people because of their low empathy is ableist.
Quick internet search later: it seems "sadistic personality disorder" is an unofficial personality disorder that some people subscribe to. Hmm. That's definitely one ableist context for the word, so I'm wrong there.
So part of being inclusive towards all sorts of neurodivergent people is embracing, encouraging, and accommodating their differences, right? Are we supposed to to treat people who take pleasure in making others suffer the same way?
You were right about “psychopath” before, I’m kind of wondering how we should treat sadism then.
you lose a lot of consideration when your divergence puts others at risk. Maybe some non-fetish sadists need something like that dementia village.
Right. I think the difference there is that a psychopath typically has a physical difference in their brain that limits their empathy ability. Now you can also say a sadist is born with the desire and they can't really control it, so I'm not sure where the answer lies there. I typically don't use sadist as an insult (or at all, really) but I can see the arguments.
Is being a sadist and being a sadist as kink categorically different? Its just a responsiblity/ consent thing, like you can be a totally healthy person who is a sadist, right? I'm phrasing this poorly, but equating it with psychopathy on a mental health level seems wrong to me, not that either one should imply "bad person", is there anyone who could educate me on this?
I’m no expert but I do think there is a difference between sexual sadism and general sadism.
i have flirted with sadism when i was younger. like i would really, really be compelled to hurt things when extremely stressed and almost harmed some pets before. luckily i was able to stop myself but the compulsion was incredibly strong and part of me wanted to just get relief
also have some sexual sadism used kink as a safe sane consensual outlet for it. it's only fun with people that enjoy it
Yes, psychopathy isn't really a thing, the actual diagnosis that coincides with what previously was psychopathy is antisocial personality disorder. Much like all the other cluster B personality disorders, ASPD is often misunderstood, and media portrayals (as well as the popular imagination) get them completely wrong.
deleted by creator
those are good, they all imply the person is dumb or lazy or just "bad" tho, I struggle more to find words for calculated uncaring evil, or behavior that flagrantly violates all normal social boundaries in order to do harm, than calling people ignorant, incompetent, or just bad
Malicious?
"Bloodthirsty warmongers" might work here and there? (Thinkin about alternative insults for imperial core governmental people)
Language to go off on someone for being a dickhead that doesn't catch ND or marginalized people in the collateral is a lot more common than language for telling someone their ideas aren't good, which all seem to be predicated on insisting they instead actually have a neurological condition that many people struggle with.
With the added bit of not necessarily being accurate. Even if they do struggle with the condition, that doesn't mean their idea is bad. The idea being bad is what does.