764
Anti-trans Missouri A.G. can now access trans people’s medical records
(newrepublic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Apr 2024
764 points (97.5% liked)
News
35714 readers
703 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Fair enough, I appreciate the well articulated response and agree with your usage, but you said it right here:
That's the unfortunate state of things due to years of people using the word derogatorily. I applaud you trying to bring it back to proper usage, just be prepared that you will continue to get responses like mine and I doubt they'll all be as considered as this was.
Thank you for your response anf kind acceptance.
It is actually a word that I have been endlessly frustrated with the changes socially to its use. When actually discussing mental deficiencies in a medical sense, the phrase "mentally retarded" is a rare apt terminology. It is "the state if being inhibited from further mental or cognitive progress", which fits the definition of the verb "retard" perfectly. I understand that socially it was widely used abusively and historically it has a dubious past medically at best, but linguistically it is perfect. I guess that is what frustrates me, because so few things in this world have such a linguistic, well, not perfection, but something to that effect. I guess my failure in words goes to rhetorically illustrate my point.
Welcome. I wasn't trying to stir the pot, just lookin' out for a fellow linguaphile.
This attitude doesn't really remove derogatory language, because idiots who want to be offensive just jump to stupid, new words, or else they turn words that we could previously use just fine into slurs.
/gestures the "ok" hand sign
Like that?
That would be an example, although I was thinking of something more relevant like people saying "accoustic" to insult autistic people.
That's a thing? Ugh