We have decided some brain quirks are disorders (and get accommodations, as is compassionate), whilst others are flaws (and get slurs). But no one picks their hardware. You cannot earn a better prefrontal cortex or deserve a calmer amygdala. Nor does one get to pick the environment they are born in, which will inform their choices later in life. Even the capacity to “learn better” is a roll of the dice, some brains start the race with sprinting shoes, others with lead weights.

So when we call someone stupid, lazy or insane we are not describing a choice, but simply announcing which kinds of unlucky we’ve decided are worthy of scorn.

  • oreoreore@lemy.lolOP
    64·
    10 hours ago

    You state that words like “stupid” or “lazy” are mere descriptors for common traits, and in this, you are correct. But let us be explicit: these words are not neutral. They are not clinical. They are not even accurate. They are judgments masquerading as observations, and their function is not to describe, but to dismiss, belittle and shame.

    It is not the existence of laziness or folly that demands scrutiny, it is the impulse to label a human being as such, as though their value hinges on productivity or flawless reasoning. When you call a person “lazy,” you are not documenting a transient state; you are rendering a verdict. A judgment from a throne no higher than theirs. You ignore the depressed individual for whom movement is a Herculean task, the neurodivergent mind locked in executive dysfunction, the exhausted worker crushed beneath systems designed to extract labor without regard for humanity. The word “lazy” does not describe a choice. It erases a context.

    Likewise, “stupid” is not a measure of intellect, it is a weapon. It presumes intelligence is a moral achievement, not a confluence of biology, environment, and luck. It assumes that those who fail to meet an arbitrary standard of competence deserve contempt, rather than inquiry. If a machine malfunctions, we do not call it “stupid”; we examine its design. Why, then, do we reserve such charity for objects, and withhold it from people?

    The question is NOT whether we should “ban” these words. It is whether we recognize their purpose: to punish, not to understand. Language does not merely reflect reality, it constructs our perception of it. When we default to scorn, we architect a world where struggle is met with derision, where complexity is flattened into moral failure, and where the burden of proof always lies with the accused. This is not how justice works. This is not how compassion works.

    Furthermore, if one desires a change in the conduct of one they would deem a fool, has shaming been shown to work? NAY! It has been demonstrated time and time again that shaming yields not the behavior of a distinguished individual but a seething hatred towards those that inflicted the wound. A resentment that easily turns what was once a mere human error into a vitriolic conviction. You may then have no hope of opening this fortress of bitterness to see the harm their actions wrought, indeed they may feel justified in their actions. So as have been done unto them, they will do unto others.

    https://drdevonprice.substack.com/p/laziness-does-not-exist

    https://www.uva.nl/shared-content/uva/en/news/press-releases/2025/08/guilt-makes-us-more-prosocial.html

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216671499_The_longitudinal_links_between_shame_and_increasing_hostility_during_adolescence

    https://neurosciencenews.com/guilt-shame-behavior-neuroscience-30065/

    Of course, if your desire is merely to feel good for a moment as you unleash an insult upon another, by all means. But this is not the behavior of a paragon of virtue, rather it is base.