I hate that this response lead with “I agree”. To me, the r word is repulsive. I hear what you’re saying about “it didn’t used to mean what it’s come to mean”. But folks use the same argument to fly the swastika and use the n word. I get where you’re coming from. But word of advice: try taking arguments that you want to use to defend one thing and see what kinds of things you don’t agree with you could use the same argument for. Legitimately a fun mental exercise and amazing way to pre-check your arguments.

By this logic fat shaming is acceptable? Some people naturally have faster or slower metabolisms. But anybody can have healthy or unhealthy body weights. Some just have to work harder at it. So if somebody has a naturally fast metabolism but chooses to eat and exercise like Trump does, it’s ok to make fun of them for their weight?

This. I think this is where that line is that I’m still trying to dial in on. To some extent, intelligence is under our control (this is why “you’re being ignorant” is legit. Some idiocy (or lack of education?) is by choice). So, maybe it’s fine to mock somebody for remaining willfully ignorant. But not ok if they’re intellectually less capable due medical/biological factors?

No wonder it’s a blurry line. This shit is ambiguous af.

Right. This is what I was talking about. I (and I suspect others) oftentimes want to name call a person and not only point out their evil but also point out their incompetence and inability. Both of which usually have some intelligence component.

It seems reasonable to berate an evil person when they can’t even be evil competently.

But we can’t (or shouldn’t) because it indirectly (or directly) makes fun of people who are perfectly good people who are unintelligent.

Again. I get it. Probably just showing my bias and yet another fuckin thing to unlearn.

I’m guessing it’s not just cognitive abilities either? “Tripped over his own dick” is offense to folks with motor control problems. Etc etc.

Therefore the only thing you can make fun of is a person’s evilness. Not their incompetence (because all incompetence is presumed to be from natural causes that aren’t their fault)

I still have such dissonance about this. I want to say “Look at this idiot” and point out something unintelligent that an objectively evil person does. But because intelligence is an inherited trait, we can only use negative language when referring to a person for evil that they do by choice? Or something? So, evil people bumbling can only be mocked for the evil intent and not for their inability to be evil with skill and intelligence?

I dunno. Trump is a numpty and if that offends the numps or whatever group that term was originally a slur for then I apologize.

edit: to be clear, the r word seems objectively shitty to use and I don’t. I just have yet to find an objective litmus test for where the line is between that and “silly” cuz I swear there’s always someone there to explain the etymology of “silly” and how it’s origins were shitty in some way