The Forward Party- a third party that actually stands a chance?

[GranTurNismo]

Last week, 2020 Democratic candidate Andrew Yang and former Republican congressman David Jolly announced their plans for the Forward Party, a third party that identifies as "neither left or right", seeking to have a base of liberals, conservatives, and those in between, who are disdained by the current two-party system. According to them, at least 40% of Americans can't see themselves identifying with either major party. The party's main tenets, called the "Three Priorities", are "economic opportunity, personal liberty, and upholding democracy". Jolly claims that ideological disunity would actually be a hallmark of the party, and it would not focus on running with one, cohesive message, other than the fact that they assume that everyone in the political realm would nominally agree on achieving the aforementioned tenets. For example, Jolly claims that the Forward Party can and should satisfy both pro-life and pro-choice positions. The party even claims it would not have any top-down leadership or "dogmatic ideology" intrinsic to it.

Strategically, the party differs vastly from most other third parties. Rather than running a presidential candidate in 2024, the Forward Party seeks to focus on running candidates for local and state elections, then working it's way up the ladder upon those elections' successes. Jolly claims that the Forward Party would run on much different policies in a race in Massachusetts versus a race in Alabama. Although not much has been mentioned by the party in terms of advocating policy positions, it seems clear that the Forward Party seems to offer itself as a centrist (in the aggregate) alternative, as it has alluded to the far right and far left fringes having too much control over the two main parties, hence voters wanting to abandon them. On climate change for example, the party wants to strike a middle-ground between "the far left wanting to upend our entire economy and way of life" and "the far right's denial that it even is a problem". The party also advocates for electoral reforms such as ranked-choice voting, open primaries, a nationwide ban on gerrymandering, a nationwide voting rights guarantee, and making the process of voting much easier and streamlined. Furthermore, the party does not make clear how it will get it's funding, nor does it remark on any campaign finance reforms.

The question is not only does the Forward Party stand a chance, but is the Forward Party even necessary? I find it admirable that both Yang and Folly seem to understand why other third parties fail and the mistakes they make (assuming most voters are centrist, being too rigidly ideological, and misunderstanding what voters want from a political party) and are creating a party to overcome these mistakes. But, the Forward Party is simply counterintuitive. It continues to make misconceptions about the two main parties and their voters, such as both parties moving in a radical, extreme direction (news flash, only one of them is), and that being the main reason why many voters are less enthralled by them. On certain issues like abortion, it simply isn't possible to have a "middle ground" solution; either you are for allowing them or you are not. I find it particularly concerning how the party simply does not mention anything in terms of funding. If it cannot get enough funding, it would be rendered irrelevant, but if it would allow anyone to fund them under a guise of "freedom" or "ideological diversity", then it would run into the same problem faced by the two main parties; corporations and the ultra-rich having a much bigger say in terms of policy agenda and what actually gets done.

 

[Joey D]

The question is not only does the Forward Party stand a chance, but is the Forward Party even necessary?

Does it stand a chance? Possibly, but like you mentioned, it's going to come down to funding. Unless they can get a huge grassroots movement going, it's simply going to be some billionaires bankrolling the party.

Is it necessary? Yes, absolutely, especially if it can maintain some sort of middle ground. While I identify the most with the Libertarian Party, it's been infected with Trumpism and I no longer consider myself a member of that party. I think many people who've voted Libertarian in the past feel that way too. I don't think it's a majority by any means but it's a large enough percentage that it's probably going to sink the party for the foreseeable future.

The Greens, while a viable third party in terms of ideology, just doesn't have the numbers for them to play a part. Who was the last serious Green Party candidate? My guess is Ralph Nader in 2000 and it looks like he got about 3% of the vote.

If a third political party can get 10% of the vote, it'll force the Democrats and Republicans to run a better candidate in order to attract those voters. So while the third party might not make any headway, they'll, at the very least, make things better overall.

It continues to make misconceptions about the two main parties and their voters, such as both parties moving in a radical, extreme direction (news flash, only one of them is), and that being the main reason why many voters are less enthralled by them.

To some degree, pockets of Democrats are moving towards a more extreme view (at least in terms of American politics). Progressives aren't really palatable for many people and while they may agree with them on social issues, they pull back when they hear about how they'll fund stuff.

You also have too many people who identify as Democrats who are absolutely insufferable. People bitch about literally everything now and make a huge deal over the smallest thing. For example, Beyonce has a new album coming out and was blasted on social media for saying "spaz" in a song because of its ableist language. Apparently, Lizzo (whoever the hell that is) had the same thing happen to them too.

While I'm in support of many things conservatives consider "woke", I just tune out when people start complaining about lyrics in a song or when someone comes up with something so ludicrous that I can't help but roll my eyes. For example, while going down the rabbit hole on Twitter I found a group of people that identified as "spongesexual" and were sexually attracted to SpongeBob SquarePants. There were hundreds of posts about how people needed to accept that and anyone who criticized it was a bigot.

I think it's stuff like that that turns some Democrats off from the party and it doesn't help that the Democrats have zero identity. Even though they're absolutely nuts and push dangerous narratives, Republicans have at least figured out who they are and what they represent. I get that Republicans are typically less intelligent and are typically more impressionable by what they're told, but there's no reason the Democrats can't have a unified message to unite the party under.

As for people becoming less enthralled about voting, I mean it comes down to two geriatrics who are either the giant douche or the turd sandwich. A lot of people don't see the point in voting nor do they see the point in becoming educated about candidates. They just vote for the opposite of whatever is there now if things aren't going well. It's why Biden will likely lose in 2024 because the average American sees that inflation wasn't out of control, gas prices were low, and the economy was strong under a Republican president and the opposite under a Democratic one. I get that the president has little control of that stuff, but the average American doesn't.

 

[Dotini]

I almost always vote 3rd party. And I send them money. Both major parties are hopelessly corrupt.

 

[TB]

It's why Biden will likely lose in 2024 because the average American sees that inflation wasn't out of control, gas prices were low, and the economy was strong under a Republican president and the opposite under a Democratic one. I get that the president has little control of that stuff, but the average American doesn't.

Or that part (most?) of the reason for all of that is still fallout from what the previous guy put into motion.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Does it stand a chance? Possibly, but like you mentioned, it's going to come down to funding. Unless they can get a huge grassroots movement going, it's simply going to be some billionaires bankrolling the party.

A large grassroots movement would only be possible if the party platform not only excites, but brings those who were previously uninterested/disaffected, into politics. Bernie's 2016 campaign is a good example. The idea of a party transcending the two major ones and less ideologically fluid could stand a chance. Though, a party that seeks to be "centrist" by somehow appealing to liberals, conservatives, and moderates would not. After all, bipartisanship is at an all time low. The average Democrat is more and more ideologically separate from the average Republican, and that's not necessarily a bad thing by itself, but speaking as a leftist, I wouldn't want to be part of a party that appeases right wingers in the name of being a "big tent party", as we just don't have enough in common. Basically every rational actor can agree on the fundamental problems. It's solutions, though, where we differ.

Is it necessary? Yes, absolutely, especially if it can maintain some sort of middle ground. While I identify the most with the Libertarian Party, it's been infected with Trumpism and I no longer consider myself a member of that party. I think many people who've voted Libertarian in the past feel that way too. I don't think it's a majority by any means but it's a large enough percentage that it's probably going to sink the party for the foreseeable future.

Sadly, I think that was inevitable. Many so-called "libertarians" are just right wingers that smoke weed and think that banning abortions and gay marriage is cringe. Kidding of course, but if the Libertarian Party in America is an "anti big government" party, and one of Trump's key messages is "drain the swamp", it's only logical that there'd be much overlap.

To some degree, pockets of Democrats are moving towards a more extreme view (at least in terms of American politics). Progressives aren't really palatable for many people and while they may agree with them on social issues, they pull back when they hear about how they'll fund stuff.

It really depends on the progressive. I think Bernie and AOC have tackled the "how you gonna pay for that" question as well as they could and have given succinct answers. Others, like Cori Bush, have floundered in that respect.

You also have too many people who identify as Democrats who are absolutely insufferable. People bitch about literally everything now and make a huge deal over the smallest thing. For example, Beyonce has a new album coming out and was blasted on social media for saying "spaz" in a song because of its ableist language. Apparently, Lizzo (whoever the hell that is) had the same thing happen to them too.

While I'm in support of many things conservatives consider "woke", I just tune out when people start complaining about lyrics in a song or when someone comes up with something so ludicrous that I can't help but roll my eyes. For example, while going down the rabbit hole on Twitter I found a group of people that identified as "spongesexual" and were sexually attracted to SpongeBob SquarePants. There were hundreds of posts about how people needed to accept that and anyone who criticized it was a bigot.

I think it's stuff like that that turns some Democrats off from the party and it doesn't help that the Democrats have zero identity. Even though they're absolutely nuts and push dangerous narratives, Republicans have at least figured out who they are and what they represent. I get that Republicans are typically less intelligent and are typically more impressionable by what they're told, but there's no reason the Democrats can't have a unified message to unite the party under.

This is where I begin to lose you a bit. What you're describing is a proportionally very small, albeit vocal, part of the Democratic coalition. The terminally online folks who "get offended over everything"; the right calls them SJWs and the online left refers to them as "wokescolds". Take a step back and ask yourself who the average Democratic voter is, and would they really be offended, or even know about, the song lyric you mention? If you want to play this game, right wingers have "cancelled" retailers that stopped selling Mike Lindell's MyPillow and elected officials who admit that Biden won the election. So while cancel culture is a real thing, it's far from just lefties engaging in it. Though, you are correct by asserting that it, though undeservedly, has an effect on the Democratic Party's ability to grow its coalition. Bill Maher, despite being wrong about most things, hits a nail on the head when he said that many right wingers agree with the Democrats on things like economic issues, but will not vote for them since they are perceived as being a hyper-woke, college activist led party, when in reality it's a small minority and that the average Democrat voter and politician is some geriatric moderate.

 

[Scaff]

I just tune out when people start complaining about lyrics in a song or when someone comes up with something so ludicrous that I can't help but roll my eyes.

If the lyric in question is the one in recent Lizzo and Beyonce tracks then I would argue it's anything but ludicrous or worth rolling your eyes at, for me its a personal one and one that was used against me throughout school (at the time I had no idea why, but my general lack of coordination and fine motor skill I now know is due to my Autism).

Simply because a slur (and in this case that's exactly what it is) doesn't affect the majority doesn't make calling it out invalid, in both the examples above the artists have every right to say what they like, and they should then (as should everyone) understand that may result in consequences. Lizzo I fully respect for not only addressing it, but also re-recording and re-releasing the track within days (doesn't matter that the track isn't my cup of tea), Beyonce has said she is doing the same. This isn't eyerolling stuff, this is a community that has been marginalised, abused, and ignored advocating for itself and actually getting positive change as a result. What some may see as eye-rolling I see as positive change and inspirational for a community I'm a part of.

Slurs such as the one in the two cases above may seem like nothing if they don't directly affect you as an individual, but if they do, then they form part of a wider pattern of ableism that does literally end up killing people, and I'm not just talking about suicide, but the more insidious pattern of parents/people killing disabled people under the justification of it 'being better for them', often not only then getting away with it, but actively being supported in their actions.

Now these might not be the very lyrics your referring to, you didn't cite an example so I can't know, but I do think it's worth considering that whatever they are, those complaining about them may have a valid and real reason for doing so.


Edited to add, I notice that it was those lyrics and as such have to add:

I am 100% one of the people who objected to the use of that term in both tracks, do you consider me insufferable as a result? If it were a racist or homophobic slur being used would you share the same view that those objecting are equally insufferable?

It may well be a 'small thing' if it doesn't affect you and never has affected you, if that's the case, great. That doesn't then invalidate those who it has directly affected, those for whom it had a real and damaging affect on, those of us who are willingly happy to challenge the use of such language to try and minimise it's impact on the 'me' that is currently ten and catching the same kind of abuse and **** I did at that age. 'It's not a big deal' and 'get over it' attitudes were ******** excuses when fighting racist and homophobic language, that people are having to face the same nonsense in regard to ableism (and transphobia) both saddens and disturbs me.

Just to re-iterate, I have zero desire to criminalise such language, I value free speech, but calling people out for using slurs is a consequence those who do so should 100% face, and that action isn't 'ludicrous', worth of eye-rolling, or making a big deal about a small thing.

I honestly thought better of you than this.

 

[Joey D]

Sadly, I think that was inevitable. Many so-called "libertarians" are just right wingers that smoke weed and think that banning abortions and gay marriage is cringe. Kidding of course, but if the Libertarian Party in America is an "anti big government" party, and one of Trump's key messages is "drain the swamp", it's only logical that there'd be much overlap.

There's quite a bit of truth with that, many libertarians are just right-wingers who are slightly more OK with social issues. Although, you get people like Mike Lee who claim they're libertarian and then proceed to do nothing even remotely libertarian-esque.

I think QAnon appeals to some libertarians too along with the red pill "movement", being a neckbeard, men going their own way asshats, and the like. Basically, the fat dude with unkempt hair, questionable body odor, greasy skin, and wearing a fedora is probably a libertarian. At the height of the Ron Paul days, it seemed like these types of people were just drawn to him in some unexplainable way. Fortunately, I don't know enough about that subset of people to really say why.

It really depends on the progressive. I think Bernie and AOC have tackled the "how you gonna pay for that" question as well as they could and have given succinct answers. Others, like Cori Bush, have floundered in that respect.

I think Sanders and AOC aren't overly palatable because of how they were going to pay for stuff. Taxing the rich certainly works, but all it's going to do is have the costs passed onto the consumer due to how the US economy is structured. Voters also skew older and those older people worry about how their investments will perform. Going after the rich likely means the market will decrease (not crash like some predict though) and that means less money for them.

This is where I begin to lose you a bit. What you're describing is a proportionally very small, albeit vocal, part of the Democratic coalition. The terminally online folks who "get offended over everything"; the right calls them SJWs and the online left refers to them as "wokescolds". Take a step back and ask yourself who the average Democratic voter is, and would they really be offended, or even know about, the song lyric you mention? If you want to play this game, right wingers have "cancelled" retailers that stopped selling Mike Lindell's MyPillow and elected officials who admit that Biden won the election. So while cancel culture is a real thing, it's far from just lefties engaging in it. Though, you are correct by asserting that it, though undeservedly, has an effect on the Democratic Party's ability to grow its coalition. Bill Maher, despite being wrong about most things, hits a nail on the head when he said that many right wingers agree with the Democrats on things like economic issues, but will not vote for them since they are perceived as being a hyper-woke, college activist led party, when in reality it's a small minority and that the average Democrat voter and politician is some geriatric moderate.

The average Democratic voter? Nope, I don't think so at all. However, I can see moderates being turned off from the party because of how a small subset of people makes a fuss about everything and those people tend to be more liberal and thus vote Democrat. I'm even turned off by it, but I'm turned off just as much by the Republicans doing the same thing.

And I completely agree, conservatives love cancel culture too. I just think it's more accepted among that political ideology though so the people who subscribe to it aren't really all the fused about it.

If the lyric in question is the one in recent Lizzo and Beyonce tracks then I would argue it's anything but ludicrous or worth rolling your eyes at, for me its a personal one and one that was used against me throughout school (at the time I had no idea why, but my general lack of coordination and fine motor skill I now know is due to my Autism).

Simply because a slur (and in this case that's exactly what it is) doesn't affect the majority doesn't make calling it out invalid, in both the examples above the artists have every right to say what they like, and they should then (as should everyone) understand that may result in consequences. Lizzo I fully respect for not only addressing it, but also re-recording and re-releasing the track within days (doesn't matter that the track isn't my cup of tea), Beyonce has said she is doing the same. This isn't eyerolling stuff, this is a community that has been marginalised, abused, and ignored advocating for itself and actually getting positive change as a result. What some may see as eye-rolling I see as positive change and inspirational for a community I'm a part of.

Slurs such as the one in the two cases above may seem like nothing if they don't directly affect you as an individual, but if they do, then they form part of a wider pattern of ableism that does literally end up killing people, and I'm not just talking about suicide, but the more insidious pattern of parents/people killing disabled people under the justification of it 'being better for them', often not only then getting away with it, but actively being supported in their actions.

Now these might not be the very lyrics your referring to, you didn't cite an example so I can't know, but I do think it's worth considering that whatever they are, those complaining about them may have a valid and real reason for doing so.


Edited to add, I notice that it was those lyrics and as such have to add:

I am 100% one of the people who objected to the use of that term in both tracks, do you consider me insufferable as a result? If it were a racist or homophobic slur being used would you share the same view that those objecting are equally insufferable?

It may well be a 'small thing' if it doesn't affect you and never has affected you, if that's the case, great. That doesn't then invalidate those who it has directly affected, those for whom it had a real and damaging affect on, those of us who are willingly happy to challenge the use of such language to try and minimise it's impact on the 'me' that is currently ten and catching the same kind of abuse and ** I did at that age. 'It's not a big deal' and 'get over it' attitudes were ****** excuses when fighting racist and homophobic language, that people are having to face the same nonsense in regard to ableism (and transphobia) both saddens and disturbs me.

Just to re-iterate, I have zero desire to criminalise such language, I value free speech, but calling people out for using slurs is a consequence those who do so should 100% face, and that action isn't 'ludicrous', worth of eye-rolling, or making a big deal about a small thing.

I honestly thought better of you than this.

So in looking more into it, it's definitely a case of cultural and linguistic differences. In America, spaz isn't a derogatory term or if it is, it's on par with something like "dummy" or "crazy". Spaz is used to say someone is being crazy, wild, or overly energetic. Athletes use it when they aren't able to settle down and perform their best, parents use it when their kids are acting hyper, people name their dogs spaz, and I've known at least two people that are nicknamed spaz which leads me to believe it's common enough.

Due to this, you can see how I, as an American, might find it insufferable and eye-rolling that Beyonce is being asked to change the lyric. It would be akin to asking her to change the song "Crazy In Love" because it uses the word "crazy". I honestly had never heard anyone taking issue with the word until it came up with Lizzo. N.E.R.D has a song called "Spaz" that was used in NBA2K9, NBA 09, and Watch Dogs 2 along with being in several commercials, including one for the Microsoft Zune. Kid Cudi also has a song called "Cudi Spazzin" that samples N.E.R.D. The word itself is incredibly prevalent in hip-hop and rap music too, which is why it doesn't really surprise me that Drake wrote the song with the word (assuming he actually wrote it).

I guess to put it into a perspective that might make sense to a Brit would be the word "fag". In America, it's a slur used against gay men whereas in the UK it means a cigarette or to work hard. So to use an exaggerated example, having a lyric in a song that says "Going to smoke a fag" would mean that the person is going outside to have a smoke in the UK whereas in America it would mean you're going to shoot a gay man.

 

[Scaff]

So in looking more into it, it's definitely a case of cultural and linguistic differences. In America, spaz isn't a derogatory term or if it is, it's on par with something like "dummy" or "crazy". Spaz is used to say someone is being crazy, wild, or overly energetic. Athletes use it when they aren't able to settle down and perform their best, parents use it when their kids are acting hyper, people name their dogs spaz, and I've known at least two people that are nicknamed spaz which leads me to believe it's common enough.

Due to this, you can see how I, as an American, might find it insufferable and eye-rolling that Beyonce is being asked to change the lyric. It would be akin to asking her to change the song "Crazy In Love" because it uses the word "crazy". I honestly had never heard anyone taking issue with the word until it came up with Lizzo. N.E.R.D has a song called "Spaz" that was used in NBA2K9, NBA 09, and Watch Dogs 2 along with being in several commercials, including one for the Microsoft Zune. Kid Cudi also has a song called "Cudi Spazzin" that samples N.E.R.D. The word itself is incredibly prevalent in hip-hop and rap music too, which is why it doesn't really surprise me that Drake wrote the song with the word (assuming he actually wrote it).

My understanding is that it's use in the US is two-fold in that regard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spastic_(word)#United_States...

I guess to put it into a perspective that might make sense to a Brit would be the word "fag". In America, it's a slur used against gay men whereas in the UK it means a cigarette or to work hard. So to use an exaggerated example, having a lyric in a song that says "Going to smoke a fag" would mean that the person is going outside to have a smoke in the UK whereas in America it would mean you're going to shoot a gay man.

...as the word 'fag' is in the UK. It's context related in the UK, being both a gay slur, and an (anachronistic) term for a cigarette, to the degree that I honestly can't remember the last time I heard it used in the context of a cigarette.

 

[Famine]

So in looking more into it, it's definitely a case of cultural and linguistic differences. In America, spaz isn't a derogatory term or if it is, it's on par with something like "dummy" or "crazy". Spaz is used to say someone is being crazy, wild, or overly energetic. Athletes use it when they aren't able to settle down and perform their best, parents use it when their kids are acting hyper, people name their dogs spaz, and I've known at least two people that are nicknamed spaz which leads me to believe it's common enough.

Due to this, you can see how I, as an American, might find it insufferable and eye-rolling that Beyonce is being asked to change the lyric. It would be akin to asking her to change the song "Crazy In Love" because it uses the word "crazy". I honestly had never heard anyone taking issue with the word until it came up with Lizzo. N.E.R.D has a song called "Spaz" that was used in NBA2K9, NBA 09, and Watch Dogs 2 along with being in several commercials, including one for the Microsoft Zune. Kid Cudi also has a song called "Cudi Spazzin" that samples N.E.R.D. The word itself is incredibly prevalent in hip-hop and rap music too, which is why it doesn't really surprise me that Drake wrote the song with the word (assuming he actually wrote it).

I guess to put it into a perspective that might make sense to a Brit would be the word "fag". In America, it's a slur used against gay men whereas in the UK it means a cigarette or to work hard. So to use an exaggerated example, having a lyric in a song that says "Going to smoke a fag" would mean that the person is going outside to have a smoke in the UK whereas in America it would mean you're going to shoot a gay man.

Not so much, no, to pretty much all of that.


"Spaz" is short for "spastic" and describes uncoordinated, jerky muscle movement (a quality known as "spasticity"). It evolved into a term of abuse in the UK due to the fact that the leading disabled charity in the UK was called the National Spastics Society; over the course of the delightful 1970s and 1980s, as its scope expanded, kids noticed that and called all disabled people "spastics", and then basically anyone they thought was stupid, and then anything bad - and because kids don't like long words, it became "spaz".

That resulted in the charity rebranding to "Scope" in 1994, but the insult remained.

In the USA almost none of that happened, and the word spastic remained as uncoordinated, jerky muscle movement. But you still have kids, so that still became "spaz", meaning anything uncoordinated and then anything just generally bad - and interchangeable with dork/nerd/geek etc. - which is still, of course, an insult.

The fact it's an ableist insult should be well known in USA consciousness by now, because of Tiger Woods. Woods commented that he "was a spaz" on the greens during the 2006 US Masters (meaning he was uncoordinated), and while that wasn't widely reported in the USA it very much made headlines elsewhere. Shortly afterwards, Woods (someone well aware of insults towards minorities) apologised, as he was unaware of it, and this was widely reported even in US media.

Other celebrities have subsequently apologised for using the word elsewhere...



... so the fact two different musical artists, one of whom is among the biggest names in the world, are still ignorant of it and have it in tracks released 16 years on from the Woods incident is... weak. Recognising the ignorance and choosing to address it is to be lauded - as it is with Woods and Yankovic - and not derided as "woke". I don't know who "Lizzo" is but good on her.


As for "fag", that is also a insult for homosexuality in the UK, as is the original "faggot". However a "faggot" is also a bundle of sticks and a processed 'meat' product, and a "fag" is also a cigarette: "bum a fag" can mean both "beg for a cigarette" and "sodomise a homosexual", depending on context (although it's pretty much never the latter).

It's not equivalent to "spaz", because where you can use "fag" in entirely polite terms with ordinary meanings, "spaz" is always a term intended as an insult. There are surprisingly few words that are equivalent, but one is a word Woods, Knowles, and Jefferson will have heard a lot.

Using that word as an insult is not "the smallest thing", nor should it be with "spaz" either.


*And yes, in this context it's okay for us, even as people without a disability, to use it here.

 

[Joey D]

My understanding is that it's use in the US is two-fold in that regard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spastic_(word)#United_States...

It looks like at one time it might've been offensive, but not anymore. But the same could be said about the word "crazy", "dummy", "idiot", "stupid", or countless other terms that were once used to describe someone's mental state but have changed considerably since then. Looking that that Wikipedia article, it appears that before Lizzo, the last artist to catch flack was Weird Al in 2013 and even he stated that he was unaware that it was considered offensive in the UK. Some Americans might take offense to it, but I would have to assume it's a very small percentage. Now if those artists had used the word "retard" then it would likely be a much different story because that word is considered highly offensive in the US (and I assume elsewhere too).

...as the word 'fag' is in the UK. It's context related in the UK, being both a gay slur, and an (anachronistic) term for a cigarette, to the degree that I honestly can't remember the last time I heard it used in the context of a cigarette.

I haven't been to the UK since 2007, but when I was over there it was an incredibly common term that threw most of us for a loop when we heard it. I guess another example would be the "c word" (see you next Tuesday) which is commonly used among many of my friends from England and Scotland in a rather liberal fashion. My Aussie friend uses it to a degree that I've actually had to say something to him before so that he doesn't get into a fight out in public over it. In America, the "c word" is typically regarded as one of the most offensive words that can be used and should not be spoken. It doesn't bother me when someone says it maliciously or otherwise, but culturally it's not appropriate for anyone to use it, especially towards or even in the presence of a woman.

I can certainly appreciate that different cultures find different things offensive, but if you think less of me because I'm viewing something through my own culture and language, then so be it. While I may have had relatives from the UK, I'm still very much American. However, knowing that the word "spaz" is offensive in the UK now I certainly wouldn't use it while I was in the country or while addressing someone who is British.

In the USA almost none of that happened, and the word spastic remained as uncoordinated, jerky muscle movement. But you still have kids, so that still became "spaz", meaning anything uncoordinated and then anything just generally bad - and interchangeable with dork/nerd/geek etc. - which is still, of course, an insult.

The fact it's an ableist insult should be well known in USA consciousness by now, because of Tiger Woods. Woods commented that he "was a spaz" on the greens during the 2006 US Masters (meaning he was uncoordinated), and while that wasn't widely reported in the USA it very much made headlines elsewhere. Shortly afterwards, Woods (someone well aware of insults towards minorities) apologised, as he was unaware of it, and this was widely reported even in US media.

Other celebrities have subsequently apologised for using the word elsewhere...



... so the fact two different musical artists, one of whom is among the biggest names in the world, are still ignorant of it and have it in tracks released 16 years on from the Woods incident is... weak. Recognising the ignorance and choosing to address it is to be lauded - as it is with Woods and Yankovic - and not derided as "woke". I don't know who "Lizzo" is but good on her.

Spaz can mean jerky muscle movements in the US as a definition, but it's often interchanged with acting crazy or wild and more colloquially used that way. Go to any dog park here and people will say "sorry my dog is acting like a spaz" when it's jumping around, barking, and generally acting crazy. Plenty of athletes call someone a spaz when they're going absolutely wild out on the field and I've heard it more than once used to describe someone in the NFL. Honestly, someone with involuntary muscle movements in the US would probably be labeled a "retard" or a "cripple" if someone wanted to insult them. Even "handicapped" or "disabled" is probably more offensive than spaz depending on the person.

As for Tiger Woods, I only vaguely remember it now that it was brought up. But it was 16 years ago and I'm not sure how many Americans would remember one incident from that long ago, especially from Tiger Woods, who has had a whole truckload of press since then, both good and bad. I would wager that if I asked random people what's the worst thing Tiger has ever done, the most common answer would be "cheat on his wife" or "crash his vehicle".

I don't really see it as being "woke" at all, but it still doesn't make sense to me when looking at it from an American perspective. Sure, on some level it's an insult, but it's so incredibly minor in the US very few people are going to make a fuss about it. It would be similar to someone making a fuss over the word "crazy", which is an insult but also so minor no one pays any attention to it. Obviously, Beyonce and Lizzo want to sell as many records as possible, which is likely why they've changed the lyrics so it's acceptable to a wider audience. They're within their right to do so, but looking at it from an American, it's a bit strange. Americans, as a whole, largely still don't see the issue with it either as far as I can tell. I could use the word "spaz" in a work meeting and no one would bat an eye.

I, obviously, can't speak for all Americans nor can I find anything that rates how offensive the word really is though so I'm just drawing off my personal experiences here.

 

[Scaff]

It looks like at one time it might've been offensive, but not anymore. But the same could be said about the word "crazy", "dummy", "idiot", "stupid", or countless other terms that were once used to describe someone's mental state but have changed considerably since then. Looking that that Wikipedia article, it appears that before Lizzo, the last artist to catch flack was Weird Al in 2013 and even he stated that he was unaware that it was considered offensive in the UK. Some Americans might take offense to it, but I would have to assume it's a very small percentage. Now if those artists had used the word "retard" then it would likely be a much different story because that word is considered highly offensive in the US (and I assume elsewhere too).

That a word has become part of common usage despite still being a pejorative (yes to a lesser degree than in the UK, but one still), the N word was part of common usage in the US for a long time as well. Yes, the number of people directly affected by it as a slur is low (around 2% of the US population has Cerebral Palsy), but what is the cut-off point for a population share that makes it OK for a slur to be part of common usage?

I haven't been to the UK since 2007, but when I was over there it was an incredibly common term that threw most of us for a loop when we heard it. I guess another example would be the "c word" (see you next Tuesday) which is commonly used among many of my friends from England and Scotland in a rather liberal fashion. My Aussie friend uses it to a degree that I've actually had to say something to him before so that he doesn't get into a fight out in public over it. In America, the "c word" is typically regarded as one of the most offensive words that can be used and should not be spoken. It doesn't bother me when someone says it maliciously or otherwise, but culturally it's not appropriate for anyone to use it, especially towards or even in the presence of a woman.

Oh I can assure you its easily one of the most offensive words you can use in the UK, those who throw it around without care for audience and context will be equally frowned upon, and you certainly wouldn't get away with it in the vast majority of workplaces.

I can certainly appreciate that different cultures find different things offensive, but if you think less of me because I'm viewing something through my own culture and language, then so be it. While I may have had relatives from the UK, I'm still very much American. However, knowing that the word "spaz" is offensive in the UK now I certainly wouldn't use it while I was in the country or while addressing someone who is British.

It not the cultural lens aspect of it with regard to geography, but more the seeming refusal to explore the possibility that it can be offensive or considered a slur. 'I don't see it as being an issue, so what the big deal with people that do', I'm not sure if it's me being 'woke' or an 'SJW', both pejoratives I personally embrace (actually it's most likely because I'm autistic) , but when someone highlights a word or phrase as offensive the first thing I want to know is why. Why do they feel that way, what's the background and history to it's use, and doing so predominantly to ensure I don't then use it.

For want of a better way to describe it, it's the easy manner in which you swept it aside and described having an issue with it as ludicrous and eye-rolling that threw me, and most likely because in that cultural regard (able and disabled) while it doesn't affect you, it doesn't hurt to show consideration for those it can.

 

[Zona]

Yang was the first ever presidential candidate I bought merch from and donated money to. Hopefully FWD goes somewhere.

 

[Duke]

@Scaff -

I get your point, and I sympathize. But speaking as @Joey D 's fellow American, the word in question is so far below the threshold of American social consciousness that to have predicted its potential offensiveness elsewhere would have required a remarkable depth of foresight.

Is it offensive to call someone a dumbass? Certainly that is intended as an insult based on those who are intellectually able showing disdain towards those who are not.

To nearly every American, "spaz" is of equivalent offensiveness to "dumbass". It is nowhere near the offensiveness of the N word or the C word.

Joey has acknowledged that he was unaware of the strength of meaning in the UK, and he has pledged to be mindful of using it in the future.

But, really, to expect that someone with an American cultural experience could have proactively foreseen potential offense in other cultures borders on the ludicrous. Unless you are proposing that humans should never use pejoratives of any kind whatsoever. If you want me to, I can spend the time to find a specific word you probably wouldn't think twice of using. But Joey has already brought up a perfect example: an Australian using the C word.

 

[Scaff]

@Scaff -

I get your point, and I sympathize. But speaking as @Joey D 's fellow American, the word in question is so far below the threshold of American social consciousness that to have predicted its potential offensiveness elsewhere would have required a remarkable depth of foresight.

Is it offensive to call someone a dumbass? Certainly that is intended as an insult based on those who are intellectually able showing disdain towards those who are not.

To nearly every American, "spaz" is of equivalent offensiveness to "dumbass". It is nowhere near the offensiveness of the N word or the C word.

Joey has acknowledged that he was unaware of the strength of meaning in the UK, and he has pledged to be mindful of using it in the future.

But, really, to expect that someone with an American cultural experience could have proactively foreseen potential offense in other cultures borders on the ludicrous. Unless you are proposing that humans should never use pejoratives of any kind whatsoever.

I didn't expect him to proactively foresee potential offense.

I found it surprising that once he was aware that people do find it offensive he referred to doing so as ludicrous, rather than enquiring as to why.

I'm also still confused as to what the critical mass of those it's a slur against needs to be before its impacts on those not affected by it becomes worthy of such inquiry?

If you want me to, I can spend the time to find a specific word you probably wouldn't think twice of using. But Joey has already brought up a perfect example: an Australian using the C word.

Hate to break it to you, but that one doesn't work either, I know a good number of Australians that find it offensive.

 

[Famine]

Spaz can mean jerky muscle movements in the US as a definition, but it's often interchanged with acting crazy or wild and more colloquially used that way. Go to any dog park here and people will say "sorry my dog is acting like a spaz" when it's jumping around, barking, and generally acting crazy. Plenty of athletes call someone a spaz when they're going absolutely wild out on the field and I've heard it more than once used to describe someone in the NFL. Honestly, someone with involuntary muscle movements in the US would probably be labeled a "retard" or a "cripple" if someone wanted to insult them. Even "handicapped" or "disabled" is probably more offensive than spaz depending on the person.

I don't really see it as being "woke" at all, but it still doesn't make sense to me when looking at it from an American perspective.

I could use the word "spaz" in a work meeting and no one would bat an eye.

Yeah, the USA doesn't have a great track record when it comes to disability awareness. Both of the previous two Presidents made famous disability gaffes, although one apologised and the second one didn't, pretended he didn't do anything, and even though it was before he was "elected" it somehow didn't act as a barrier to it...

But speaking as @Joey D 's fellow American, the word in question is so far below the threshold of American social consciousness that to have predicted its potential offensiveness elsewhere would have required a remarkable depth of foresight.

Which is odd, as not only should it be, there's been very high profile instances of it being flagged previously in the USA. That doesn't make any sense to me at all. When you consider that the Tiger Woods incident was 16 years ago, Weird Al's apology was eight years ago, and "Lizzo"'s oopsie was a year ago - all highly publicised on the west side of the Pond - nobody, much less musical superstar Beyonce, should be claiming a lack of awareness of it in the USA.

But, really, to expect that someone with an American cultural experience could have proactively foreseen potential offense in other cultures borders on the ludicrous. Unless you are proposing that humans should never use pejoratives of any kind whatsoever.

It isn't just a pejorative, it's a specific insult derived from a disability - even in the USA. That puts it on the same level as any term intended to insult derived from sex and gender, sexual orientation, and skin colour, and generic terms of abuse.

But Joey has already brought up a perfect example: an Australian using the C word.

That very much doesn't work on any level. It's not a term of abuse derived from any of those categories, and as well as being used to mean things that are bad, things that are good, and things that are just things in Australia, it's still considered a term offensive enough not to get on TV before the watershed. Or at least not without fines and reprimands.


A better example would be the use of the word "gay" to mean "bad". It's extremely common now for kids to just say "That's gay" when they mean something is rubbish or hasn't gone to plan; they have no concept that they're equating homosexuality with bad things and they're not being homophobic when they say it, but they're still using a term of abuse for homosexuals to mean something that's bad - it's just that it doesn't mean "gay" to them.

Similarly, Woods, Jankovic, Jefferson, and Knowles used a term of abuse for the disabled to mean something bad. They weren't equating disability with bad, and weren't being ableist when they said it, but they still used a term of abuse for the disabled to mean something that's bad - it's just that it doesn't mean "disabled" to them.


And all apologised, and voluntarily made changes, which is not only not a bad thing that deserves an eye roll, but a great thing.

 

[Duke]

I didn't expect him to proactively foresee potential offense.

I found it surprising that once he was aware that people do find it offensive he referred to doing so as ludicrous, rather than enquiring as to why.

I'm struggling to see where he used the term ludicrous after you pointed out to him its offensiveness outside US culture. And as far as questioning it before, I believe I've explained why it never would have occurred to the average person to enquire why. In this specific case, the average American, but there is nothing inherently 'American' about the situation. It could happen between any two cultures.

I'm also still confused as to what the critical mass of those it's a slur against needs to be before its impacts on those not affected by it becomes worthy of such inquiry?

So you seem to be going with the "no pejoratives ever" interpretation. Understood.

Hate to break it to you, but that one doesn't work either, I know a good number of Australians that find it offensive.

Fine. Pick a word. I know Australians who use the C word with practically the same frequency as 'mate'. Does it occur to them that others might find it offensive? I doubt it. In their specific part of the culture, it's just anogther word.

 

[Scaff]

I'm struggling to see where he used the term ludicrous after you pointed out to him its offensiveness outside US culture. And as far as questioning it before,

I'm quite clearly not referring to after, nor have I come close to doing so.

I believe I've explained why it never would have occurred to the average person to enquire why. In this specific case, the average American, but there is nothing inherently 'American' about the situation. It could happen between any two cultures.

No you said the majority never would, that doesn't explain why they wouldn't.

I would and do, why do you believe Americans wouldn't, and why? That's the question.

So you seem to be going with the "no pejoratives ever" interpretation. Understood.

Not what I said or asked at all.

The question is quite clear, no 'so what your saying' is required.

Fine. Pick a word. I know Australians who use the C word with practically the same frequency as 'mate'. Does it occur to them that others might find it offensive? I doubt it. In their specific part of the culture, it's just anogther word.

You must be aware of the sheer scale of context your ignoring here.

What two Australians may use as a personal greeting to each other if they are friends, doesn't mean they would use it to greet their mother or boss, nor does it mean Australian TV is awash with it as a greeting.

It is categorically not just another word, even in Australia.

 

[Duke]

Yeah, the USA doesn't have a great track record when it comes to disability awareness. Both of the previous two Presidents made famous disability gaffes, although one apologised and the second one didn't, pretended he didn't do anything, and even though it was before he was "elected" it somehow didn't act as a barrier to it...

Anything related to the Mango Mussolini is an outlier. Despite his temporary presence in the Oval Office.

Which is odd, as not only should it be, there's been very high profile instances of it being flagged previously in the USA. That doesn't make any sense to me at all. When you consider that the Tiger Woods incident was 16 years ago, Weird Al's apology was eight years ago, and "Lizzo"'s oopsie was a year ago - all highly publicised on the west side of the Pond - nobody, much less musical superstar Beyonce, should be claiming a lack of awareness of it in the USA.

Speaking as someone who actually lives on the west side of the pond, calling them very high profile [emphasis yours] is quite the stretch. I was totally unaware of any of those occurrences until this very thread.

It isn't just a pejorative, it's a specific insult derived from a disability - even in the USA. That puts it on the same level as any term intended to insult derived from sex and gender, sexual orientation, and skin colour, and generic terms of abuse.

So is "dumbass". It is an insult aimed at people who are, or are acting, stupid. So you are joining @Scaff in the "no pejoratives ever", apparently.

That very much doesn't work on any level. It's not a term of abuse derived from any of those categories, and as well as being used to mean things that are bad, things that are good, and things that are just things in Australia, it's still considered a term offensive enough not to get on TV before the watershed. Or at least not without fines and reprimands.

Ummmm, it is very much a term of abuse derived directly from misogyny.

A better example would be the use of the word "gay" to mean "bad". It's extremely common now for kids to just say "That's gay" when they mean something is rubbish or hasn't gone to plan; they have no concept that they're equating homosexuality with bad things and they're not being homophobic when they say it, but they're still using a term of abuse for homosexuals to mean something that's bad - it's just that it doesn't mean "gay" to them.

OK, if you insist.

Similarly, Woods, Jankovic, Jefferson, and Knowles used a term of abuse for the disabled to mean something bad. They weren't equating disability with bad, and weren't being ableist when they said it, but they still used a term of abuse for the disabled to mean something that's bad - it's just that it doesn't mean "disabled" to them.

And all apologised, and voluntarily made changes, which is not only not a bad thing that deserves an eye roll, but a great thing.

Good for them. I have no issue with them making apologetic statements or editing their material if they choose to do so voluntarily.

The infamous eye roll comment was aimed at the people who purposely go in search of things like this to manufacture (or at the very least overemphasize) offensiveness (within the relevant cultural context) in order to feel self-righteous. See also: Social Justice Warrior.

 

[Duke]

OK, I give up. We're never going to cross this particular cultural divide.

Prove to me that you give deep, introspective thought to each and every word you ever utter, ever, and then maybe we can move on to the difference between explaining clearly why "the majority never would" and " that doesn't explain why they wouldn't."

 

[Scaff]

So you are joining @Scaff in the "no pejoratives ever", apparently.

Please stop attempting to infer I hold a position I've not voiced, and have already addressed.

OK, I give up. We're never going to cross this particular cultural divide.

Prove to me that you give deep, introspective thought to each and every word you ever utter, ever, and then maybe we can move on to the difference between explaining clearly why "the majority never would" and " that doesn't explain why they wouldn't."

This is simply an argument to the absurd that assumes a position that's not been claimed, and additionally requires a leap to relate it back to the actual question.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I've never heard of any of those incidents (woods, weird al, lizzo) until this latest incident. And I don't recall hearing the word being used in ages. So it may be a little off the radar here.

 

[UKMikey]

Seems like a hell of a hill to choose to die on to me.

 

[Akmuq]

While I'm in support of many things conservatives consider "woke", I just tune out when people start complaining about lyrics in a song or when someone comes up with something so ludicrous that I can't help but roll my eyes.

Seems to me like you brought it up

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I'm just disappointed they didn't called it The Yang Gang

 

[Famine]

Anything related to the Mango Mussolini is an outlier. Despite his temporary presence in the Oval Office.

Quite, but Obama did it too when he declared his bowling prowess was "like the Special Olympics".

Speaking as someone who actually lives on the west side of the pond, calling them very high profile [emphasis yours] is quite the stretch. I was totally unaware of any of those occurrences until this very thread.

Which is fine, but each was covered in your national media. Of course GTPlanet's users consume a lot of media from a lot of sources, so it's unsurprising you'd find things here by chance.

So is "dumbass". It is an insult aimed at people who are, or are acting, stupid.

"Dumb" is only term of abuse directed at a disability when used to reference the inability to speak. Stupidity is not a disability.

So you are joining @Scaff in the "no pejoratives ever", apparently.

That's unhelpful, especially as I've already demonstrated the line. I wouldn't characterise your comments as "all pejoratives always".

Ummmm, it is very much a term of abuse derived directly from misogyny.

It's not; while it may be a term for vaginas (or vulvas) it's not referring to the people who own them* as negatives (especially in the self-provided Australian example where it can be a positive, but also just anything).

"You fag" means "you are bad because you are a homosexual". "You spaz" means "you are bad because you are disabled". "You ******" means "you are bad because you are a black person". "You [vagina]" doesn't mean "you are bad because you are a woman" - any more than "you dick" means "you are bad because you are a man".

"Bitch", however, is a misogynist term of abuse - but like other examples has valid uses to refer to female dogs... which is also why it's used against women as an insult. But, while a very bad thing to say to a woman it doesn't refer to a physical difference of a woman, even if they user is implying female dogs are bad. Which is stupid.

And what is it with "son of a bitch" being so common an insult anyway? It's literally a mum joke. If the dude's a ** he's a **; doesn't mean his mum was. Even Biden's come out with that one - to some, but still surprisingly little, backlash. Peter Doocy's mum might be a saint.


Fun fact, the word "wife" actually directly derives from the word "***". "Husband" actually means "house owner". I now pronounce you house owner and vagina!

OK, if you insist.

Very much so. Both are terms directly derived from those with a difference of being (disabled/homosexual) used as an insult, but appearing in local (or temporal) vernacular as an insult not referring to the beings and not meant to dehumanise those beings as a result - while still inadvertently doing so.

Good for them. I have no issue with them making apologetic statements or editing their material if they choose to do so voluntarily.

Absolutely; they should be free to choose to learn, grow, and adapt - and I'd much rather they went back and changed their work for these reasons than George Lucas does. Or not, as Warner Brothers doesn't.

The infamous eye roll comment was aimed at the people who purposely go in search of things like this to manufacture (or at the very least overemphasize) offensiveness (within the relevant cultural context) in order to feel self-righteous. See also: Social Justice Warrior.

That was not how it was worded:

While I'm in support of many things conservatives consider "woke", I just tune out when people start complaining about lyrics in a song or when someone comes up with something so ludicrous that I can't help but roll my eyes.

Yes, lots of people seek out offence, and they are wankers to a man (or woman, or other).

However not all those offended are doing so for this reason; some might have been hearing these terms being directed at them all their lives and simply expect more from major celebrities (and Lizzo) not to add to that lifelong pile-on.

I don't think that disabled people complaining about one of the world's biggest musical acts slapping terms of albeist abuse into her song lyrics is eye-rolly or SJWish at all. None of these people meant offence, but they caused it among people directly affected by the term they used.

And again, I find it laudable Beyonce has (seemingly; I can't find any statement beyond one from her publicist) agreed with the complaints and plans to address them by omitting the lyric. Make Admitting Fault And Correcting Mistakes Great Again.

Interestingly, Right Said Fred has a writing credit on the album, and they truly are ****s.

 

[GranTurNismo]

I'm just disappointed they didn't called it The Yang Gang

The Forward Party seems to have little to do with Yang himself let alone his personal political prescriptions. Would have been momentarily funny, but I thought we're trying to shy away from political cults of personality?

 

[Joey D]

Yes, lots of people seek out offence, and they are wankers to a man (or woman, or other).

However not all those offended are doing so for this reason; some might have been hearing these terms being directed at them all their lives and simply expect more from major celebrities (and Lizzo) not to add to that lifelong pile-on.

I don't think that disabled people complaining about one of the world's biggest musical acts slapping terms of albeist abuse into her song lyrics is eye-rolly or SJWish at all. None of these people meant offence, but they caused it among people directly affected by the term they used.

And again, I find it laudable Beyonce has (seemingly; I can't find any statement beyond one from her publicist) agreed with the complaints and plans to address them by omitting the lyric.

Interestingly, Right Said Fred has a writing credit on the album, and they truly are ****s.

Except, to me, as an American, it very much looked like someone seeking out offense because spaz just isn't used as a derogatory term in the US. As I've said, it would be like someone calling out Beyonce for her song "Crazy in Love" because it has the word crazy in it. Crazy can and does mean someone with a mental illness.

As I said, I truly didn't know it was such a big deal in the UK so it seems like would be a reasonable take to see the backlash artists like Beyonce are getting and think that it's just another example of people being offended for the sake of being offended. To relate it back to my initial comment and to the subject of this thread, I do tend to tune out or roll my eyes when I hear people complaining about seemingly minor things. Prior to Scaff saying something, it was a minor thing in my mind, as it likely is to a majority of Americans. I know you said there were highly publicized incidents, but they didn't really stick and I'm willing to be most Americans just dismissed it if they did remember it. Plus, given the amount of information we're bombarded with daily, it stands to reason that people would just forget.

Because so many Americans likely think this way, they see people complaining about a seemingly harmless word and that turns them off ever so slightly from liberal ideologies. Just like when some bigoted redneck is spouting a bunch of racist stuff in a MAGA cap, it tends to turn some people off ever so slightly from conservative ideologies. When this happens over and over again, you get to the point where the people start to lose faith in both sides. So circling back around to a viable third party that focuses on the moderate American, it might appeal to some people that have ended up in the middle because one side is "too woke" or "too offended" while the other side is "too racist" or "too bigoted".

 

[UKMikey]

I'm just disappointed they didn't called it The Yang Gang

*The Jolly Yang Gang

 

[Famine]

As I've said, it would be like someone calling out Beyonce for her song "Crazy in Love" because it has the word crazy in it. Crazy can and does mean someone with a mental illness.

People might call someone with a mental illness crazy, but "crazy" it is not itself a term derived from a mental illness. It actually derives from a pottery term, meaning "cracked and broken" (hence "crazy paving").

It's not an equivalent term, because "spaz" does. It comes directly from "spastic" as used originally to describe people with disorders that cause the phenomenon of flailing limbs (and it used to be a group of disorders; now we understand them more they're somewhat better resolved than "spastic") - and it might also, but also shouldn't, still be used to describe IBS in a medical setting.

Yes, in the USA it's not actually meant as "you're bad because you have cerebral palsy", but even in the USA the term still means someone who has poor control of their body (as with Tiger) or acts "crazy or wild", because that's how people with (some forms of) cerebral palsy generally act. That's where it comes from and that's what it still means.

As I said, I truly didn't know it was such a big deal in the UK so it seems like would be a reasonable take to see the backlash artists like Beyonce are getting and think that it's just another example of people being offended for the sake of being offended.

Is it just a bunch of Brits complaining about the lyric, or are Americans complaining about it too?

Much of the coverage appears to point to an Australian (amusingly, given the earlier **** discussion) disability advocate as the loudest original voice. And she has cerebral palsy.

Beyoncé to remove ableist slur from 'Heated' after backlash from disability campaigners | CNN

Beyoncé says she will remove an ableist slur from her new album, "Renaissance," after facing online backlash and criticism from disability campaigners.

edition.cnn.com

 

[Duke]

@Scaff -
You were the one calling for an acceptable percentage or threshold below which it became OK to make fun of disabilities.

So I set one - zero. Contrary to @Famine ’s opinion, stupidity can very much be considered a disability. So therefore calling someone a dumbass is absolutely in the same category as calling someone a spaz. If one is ableist, so is the other.

Therefore by logical extension - not reductio ad absurdum - no form of pejorative that comes from a place of perceived superiority can be acceptable.