(December 11, 2018 at 7:02 pm)Tiberius Wrote:(December 11, 2018 at 6:16 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: There's a difference? That seems to involve some mighty fine and politically correct judgement.
Calling an idea "stupid" isn't the best way to critique something, but ultimately it's a relatively tame expression. Calling an idea "fucking stupid" is less desirable, but still, "fucking" just emphasizes the stupidity you are trying to convey.
Calling an idea "retarded" is literally using a slur for mentally disabled people. So yeah, there's a big difference.
(December 11, 2018 at 6:25 pm)Whateverist Wrote: Probably already addressed but I assume thread titles such as "Why Xtianity is so stupid" or "the inanity of xtianity" would still be ruled out? (Sorry still catching up.)
I would say both of those would be allowed. The emphasis of the rule is really on "slurs". "Stupid" and "Inane" are perfectly valid criticisms of ideas; of course they both should be expanded on. Saying "Why Christianity is so retarded" would be disallowed due to the use of the slur.
There are some words which are always slurs (e.g. retarded). There are some words which are slurs in context (e.g. retard). There are some words which are slurs when you purposefully apply them to people, but not when they are applied to ideas (e.g. stupid).
Calling a particular idea stupid is one thing but to characterize any and all facets of Christianity as stupid would require a great deal of explaining. Otherwise, how is that any different than trashing an entire group of people. Consider in the political realm how the same sweeping condemnation of conservatism or liberalism would come off sounding. Wouldn't it become a condemnation of an entire group of people without a narrowed target of criticism along with adequate support for making that case?
