We can describe people doing antisocial, paranoid, or dependent things even when they don't have the associated personality disorders. We can also describe someone generally as antisocial or paranoid if they display those traits regularly, regardless of any underlying diagnosis. Is it different with NPD?

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

The word "autism" originally came from psychiatrists' perceptions that autistic people are preoccupied with ourselves. So if I say "My boss is so autistic, it's disgusting", is that okay? Etymologically, it's valid. I'm not talking about a disorder. But I don't think it's an okay thing to say.

When psychiatrists made narcissism a label to apply to vulnerable people, I think they made it off limits for casual comments. I'm careful about labelling people as antisocial or paranoid too. Those are serious words used for serious conversations about mental health. That means they can be dangerous in untrained hands. Think of those words like power tools. You don't pick up an angle grinder and start waving it around without the proper training and carefulness. That's going to get someone hurt. These words have just as much destructive potential, so we need to treat them the same way.

[–] lmmarsano@group.lt 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

That’s going to get someone hurt. These words have just as much destructive potential, so we need to treat them the same way.

Offense isn't harm: no one is getting hurt. You're overstating the harm of expression by appealing to clinical language & understating the need for resilience & enough judgement to discern that in context, the word has a looser meaning. It's a bit overdramatic.

Moreover, conventional language doesn't operate the way you suggest: there's no such rule about psychiatrists & "off limits". No one is obligated to share your opinion on this: it's not fact.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 0 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Words can get someone involuntarily committed to a mental hospital. Words can be used to take away rights. Words can affect national policy. Words were what Adolf Hitler used to send people to the concentration camps, and they're what Donald Trump is using to do the same thing today. Words are extraordinarily dangerous.

When we legitimise words that dehumanise the mentally ill, words like r*tard or n*rcissist, we give more power to fascists, because they can go on to use those words and people won't be offended. Ordinary people's offence is a defensive weapon that can be used to protect against the misuse of words. Ordinary people's offence is a valuable resource it makes sense to cultivate.

I want people to be more easily offended, so that they'll resist messages of hate spread by fascists. If people learn to be okay with hearing slurs casually thrown around on the street, words like f*ggot and n*gger, then things are going to get worse for the people those slurs describe.

[–] lmmarsano@group.lt 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

Words can get someone involuntarily committed to a mental hospital. Words can be used to take away rights. Words can affect national policy. Words were what Adolf Hitler used to send people to the concentration camps, and they’re what Donald Trump is using to do the same thing today. Words are extraordinarily dangerous.

Nah, none of those. All instances of harm require unnecessary action taken by choice. Words can be disregarded. Acting on words is the actor's choice.

When we legitimise words that dehumanise the mentally ill

They're not doing that. Moreover, using such words alone doesn't do what you claim. There are a number of steps between a word you find offensive & adverse action: that argument is a slippery slope. Unless the words incite imminent action, people have an unbounded amount of time to think & arrive to a decision before taking action. Any amount of discussion can occur during that time to influence & inform decisions. Rather than an overgeneralized attack on using a word, a more focused & coherent argument to support human rights could be raised.

Over relying on offense & emotion to steer their judgement discounts people's capacity to reason & infantilizes them, which is condescending. Offense & emotion are not reliable guides of judgement. Speculation that it would promote better outcomes is not a valid argument. That such an approach would work better than reason is poorly supported. We could at least as plausibly appeal to reason rather than to offended emotion with the bonus of not irrationally overgeneralizing.

People can interpret context to draw distinctions & you're overgeneralizing. The overgeneralization underpinning your offended opinion isn't a valid argument. Neither is the speculation offered to support it. Telling people their words mean something they do not, disrespecting their moral agency & ability think, & insulting their intelligence to discern meaning is unpersuasive. Promoting a rational argument more specifically supporting the outcomes you favor would be more persuasive.

[–] jarvis@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I appreciate the example and I think I see your point. I agree with the underlying logic, in general, but applying it to the N in NPD seems an over extension.

Dictionary definitions for the two terms, as records of common usage, are notably different. Autism refers solely to the condition so your example sentence would be an inappropriate use. Acceptable and understandable in the language, but an uncommon application of the word. On the other hand, narcissism is used for general egoism and self importance first and for NPD second.

This of course doesn't invalidate your feelings when hearing the word or desire to protect others from the same, but maybe this can offer some comfort if the most common usage is not intended or even understood as a slur or even a reference to folks with NPD.

[–] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 2 points 1 day ago

But if we go even further back in history, to the very origins of the term, it's not good. There's an ancient Greek myth about this teenage boy, Narcissus. He was 16 years old and very beautiful, so everyone wanted to marry him. But he just wanted to be alone in the woods and be a hunter. Bring back food for his community. But every time he returned to civilisation, he was inundated with marriage proposals. And he was just a boy. So he loses his temper and tells one of the people sexually harassing him, Ameinias, to go kill himself. Ameinias actually does if, because he's genuinely obsessed with Narcissus, and as he does it, he prays to the goddess Nemesis for revenge. So Nemesis curses Narcissus to be capable of beholding his own beauty. Next time the kid comes across a pond, he sees his reflection in it, becomes obsessed with staring at himself, and dies of thirst because he can't tend to his basic needs.

So this is an aro/ace child in an aphobic society who was sexually harassed, lost his temper, and sentenced to death by a god.

A lot of people perceive Narcissus as some kind of abuser, and I think these readings of the myth come from just how aphobic Greek society was at the time. They thought if you're pretty, then you owe people sex, and if you don't want to have sex, then you're stuck up and full of yourself. It's disgusting. And I'm not comfortable with the way our society has spent 3000 years mocking a queer child. Even a fictional one.

So no, I'm not going to become okay with hearing the word used as an insult. I've genuinely done a lot of research on this issue and I'm convinced it's bad. As an asexual, I relate to Narcissus. As someone who suffered child abuse and now has a harmful relationship with My self-image, I relate to Narcissus. Our society hates people like him and people like Me because its values are all twisted up, same as the ancient Greeks.