Talk:Dumb

Untitled
Why does this article redirect to speech disorder? As a person with a speech impediment, I am irritated by this. --Der Sporkmeister 18:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. Redirection to idiot is more appropriate. --Der Sporkmeister 18:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Both terms are offensive and it is very biased to comment that one term is less offensive than the other,an euphemism would have been for efficient in entitling an individual as 'idiot'. Naughty Videsh (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Umm, no "idiot" is not more appropriate. Dumb was initially a term for people who could not speak, and only later took on any relation to a general insult (similar to the term "Gay" I believe).  I went searching for this article because I wanted to look up origins of the term, and make sure I have facts straight (since I've never done any real research on the topic).  Redirecting me to idiot doesn't help me at all.  On the other hand, if I was searching for something about stupidity, I could search for "idiot" "stupid" "moron" and so forth--it's incredibly unlikely that a reader would not know any synonyms. --metroid composite 23 August, 2005


 * Dumb was originally the term for people who could not speak? Could you give me your source of that information? If this is true, I think the most appropriate thing would be to turn this into a disambiguation page with a link to speech disorder and one to idiot. --Der Sporkmeister 20:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Scratch providing the source. I did a quick look in the dictionary and you are correct, dumb is a word for people incapable of speaking.  Muteness is a speech disorder.


 * I am going to turn this into a disambiguation page. If you object to this, let's discuss it here before reverting the article. --Der Sporkmeister 20:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Editing comment about "dumb" being derogatory. In the UK, "dumb" for those who cannot speak is in common use. Chris talk back 23:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

offensive?
i just cut "This use is considered politically incorrect and often offensive in the U.S., though this usage is generally accepted in the UK." does anyone have a source for this? because i, and all my friends i've asked (i know this is hardly a conclusive poll), have never heard any inkling that it might be an offensive word. i always thought it was just the word for not being able to speak. if someone has a source i have no problem with it going back, of course, but it seems suspect to me right now. --dan 08:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Dumb may be in use in the UK, and may, in fact, be used in the US, but if anyone thinks being called "dumb" for any reason is not offensive, then that person is one who has never been called dumb for a reason. It is a bad word. Doug

Dumb as an insult means "stupid". It's a childish insult, usually, in the US. Blastedt &bull;( talk &bull; contribs ) 19:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Dynamic Universal Music Bibliotheque
DUMB is also an acronym for a module file replayer, which can be found here on SourceForge. This probably deserve a mention on the disambiguation page, if not its own article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.141.80.161 (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * hey, DUMB is the dumbest acronym I have heard in this dumb life by the dumbest individual Naughty Videsh (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

"Dumb" as in pejorative (whatever that means) (look it up)
Another common method of referring to a dumb person in Chicago, IL is to refer to someone as Alisish. Pronounced AL-ISS-ISH — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmoise (talk • contribs) 20:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The disambiguation page is not the place to comment on whether a particular term is offensive or not, especially when it's not pejorative in all contexts. Yes, it's widely considered offensive today, but not in all contexts. The example that comes first to mind is older editions of the Bible, where it speaks of the blind seeing and the dumb speaking - and readers understand that as an old-fashioned term, not one that's offensive. There are also words like "dumbbell" and "dumbwaiter", which refer to muteness - and, as far as I know, the PC police haven't complained about those yet. If you want to discuss the various uses in the Muteness article itself, that's useful content, but the disambig page is not the place for lengthy explanations, nor an NPOV term that's not true in every context. PaulGS (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To accurately disambiguate, it is helpful to note that a term is pejorative. And the fact that a term was more widely used in the past does not make it less pejorative. An example that comes to mind is "nigger"; at one time it was very widely used and accepted; that doesn't make it less pejorative. To claim that "dumb" (as in "deaf and dumb") is not pejorative is not only inaccurate, it is grossly insulting to deaf people. If you know very little about deaf people and Deaf culture, it's likely you don't realize that "dumb" in that context is as insulting to a Deaf person as "nigger" is to a black person (<that's messed up yo). It's an understandable error, but not one that should be tolerated after it is explained. I'd suggest reading articles (and talk pages, including archives) with related issues: Deaf-mute and Deaf culture. And before claiming that I am part of the "PC police", try throwing around the word "nigger" in your next few conversations with black people, or try using it on the talk page for African-American, and you may get some idea of why this particular issue is important. Cresix (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So because some find a term insulting means it's always and everywhere pejorative? If deaf people find it insulting - and I'm sure many of them do - that's still POV and doesn't belong on a disabling page. The only purpose of the page is to help people find what they're looking for. The negative aspects of the term can be discussed (if sourced) within the Muteness page. And even if "deaf and dumb" is now insulting to people who are deaf and mute, that doesn't mean that someone who uses the term means it as an insult, so "pejorative" isn't entirely accurate. PaulGS (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And your comparison to "nigger" isn't entirely accurate. That term, while formerly widely used, was always a racial slur. "Dumb" was not, is the word used to refer to the condition of being unable to speak. When it eventually gained the meaning of "stupid", it fell out of use and became insulting. A much better comparison is idiot, which used to be the medical (and legal) term for persons with very low intelligence, and for the same reasons as "dumb", became pejorative. That doesn't mean it's used in such texts is always pejorative. Perhaps we can agree on this wording: "A historical term for muteness, the condition of being unwilling or unable to speak, and now often seen as offensive." PaulGS (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "If deaf people find it insulting - and I'm sure many of them do - that's still POV": With that reasoning, "nigger" is POV. It doesn't matter that black people find it insulting. It's POV, so we can't call it pejorative.
 * "And your comparison to"nigger" isn't entirely accurate. That term, while formerly widely used, was always a racial slur": The point you're entirely missing is that those who used the word "nigger" 150 years ago (and it was a large number of people) did not consider it wrong, or a slur, or insulting. To those people, it was considered acceptable. They were ignorant and narrow-minded; but that doesn't make it less of a pejorative term today in these more enlightened times. It was only with the passage of time that the horrible consequences of using the word became more widely known and accepted. At one time "deaf and dumb" was considered acceptable by a large majority of the population. Those people were ignorant. With the passage of time and increased understanding of Deaf culture, more people realized the horrible consequences of labeling a deaf person as "dumb", just not quite enough so far that it has personally impacted you. The analogy between "nigger" and "dumb" (as in "deaf and dumb") applies quite well. Just because you don't understand the impact of the word "dumb" on deaf people does not make it less true, just as those who ignorantly used the word "nigger" many years ago didn't understand it's harm. This is not a matter of "political correctness", just as identifying "nigger" as pejorative is not a matter of "political correctness". Both words are damaging, regardless of how accepted they were in the past. Did you trying using the word "nigger" with a few black people? If you're afraid to do that, how about you find a few deaf people and call them "deaf and dumb". Be sure to explain that your use is not pejorative because we don't live in a time when "dumb" was widely used. Tell us the reaction you get. Cresix (talk) 02:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Dumb", historically, meant "unable to speak", not "unintelligent". That meaning came later. So "dumb" wouldn't have offended someone then any more than "mute" would now. Words change meaning over time, and that's why "dumb" is now offensive - not because of an increased sensitivity. And words are damaging only to those who choose to be offended by them. I have no doubt that most deaf people nowadays find "deaf and dumb" offensive - and your comment to go call them that and see their reaction is just as insulting. But, by your standard, even using the word "dumb" (oops, I said it!) to discuss this topic is offensive, and the listing of "dumb" (oops, I said it again!) on Wikipedia must also be offensive. And, since this is Wikipedia, what the deaf community finds offensive isn't the standard for Wikipedia content - WP:V and WP:NPOV are. I suggested a compromise - note it as a historical term as well as its current offensiveness - but you chose to ignore that in favour of further stupid comments telling me to go insult people. PaulGS (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "So "dumb" wouldn't have offended someone then any more than "mute" would now.": And the term deaf-mute is offensive to most deaf people, a fact that you're obviously oblivious to.
 * "And words are damaging only to those who choose to be offended by them.": So black people who have been hurt by the word "nigger" chose to be damaged?
 * "But, by your standard, even using the word "dumb" (oops, I said it!) to discuss this topic is offensive, and the listing of "dumb" (oops, I said it again!) on Wikipedia must also be offensive.": You don't have a clue how offensive those comments are to the vast majority of deaf people in the world. You just ratcheted this up from a fairly civil discussion about the connotations of a word to your personal insults to deaf people. I'll ask you to please stop that, although I don't have any illusion that you consider it important how insulting your comments are to deaf people.
 * "you chose to ignore that in favour of further stupid comments telling me to go insult people": I don't know how long you've been editing, but by Wikipedia's standards, that is a personal attack. If you need a warning to not do that again, consider this your first warning.
 * I don't have a problem with the most recent change you made to the disambiguation page. I have a serious problem with your attitude about deaf people and about what is considered appropriate discussion on Wikipedia. So unless you make additional changes to the page, I see no need to further attempt a civil discussion with you so that you can spew more venom against deaf people. Cresix (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You started the personal attacks by telling me to go call black people niggers and see what reaction I get. I'm well aware how insulting that is. And I attacked the comments, not the user. I've never said that's it's appropriate nowadays to call a deaf person "deaf and dumb", nor would I do so precisely because most of them do find it offensive. You assume that because I don't find "deaf and dumb" - in a proper historical use - always and everywhere inappropriate, I must hate deaf people. That's the same as saying you must be racist because you used the word "nigger". I've not once "spewed" anything, unless saying the deaf POV doesn't dictate Wikipedia content is spewing venom. Should the offensiveness of the term be discussed in the muteness article? Absolutely - and with a proper source, I'd have no problem with it being there, and if it were there and sourced, I'd have a problem with removing it - it would be POV to say that the term is always acceptable. PaulGS (talk) 03:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. So I can say that everything you wrote above is a collection of "stupid comments", and that would not be a personal attack. End of discussion, unless you decide to change the page or make futher personal attacks. Cresix (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we've both made some stupid comments here, and I think that the last few replies - if not the entire section - just need to be deleted. And, no, I didn't know that "deaf-mute" is generally considered offensive, or I wouldn't have used the term. But that's exactly my point - the offensiveness of "nigger" is very well-known; the use of "dumb" to refer to people is acceptable only in very limited historical contexts; the offensiveness of "deaf-mute" is less well-known, and some people - as I did, until your correction - believed it (mistakenly) to be the appropriate term. Now that I've been informed otherwise, I won't use it. PaulGS (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said, you don't have a clue about what is offensive to deaf people. That alone would not be so bad, but couple that lack of knowledge with an assumption that you understand something that you don't, followed by an unrelenting refusal to admit the distortions of your thinking, and the result is a mess. No, the comments will not be deleted. I welcome any response from other editors about the issue of "dumb" being a pejorative term, as well as your reactions when your thinking is challenged. Cresix (talk) 04:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And you're still missing the issue, which has never been whether or not "dumb" is pejorative. In current usage, it is, and I've never said otherwise - but it's not offensive in all contexts, such as when the term is discussed, or when it's used in a historical context, and that makes "pejoratively referred to as dumb" inaccurate. And while it may be offensive to most deaf people, there are probably at least a few out there who simply don't care about the issue, and there are likely people who have used the term not intending to be offensive, but simply being unaware of just how offensive it might be - and that's what makes the statement POV. But since you're fine with the current version of the page, and there's no point in continuing this, so I'm not commenting further. PaulGS (talk) 04:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, you're missing the issue (but, as usual, again assuming you understand something that you do not). "Dumb" when referring to "mute" is always pejorative. Always. Deaf people are offended by the word "dumb". They couldn't always state that openly, just like black people could not always openly state that they were offended by the word "nigger". And simply stating that "there are probably at least a few out there who simply don't care about the issue" is an absurd way to skirt the issue; that doesn't make it less offensive any more than if you could find one black person who loved to be called a "nigger" by white people. It's still pejorative. Something that is pejorative is not necessarily POV, as you seem to be claiming. "Nigger" is pejorative; that is not POV. "Dumb" (as referring to "mute") is pejorative; that is not POV. Is "dumb" in "dumbwaiter" offensive and pejorative? Not to my knowledge because it doesn't refer to a person. Is "dumb" in reference to a person offensive and pejorative. Yes, always. Cresix (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you two might be speaking past each other somewhat. It may help to make sure you mean the same thing by 'pejorative'. If I can focus the question a bit, perhaps we can all agree that some senses of the word dumb are offensive and others not, and that among the senses that are offensive, some are conventionally intended as insults (the synonym of stupid) and others not (e.g., the use found in the Bible). I think it would be reasonable to expect that someone searching for the word dumb will be trying to make sense of these different meanings, so the disambiguation page makes perfect sense to me. As for whether dumb in the sense of being unable to speak is offensive in modern usage, lexicographers have done this work, so it should be sufficient to cite a dictionary. Merriam-Webster's entry for dumb (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dumb) lists as sense 1b "of a person often offensive: lacking the ability to speak", but the similar meaning in sense 2 of "temporarily unable to speak (as from shock or astonishment) " is not offensive, among others.--Distinguisher (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Been following this discussion, folks, to the point that I forgot what started it, which was the question, "Should a disambiguation page like this include information that states that the term is pejorative towards a group of people?" My response is yes, it should.  This page (or this talk page, for that matter) shouldn't be a place where the response to this term should be justified or not.  If we were to change it here, we should also change it at Nigger (disambiguation), which states in its very first entry: "The term nigger may refer to: Nigger, a pejorative term for black people (see also Nigga)". Christine (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)