I Hate Overuse of "Retarded" on CS!

[Saydrah]

I signed up over here on the advice of Broomjockey mainly so I could say this.

Will everyone PLEASE stop using retarded as a synonym for:

Sucky
Stupid
Dumb
Lame
Rude
Entitled
Bad Driver
Nitwit
Addled Adolescent
Lousy
Having No Manners
Shitty
Piss-Poor
Drunk
On Drugs
Aggressive
Inept
Incompetent
Freaky
Scary
Weird
Crazy


Approximately one in seven people has a disability. Many of those are cognitive/developmental/learning disabilities. At one time, most of those were lumped under the label "mental retardation." Chances are, whatever you post, someone will read it who has a label that, 50 years ago, would have been the catch-all, "retarded."

Having a disability that affects the mind does not make someone stupid. In fact, many such disabilities hide true intelligence. When children with Autism are given IQ tests that assign high value to verbal skills and other skills generally not the top of the list when Autism is involved, they score lower than neurotypical children; however, when the IQ test is modified so as to measure the same capabilities without requiring the verbalization or eye contact the standard IQ test does, the average score of a child with Autism is HIGHER than the average for neurotypical children.

It was not so long ago that it was at least marginally socially acceptable to call someone, "Niggardly," if he was cheap. Would any of us dream of doing that now? Of course not! What a horrifically racist term! What about saying, "I had a customer who was being a real Jew last night- he counted out his change down to the last penny before he would leave." Is that acceptable? OF COURSE NOT!

So why on Earth is it that I still see at least one thread a day where someone described a customer who acts stupidly as, "retarded?"

If your customer has a disability, say so, and cut them some slack.

If not, call it like it is- STUPID.

[Boozy]

The word "retarded" has become largely decontextualized.

You have done a good job pointing out all the other things it has come to mean. For me, this makes the word non-offensive. English is a living language, and these things happen.

The meaning of the word has now been stretched to mean almost anything disagreeable. For example, I've heard teenagers say things like "I hate these shoes because they're really uncomfortable. They're so retarded." The word doesn't even mean stupid when used in this context.

I admit to using the word "retarded" to refer to stupidity or general silliness. I don't use it to mean a mental handicap. I also don't use it on forums or in public, because I understand that for some people, the word still carries with it negative connotations.

When I use it around my husband or close friends, they understand that my intent is not cruel. I am using the decontextualized version of the word, as it were, and its no big deal for us.

[Pedersen]

Here's another one where the word has been taken and mangled: Hacker.

From wikipedia: In computing, a hacker is a person who delights in having an intimate understanding of the internal workings of a system, computers and computer networks in particular, as defined by Request for Comments (RFC) 1392 [1]. More specifically, there are several different hacker subcultures:

Also from wikipedia: Nowadays, mainstream usage mostly refers to computer criminals, due to the mass media usage of the word since the 1980s. Unlike the definition in the RFC given above, this includes script kiddies, people breaking into computers using programs written by others, with very little knowledge about the way they work. Free software hackers consider this usage incorrect, and refer to security breakers as crackers.

Basically, hacker was a title of prestige that was given to people highly skilled with computers. Now it's an insult.

[Saydrah]

The word "retarded" has become largely decontextualized.

[snip]

I admit to using the word "retarded" to refer to stupidity or general silliness. I don't use it to mean a mental handicap. I also don't use it on forums or in public, because I understand that for some people, the word still carries with it negative connotations.

When I use it around my husband or close friends, they understand that my intent is not cruel. I am using the decontextualized version of the word, as it were, and its no big deal for us.

The thing is, the "no big deal" label gets slapped on THIS offensive term. It's decontextualized. It means stupid now, not having a cognitive/learning/developmental disability. Sure, that's all well and good, but does it still sound as inoffensive if you switch minorities?

"I admit to using the word 'gay' to refer to stupidity or general silliness. I don't use it to mean homosexual."

Okay, we hear that one all the time- it upsets me, because the use of "gay" to mean "bad" stopped my best friend from coming out for a long time. But it's pretty common, not the most offensive thing in the world, right?

How about:

"I admit to using the word 'nigger' to mean stupid or silly. I don't use it to mean Black."

I cringe just typing that word- that's how much it's drilled into our heads that we aren't supposed to say it. It's even word-filtered out of many forums, so I'm not sure until I post this if it'll even show up.

How many Americans are part of the minority that term describes?

Approximately 13%.

How many Americans have one or more disabilities?

Approximately 14.2%.

I mean, if you use both those other words casually, I can't exactly accuse you of hypocrisy- but if you don't call stupid people n-words and stupid things gay, then why is it okay to say something that's been used to label, degrade, and justify violence against this particular minority, but not others?

[Boozy]

The "N word" has not been decontextualized, and therefore is a whole other ball of wax.

[Greenday]

The "N word" has not been decontextualized, and therefore is a whole other ball of wax.

It hasn't for white people, but apparently there's nothing wrong with black people saying it. They've decontextualized it for themselves.

[Seshat]

I think you're fighting a losing battle on this one, Saydrah. I do agree that it shouldn't have become a general-use term for stupid. I believe that 'moron', 'idiot' and 'cretin' shouldn't be general-use terms for stupid, either.

There are people living today who have had the terms 'retarded', 'idiot', 'moron' and 'cretin' used as the medical definition for themselves or their close family.

While many of those people don't understand mockery, many of them do, and almost all of their parents, siblings, cousins and other relatives do. And have had to live with seeing their disabled relative mocked, and felt the pain of the casual misuse of the terms that define their relative.

To spare those people, I would have preferred to see 'retard' kept as a term synonymous with delay. Cretin, idiot and moron could have simply faded out of the language and become anachronisms.

Unfortunately, that hasn't happened. Instead, John Citizen, ordinary person without any mentally/intellectually disabled relatives, has the words in his common-use vocabulary as synonyms for 'stupid'. And he uses them in complete ignorance of the pain he is causing.

I think it's a case of choosing our battles. I think it's more important to work for John Citizen seeing my mentally disabled family and friends as ordinary people who happen to have a medical condition - as being equivalent to Norm Neurotypical over there with the funny leg.

However, none of my relatives have the particular type of mental illness which would have sensitised me to those words. If the misuse of those words is that important to you, go ahead and fight that battle.

[Saydrah]

Thing is, John Citizen probably DOES have friends and relatives with developmental delays or other disabilities that affect the mind.

They're probably just not telling him because he's always using "retarded," to refer to stupidity, so they don't feel comfortable sharing that information with him.

Something that shocked me the other day was a friend of mine saying, "It's okay to say _______ (insert derogatory term here) as long as none of them are around to hear it." Really? So only people who are part of a particular oppressed group are allowed to get upset about using a derogatory term?

It shows an absolute lack of intelligence and originality to use terms like "retarded" and "gay" to describe stupidity, when there are so many other more interesting words in the English language- ones that were made up TO describe stupidity, not words that describe a group of people negatively.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I will say that personally, it doesn't bother me at all. I could be given that label, plus the label of "nuts" "freak" "weirdo" and "loony" cuz of the way I dress and also cuz I have suffered from mental illness (depression) in the past. In my opinion, words only have the power to offend if we give them that power. Making a huge fuss just hands that power to the person using the term; treating it like it's no big deal means that power is lost, and the person using it isn't getting the reaction. Some people use words like "retard" to get a reaction; not getting one might well mean they don't use it. Anyway, that's my take.

[Saydrah]

I've used that argument, too, and at one point I believed it.

But I don't believe that any more because we are verbal creatures. We communicate verbally, and through the subtext attached to our verbal communication. Words that have been used to denigrate people and justify violence don't fundamentally change, and if it's harming one or two people to use it, and it won't harm any people to stop using it, the ethical choice is to stop using the word.

[Boozy]

John Citizen, ordinary person without any mentally/intellectually disabled relatives...

Its wrong to assume that no one with a mentally disabled relative would use the word "retarded".

Just as most people can differentiate between the meanings of "cricket the sport" and "cricket the insect" depending on the context of the conversation, I can easily differentiate between "retarded" meaning silly and "retarded" being used as a horrible insult. We all do this every day with thousands of words.

Rarely do I fret about etymology in my daily conversations. Frankly, those of us who deal with mental disabilities in the family day in and day out have bigger things to worry about.

[Seshat]

Its wrong to assume that no one with a mentally disabled relative would use the word "retarded".
<snip>
Frankly, those of us who deal with mental disabilities in the family day in and day out have bigger things to worry about.

I meant to imply that those with no mentally challenged relatives would be the least likely to see a need for the change.

However, I agree with you on the second point of the two I quoted. My immediate family consists of one with major physical disability, one with major mental disability, and one with a rare cardiac condition that causes occasional syncope attacks with seizures. Mostly, we're just too busy living to deal with how others perceive us.

[BroomJockey]

Stupid - someone slow to understand
Dumb - someone who is unable to speak
Lame - someone who is disabled so that movement, especially walking, is difficult or impossible


In your list, I managed, without trying, to find 3 words whose meaning has been changed through constant usage from what they were to weak insults.

I find more than a few flaws in your reasoning, first of which the words I listed prove "retarded" to be your pet cause. You say "1 in 7", but that's for all disabilities you also say. Retarded only covers people with mental. Seperate physical disabilities and what does that number drop to? The term applies to only part of the group you claim to be protecting from slander.

Why do you imply that saying "lame" is okay, and "dumb" is okay, by saying "don't associate retarded with these words," but both are defined as relating disabilities?

Why do you choose THIS word, but NOT those? Why should we take THIS seriously, but not THOSE? I find it hypocritcal at best to pick out retarded, as demeaning to disabled people, but not others.

In fact, retarded has a definition completely untied to mental disabilities, which means to slow or hinder. So with a small change, a person can still use the word. "Damn it, you're being a retard, making it take forever!" What if that's the meaning I mean, and not the insult OR the mental disability connotation?

My mother worked at a school for severely mentally handicapped children. She also would run a day home to watch one or two when their parents needed some time away. My best friend growing up had a brother with downs syndrome. I know the terms in general use, and that community has discarded the term "retarded" for the largest part. Why can't the general populace take it and do with it as they will? It's not like the average person is saying "Damn man, you're such a damned idiot, you need to go wear a hockey helmet and drool on yourself in the corner" when they use the word retarded. You MIGHT have a point to me if that was the case. Instead, they're talking about a bone-headed, but not critically-so, action. I'd think that would be an improvement over some of the terms used not so long ago.

[Saydrah]

You're assuming a little- a lot- too much. I didn't say I think ALL of those words are okay. Personally, I think a thesaurus would do 99% of posters on CS some good, and I tend to use "sucky" or "rude" in my own posts (and synonyms for rude) much more than I use stupid. I don't say "lame" because it doesn't make sense to me as a horse person- lame is a horse that's not sound. I don't say "dumb" often, mainly because I volunteer for an organization with "dumb" in the name (an animal shelter) in a way that refers to inability to speak. I listed those words not as acceptable alternatives, but as UNACCEPTABLE ways to use the word retarded.

If the r-word is so decontextualized, why is the ARC- one of the largest charities in America, which operates my favorite thrift store- an acronym for American Retarded Citizens? Why is it okay for kids to giggle at their trucks because they think it's a charity for people who do stupid things? And yes, I do use stupid, because nobody's come up with a better catch-all term for "just plain stupid, intrinsically not intelligent, not due to any disability or condition," and stupid has NOT been used as a medical term for much longer than the others mentioned. Why is it okay for kids NOT to know that retarded was once a word for people with certain disabilities, that some charities still use it, and that saying it or laughing at it hurts feelings?

If the r-word is so decontextualized, why did a woman sidle up to me the second to last day at my old job and ask for help finding a scratching post for her "retarded adult son's sweet little cat?" She used it as a medical term, unabashedly so, and she gave me a glare only a very small woman defending her family can give, practically daring me to giggle or to scold her for the use of a medical term that likely was her son's original diagnosis a couple of decades ago.

I respect the right of any community to define itself. Maybe in 50 years, retarded WILL be a decontextualized term. But is "colored" an acceptable synonym for "idiot" now, because it hasn't been used to describe black people in a while? Remember, the C in NAACP still stands for colored- like the R in ARC still stands for retarded. I don't think it's okay to use that word casually. Perhaps in small gatherings of friends who agree on the decontextualization, though I find it personally distasteful and tend to avoid people who use that word, along with people who use "gay" as a synonym for "bad." But on a public forum with this many members? Not okay yet. Not okay with me. And, surely, not okay with many of the members who aren't here on Fratching raising a fuss because they're just not fuss-raisers.

Well, I am. I don't listen to people use what I consider to still be a form of hate speech and not say anything.

If I saw at least one post every couple of days using the word "faggot" or "nigger" in any other way than when quoting a customer, I'd say something. It's not the only word I object to. It's not my pet cause- I'd wager on any other of the several forums I can be found on, the subject has never come up. Disability rights IS one of my pet causes but, again, many people who know me don't know that, because I rarely need to bring it up in casual conversation.

The fact is, on Customers Suck! specifically, "retarded" is a grossly overused word, and that usage is inappropriate in that setting. I personally feel it's inappropriate in any setting, but I'm not going to break down your door, come into your living room, and tell you to stop. On a public forum where I'm a member, though, I AM going to come into your "living room" so to speak and tell you that the use of "retarded" as a synonym for stupid shows a lack of education, it shows disrespect for those still living who were abused with the label of "retarded" as a justification, it shows a poor vocabulary, and it bothers me on a personal level.

There you have it.

[BroomJockey]

You're assuming a little- a lot- too much. I didn't say I think ALL of those words are okay. Personally, I think a thesaurus would do 99% of posters on CS some good, and I tend to use "sucky" or "rude" in my own posts (and synonyms for rude) much more than I use stupid.

No, not there we have it. You failed to address any point in my post. Why RETARDED and not the others? Why are you using the statistics of every single person to "deviate from normal" to back you up, rather than the ones merely relating to what you're saying? You use "disabled" and "black", but "disabled" and "non-white" would be closer analogies, statistically (not that I'm saying white is normal, but we're talking comparing spectrums with spectrums here, not a spectrum with a single group).

You don't use the word retarded, fine. But by saying ways that you felt people were using it, and including lame and dumb, you were tacitly endorcing the replacement of retarded with those words.

Again, I ask you, why should we take your personal crusade against this one word seriously, when you don't have a problem with people using other words referring to the group of disabled people? You're free to hate the word all you want, but I'm also free to call your quest retarded, as politically correct speech does more to hinder the fixing of problems than it helps, since it only confuses the issue. You're coming off as the person who decries the use of ni**** (a word you've been more than happy to spell out, but have switch to "r-word" which you say is just as bad. Obviously it's worse, if you're willing to spell ni**** out, but not retarded), but then turns around and say "Damn spa***, lazy por**mon***s"

[Saydrah]

See, now, what YOU are doing is simply revealing that you think politically correct speech is always harmful, which negates any argument based on the merits or harm of this particular word; you'd disagree no matter WHAT word I targeted.

I DO think decontextualization is possible. I don't think the words "lame" and "dumb" make much sense as insults, because they mean other things to me; however, I think they ARE decontextualized in a way "retarded" is not.

I also explained in another post how I feel about typing other terms out. It squicks me, I don't like it, but I do so in a few places in this thread for effect. Elsewhere on the internet, or in discussions that are not about language and word privilege, I don't do so. This discussion IS about language and word privilege, which warrants the occasional use of a word that might be shocking. Why that particular minority? Because, to be perfectly honest, I've been a beneficiary of a substantial amount of white, middle class privilege all my life, and I simply don't KNOW the less common hate terms used for other racial minorities. I actually have no idea what words you're hiding behind those asterisks. They probably wouldn't make sense in context if I did.

That's not to say I don't know or associate with anyone who isn't white; I've just lived in a very white area my entire life, and I haven't witnessed much blatant racism against any ethnicity. I happen to know the hate terms used to degrade black people, because it's impossible not to. It's not impossible not to know the words used against Chicano, Pacific Islander, or various other non-white ethnicities with a less public (though no less damaging) history of oppression.

I did not tacitly endorse the replacement of retarded with that list of words. I don't like the use of several words on that list. I made clear that I do NOT agree with the use of the word retarded as a replacement for those words. That doesn't mean that I agree with the use of those words, and framing it as "replacement of retarded" indicates you feel that retarded is the appropriate word being replaced. If I felt retarded was an appropriate word, I wouldn't have made this thread.

I expressly endorsed the use of a thesaurus and the expansion of one's vocabulary. I later expressed my preference of catchall term, which is "sucky," or "stupid," which I DO feel is adequately decontextualized.

It's not about politically correct. It's about what I personally feel shows both a lack of vocabulary and a disrespect for people who were abused as a result of diagnosis using that word. Politically correct is the phrase people use to excuse themselves from showing respect for others. "I don't say that, I don't do politically correct." I don't give a crap if you like political correctness. I give a crap if you use THIS particular word, for THESE particular reasons.

Yes, you have a right to free speech, defend to the death your right to say it, blah, blah, blah. But I'm damn well going to exercise MY right to free speech to call you on your use of a term that, in my book, amounts to hate speech.

[Seshat]

I DO think decontextualization is possible. I don't think the words "lame" and "dumb" make much sense as insults, because they mean other things to me; however, I think they ARE decontextualized in a way "retarded" is not.

I'm lame.

And I do mean lame in the disabled sense of the word. If I were a horse, I'd either be out to pasture in honourable retirement, or the vet would have prepared an overdose of anaesthetic for me long ago.

[Saydrah]

Sometimes I think the lame horses have the system all figured out. When I worked in horse rescue, we had lots of permanently lame horses with us for their retirement. Happiest critters I ever did see. In fact, I'm pretty sure at least one was faking- thousands of dollars the rescue really couldn't afford but supporters who loved him raised anyway of tests later, there was absolutely no reason he was lame. Nor that his lameness shifted from foot to foot, was arbitrarily better some days and worse others, and had caused no changes in musculature. He got MRIs, x-rays, acupuncture, a chiropractor, pain killers, corrective shoeing, and everything under the sun, and to my knowledge he is still munching grass in the pasture, limping on a different leg every day, and giggling over his shoulder at the confused humans. On paper, he's 100% sound- he has cleaner x-rays than my jumper.

I also knew one horse who would go lame whenever you took her out on trail rides. Then she was sound as soon as you turned around and headed for the barn. Smart horse!

No point whatsoever to this tangent, you just reminded me of some funny stories.

[Gawdzillers]

How is "niggardly" racist?
It just sounds similar to "nigger". They have no connection.
:confused:

[Saydrah]

Hmm, you're right! I looked it up and the two aren't related; however, I had thought they were due to remembering seeing in the newspaper a controversy that included calls for the resignation of a public figure who used that word.

Here, I found a link that talks about said controversy, to prove I'm not crazy: http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-nig1.htm

There's even a whole wiki page on controversies about the word:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_%22niggardly%22

[BroomJockey]

See, now, what YOU are doing is simply revealing that you think politically correct speech is always harmful, which negates any argument based on the merits or harm of this particular word; you'd disagree no matter WHAT word I targeted.

I'm going to have to double check to be certain, but I do believe in the course of this thread you've commited EVERY rhetorical fallacy listed in my textbook. And you still haven't addressed a single one of my points.

No, I wouldn't disagree no matter WHAT word you targeted. I might disagree. I admit, I'm against the hardline Politically Correct speech that makes it a thought-crime to use any insult with so much as a tangential connection to a minority group, or a historically disadvantaged group, or a historically persecuted group. I'm not against changing from "Chairman" to "Chair" or "Mailman" to "mailcarrier." I do think it asinine to refer to a deaf person as "hearing deficient." That clouds the issue. But my views on policitally correct speech are off topic.

I do think there are better words out there than retarded, but I've just been trying to find out the core of your argument. And from what I can tell, it is "I hate this word, and I want you all to stop because I say so, and by the way, anyone who uses this word is a doody-head." You barely qualify as making an argument using pathos, and you've not touched on ethos or logos.

Since you obviously have no response that doesn't violate the rules of a good debate, I'm finished with this thread, and will go back to my supremely rare visits of Fratching. Good luck.

[Saydrah]

Ah, yes the accusation of fallacy: The last refuge of someone acting intelligent on the internet who doesn't have a leg to stand on. I know, I use it myself frequently.

If you were really concerned with the rules of debate, you wouldn't have used ad hominem in every single post in this thread. You're also constructing a straw man argument with your false concern for my adherence to the laws of rhetoric (which was never a prerequisite for posting in this thread, making your sudden concern for said rules fallacious and distracting). You're also constructing a slippery slope argument by escalating my single argument about a single word into an argument about the nature of politically correct speech, and implying that if we stop using this single offensive word we will all be required to call deaf people "hearing deficient," a term I've actually never heard. The preferred nomenclature is deaf, for those who are completely unable to hear, or hard of hearing for those who are hearing-impaired but are able to hear to some extent.

So, before you set yourself up as some sort of bastion of forensics study, you might want to leave the fallacies out of your own posts, eh?

Since you've tried so hard to find the core of my argument, I'll spell it out for you:

The use of this word, this one word, bothers me. It has nothing to do with "politically correct." It has everything to do with the fact that there are people living today who were sterilized against their will, prevented from having relationships, institutionalized, had medical experiments performed on them, were raped, abused, and generally treated as less than human, because their label of this one word made it okay. I don't think it's right to redefine the word as meaning "stupid," at least not yet. It shows absolute disrespect for the people who were abused with this word as justification, and it misses the opportunity to educate the younger generation about the horrific abuse that went on in our own country, and in some places still does.

[Seshat]

I think that one paragraph is all Broomjockey wanted, Saydrah. In fact, I think that next time you feel the need to discuss the use or misuse of the word, you should probably cut and paste that paragraph. It's a very succinct and clear summary of your argument.

[BroomJockey]

*sigh* I knew I should have left well enough alone.
Approximately one in seven people has a disability. Many of those are cognitive/developmental/learning disabilities.
Biased sample.

Having a disability that affects the mind does not make someone stupid. In fact, many such disabilities hide true intelligence. When children with Autism are given IQ tests that assign high value to verbal skills and other skills generally not the top of the list when Autism is involved, they score lower than neurotypical children; however, when the IQ test is modified so as to measure the same capabilities without requiring the verbalization or eye contact the standard IQ test does, the average score of a child with Autism is HIGHER than the average for neurotypical children. Fallacy of Composition

It was not so long ago that it was at least marginally socially acceptable to call someone, "Niggardly," if he was cheap. Would any of us dream of doing that now? Of course not! What a horrifically racist term! What about saying, "I had a customer who was being a real Jew last night- he counted out his change down to the last penny before he would leave." Is that acceptable? OF COURSE NOT!

So why on Earth is it that I still see at least one thread a day where someone described a customer who acts stupidly as, "retarded?"
Strawman

The thing is, the "no big deal" label gets slapped on THIS offensive term. It's decontextualized. It means stupid now, not having a cognitive/learning/developmental disability. Sure, that's all well and good, but does it still sound as inoffensive if you switch minorities?

"I admit to using the word 'gay' to refer to stupidity or general silliness. I don't use it to mean homosexual."

Okay, we hear that one all the time- it upsets me, because the use of "gay" to mean "bad" stopped my best friend from coming out for a long time. But it's pretty common, not the most offensive thing in the world, right?

How about:

"I admit to using the word 'nigger' to mean stupid or silly. I don't use it to mean Black."

I cringe just typing that word- that's how much it's drilled into our heads that we aren't supposed to say it. It's even word-filtered out of many forums, so I'm not sure until I post this if it'll even show up.
More strawman

How many Americans are part of the minority that term describes?

Approximately 13%.

How many Americans have one or more disabilities?

Approximately 14.2%.

I mean, if you use both those other words casually, I can't exactly accuse you of hypocrisy- but if you don't call stupid people n-words and stupid things gay, then why is it okay to say something that's been used to label, degrade, and justify violence against this particular minority, but not others?Biased sample again, begging the question, appeal to emotion, yadda yadda yadda.

Thing is, John Citizen probably DOES have friends and relatives with developmental delays or other disabilities that affect the mind.

They're probably just not telling him because he's always using "retarded," to refer to stupidity, so they don't feel comfortable sharing that information with him. Appeal to authority, emotion, pity.

Something that shocked me the other day was a friend of mine saying, "It's okay to say _______ (insert derogatory term here) as long as none of them are around to hear it." Really? So only people who are part of a particular oppressed group are allowed to get upset about using a derogatory term?

It shows an absolute lack of intelligence and originality to use terms like "retarded" and "gay" to describe stupidity, when there are so many other more interesting words in the English language- ones that were made up TO describe stupidity, not words that describe a group of people negatively.begging the question, ad hominems of a couple flavours, etc.

I could go on, but it's mostly more of the same. As I said. The core of your argument boils down to "I want people to stop using this word because I said they should. It offends me, and I'm offended on behalf of other people." You claim you want to convince people over to your side, but when I asked you to clarify your argument, and work on strengthening it, you ignore and continue ad hominems and throwing up strawmen. You didn't prove that this word is any more harmful in use than it is to use "lame" or "dumb" or any other word people have co-opted from the medical community to use as an insult. You didn't prove that this is an actual issue besides in your own mind. As I said, you play heavily on the pathos, trying to equate this word with racial slurs or worse. The closest you can come to an ethical argument was "If this hurts even one person to use, but no one to stop, then we shouldn't use it." Except you haven't proven that it does hurt anyone. You also come closest to a logical appeal with your last post.

As for the "slippery slope" argument you accuse me of, that's an example that happened last week on CS. A poster used "hearing deficient" when they meant deaf. Hardly seems slippery slope. It isn't a strawman to point out that you're refusing to engage my argument on any point raised (which you still haven't done apart from accusing me of ad hominems), and as for the ad hominems, I wasn't aware distilling your argument to find clarity, and drawing analogies was ad hominem.

But if you're not bound by the rules of a debate, then I cast the gloves off myself for a parting shot. I think you need to learn to get a thicker skin, and not be offended on other people's behalf if they haven't asked you to. You don't bother with educating people, and instead shout at the top of your lungs that we are evil for using a word, equating it with racial slurs without ever saying why. You impune the intelligence of a great number of the members of the board by saying they're in desperate need of a thesaurus, and say that the word hasn't been de-contextualized, but then say that the "retarded" are too afraid to say anything. For those using it, it has no context caused by lack of education on the topic, and you, and those in your camp, are apparently unwilling to go and re-contextualize it for them. You're like a parent screaming at a child for saying "Fuck" when the child is 2 years old. The kid doesn't know better, but you never took the time to TEACH them better. You inflate statistics to assist your cause, you draw parallels that are unproven. Here in Alberta, there were eugenics programs for a startlingly long period of time before the acts were repealed, so I *know* the treatment those classified as "retarded" went through, and you STILL can't convince me to drop the word from my lexicon. Your primary motivational argument seems to be that people are still alive that had that label applied to them, which means that your problem will be solved simply by the passage of time. Eventually, they will grow old and die, and those labelled as such will be beyond the range of this "hateful word." Does that mean it will be okay to say it then, in your mind? Except you put paid to that with your anecdote about your friend, and his use of slurs while no one of that minority was around.

Unless you can come up with some way of proving this to be a matter more serious than merely existing in your own mind, you're going to be sorely disappointed by the continued refrain of "That's retarded" to be applied to people, situations, and objects that have no mental disabilities.

However, just to give you a wee bit of hope, I think you've got the start of a good argument in that last post. More about how mentally disabled people are treated, less with the equating with slurs, and a little bit more coherence and fewer tangents, and you might be able to start convincing people. The whole reason I brought up rhetoric in the first place is it is an excellent way to format your opinion in such a way as to be persuasive. Remember, those who ignore a shout will often strain to hear a whisper. Stop ranting and start educating. And use statistics that are actually applicable. Your "1 in 7" does not apply as it includes people with physical issues as well, but you don't talk about people with physical disabilities at all. A reasoning being is going to realize this and your argument is weakened overall. I honestly and seriously suggest you go back and re-read my posts, and try to counter the points, as it will strengthen your argument. You've got potential, use it.

And now I'm done for real.

[Saydrah]

Again, why are you arguing on the basis of the rules of rhetoric when I've already said, yes, my posts contain logical fallacies, as does most daily interpersonal communication, and as do your own posts? When I talk to a friend at the coffee shop and get off on a tangent, I'm not stopping to think, "Is this a biased sample?" I'm talking to my friends, and expressing an opinion.

You seem to be under the impression that I have no formal debate training. You couldn't be more wrong. I competed in forensics and also in "We the People," which is basically debate without a partner; the construction of an argument being the sole criterion for judging. I have taken various courses in debate. In addition, I've twice been a campaign manager for a congressional candidate, which involved preparing the candidate for debate, among other things. As a lifelong politically active person, undertaking my first adventure as a campaign volunteer at age six, the rules of logic and debate are far from unfamiliar to me. Debate skills are key to many political campaigns, and, conversely, sometimes poor debate skills become an asset (examine George W. Bush's past debate skills- excellent- versus fumbles debating opponents in 2000 and 2004). In fact, debate and logic have been central themes to my life to the extent that my parents once punished me as a child by making me write an essay on the logical fallacies in the excuse I gave for having been out at a neighbor's hosue while grounded!

As I said in a previous post, I'm aware my arguments contain some fallacies. I am not constructing an argument for debate in this setting. I am speaking as I would in an informal gathering of friends. It is rarely worthwhile to construct a formal argument for debate on an internet forum, unless I'm on one of the many available that DO bind participants to the rules of debate, give points, and declare winners. I occasionally participate in these types of forums, and have an excellent record. However, when attempting to organize debate threads with formal rules on non-debate specific forums, I have never once attracted interest from more than one or two people. It is more worth the while to spend my time on a non-debate specific forum making an argument that I would make to a friend or neighbor than one I would make in a formal debate setting, because the time taken removing all fallacies from one's interpersonal communication is only well-spent if one's opponents are bound by the same rules.

Given that even in your posts where you imply you WERE posting according to the rules of debate you have been unable to stay away from ad hominem and strawman arguments, among others, there would have been no point whatsoever in communicating in a formal manner as I would were I being scored on my argument. If even an opponent attempting to follow the rules of forensics does not avoid fallacious arguments, it would be foolish to expect arguments constructed formally from others in the thread who are posting without the benefit of debate experience.

If you would like to start a more formal debate thread on Fratching, please, be my guest; I can suggest other places on the internet with rules that could be adapted for our purposes. I would be willing to participate, and perhaps a few others would be interested in dusting off formal debate skills, or in judging and scoring.

[Seshat]

Again, why are you arguing on the basis of the rules of rhetoric when I've already said, yes, my posts contain logical fallacies, as does most daily interpersonal communication, and as do your own posts? When I talk to a friend at the coffee shop and get off on a tangent, I'm not stopping to think, "Is this a biased sample?" I'm talking to my friends, and expressing an opinion.

I don't know if you want my interpretation of Broomjockey's point, but here it is anyway.

I think Broomjockey isn't asking you to make a formal argument or a formal debate. He simply feels that there are too many fallacies in your informal argument for him to be persuaded. Respecting your intelligence, he suggests you address those fallacies and provide a more logically sound, but still informal, argument for your point.

He presumes you have a reason for your offense at the common use of word 'retard', and is inviting you to persuade him. He's just not going to be persuaded by posts with too many logical fallacies and too few sound arguments. Or perhaps he himself agrees with the point, and is trying to help you construct a more persuasive argument for Norm Neurotypical.

That's my interpretation, anyway. I may well be wrong.

Edit to add: in case it's not clear, my own opinion is not in this post, but in previous posts in the thread. Especially the one on page 1 of the thread.

[Ree]

For the record, Saydrah, I detest the use of the word 'retarded" to mean anything other than its original intent. Even in that context, I prefer other words, as it's only a small step from using "retarded" to refer to mentally impaired, and calling that person a "retard".

I have teens in my home, and that is one 'slang' word I will not allow.

I am not going to get into the statistics and figures and any other dramatic and drawn out arguments that have been put forth, both pro and con.
The fact is, stuff like that just bores me, and I'm really not well read enough to come across in such a scholarly manner as others who have put forth their arguments.

Isn't it enough that you have pointed out that people get hurt by the misuse of the word?
Why should you have to put forward any instances of situations where you have personally known people to be hurt?
Why is it necessary for you to back up your disgust of the word?

You find it offensive and you have simply asked people to think twice about using it.
That's not a bad thing.

Why is it so wrong to want people to think about ordinary terms they use everyday, and consider how these words impact on others, even if we find them innocent.

I am really not interested in a 100% politically correct society, but a little compassion and empathy can go a very long way, and are necessary at times.

I have very personal reasons for hatred of that word, and I will not go into it here. My reasons are probably not that different from anyone else who cringes at the use of the word, though.

I have been quietly watching the progress of this thread, and I just felt I owed it to you to let you know you're not alone in your wish for the world to remove that word from ordinary use.

[Lace Neil Singer]

If you really want a parallell, the word "spastic" was used a lot back when I was a kid in the same way that "retard" is used now. In ten years time, there might well be another word being used.

I stand by what I said before, that throwing a fit just gives that word more power than it had before as a word to cause offence, where as ignoring its use takes that power away. IE, with Broomjockey's example of the toddler saying fuck; if the parent screams at them, they might decide to use it again, cuz it got them attention. If the parent just ignores it, then there's no incentive to do so.

There are loads of words that I personally hate; however, I don't see the point of giving myself a stroke trying to stop people using them. I hate the phrase "personality disorder" for example, as it seems to be a catch all used by lazy psychiatrists to label problem people who might be autistic for example, or for criminals to use to try and get out of punishment due to a convienent mental illness sticker.

[Saydrah]

The man who invented the term "weblog" which became "blog" was recently interviewed by Wired Magazine. One of his tips was something along the lines of "No matter what you want to say, someone else has already said it better. Find that and link to them."

So, in that spirit, a speech made by a high school student, posted on Disaboom this morning by a teacher who will be reading it to her own class today:

Link: http://www.disaboom.com/Blogs/lieslmcq/archive/2008/02/20/retard.aspx

I want to tell you a quick story before I start. I was walking through hallways, not minding my own business, listening to the conversations around me. As I passed the front door on my way to my English classroom, I heard the dialogue between two friends nearby. For reasons of privacy, I would rather not give away their race or gender.



So the one girl leans to the other, pointing to the back of a young man washing the glass panes of the front door, and says, “Oh my gaw! I think it is so cute that our school brings in the black kids from around the district to wash our windows!” The other girl looked up, widened her slanted Asian eyes and called to the window washer, easily loud enough for him to hear, “Hey, Negro! You missed a spot!” The young man did not turn around. The first girl smiled a bland smile that all white girls - hell, all white people - have and walked on. A group of Mexicans stood by and laughed that high pitch laugh that all of them have.



So now it’s your turn. What do you think the black window washer did? What would you do in that situation? Do you think he turned and calmly explained the fallacies of racism and showed the girls the error of their way? That’s the one thing that makes racism, or any discrimination, less powerful in my mind. No matter how biased or bigoted a comment or action may be, the guy can turn around and explain why racism is wrong and, if worst comes to worst, punch ‘em in the face.



Discrimination against those who can defend themselves, obviously, cannot survive. What would be far worse is if we discriminated against those who cannot defend themselves. What then, could be worse than racism?



Look around you and thank God that we don’t live in a world that discriminates and despises those who cannot defend themselves. Thank God that every one of us in this room, in this school, hates racism and sexism and by that logic discrimination in general. Thank God that every one in this institution is dedicated to the ideal of mutual respect and love for our fellow human beings. Then pinch yourself for living in a dream. Then pinch the hypocrites sitting next to you. Then pinch the hypocrite that is you.



Pinch yourself once for each time you have looked at one of your fellow human beings with a mental handicap and laughed. Pinch yourself for each and every time you denounced discrimination only to turn and hate those around you without the ability to defend themselves, the only ones around you without the ability to defend themselves. Pinch yourself for each time you have called someone else a “retard.”



If you have been wondering about my opening story, I’ll tell you that it didn’t happen, not as I described it. Can you guess what I changed? No, it wasn’t the focused hate on one person, and no it wasn’t the slanted Asian eyes or cookie cutter features white people have or that shrill Hispanic hyena laugh (yeah, it hurts when people make assumptions about your person and use them against you doesn’t it?).

The girl didn’t say “hey Negro.” There was no black person.



It was a mentally handicapped boy washing the windows. It was “Hey retard” I removed the word retard. I removed the word that destroys the dignity of our most innocent. I removed the single most hateful word in the entire English language.



I don’t understand why we use the word; I don’t think I ever will.



In such an era of political correctness, why is it that retard is still ok? Why do we allow it? Why don’t we stop using the word? Maybe students can’t handle stopping - I hope that offends you students, it was meant to - but I don’t think the adults, here can either.



Students, look at your teacher, look at every member of this faculty. I am willing to bet that every one of them would throw a fit if they heard the word faggot or *** - hell the word Negro - used in their classroom. But how many of them would raise a finger against the word retard? How many of them have? Teachers, feel free to raise your hand or call attention to yourself through some other means if you have.



That’s what I thought. Clearly, this obviously isn’t a problem contained within our age group.



So why am I doing this? Why do I risk being misunderstood and resented by this school’s student body and staff? Because I know how much you can learn from people, all people, even - no, not even, especially - the mentally handicapped.



I know this because every morning I wake up and I come downstairs and I sit across from my sister, quietly eating her Cheerio’s. And as I sit down she sets her spoon down on the table and she looks at me, her strawberry blonde hair hanging over her freckled face almost completely hides the question mark shaped scar above her ear from her brain surgery two Christmases ago.



She looks at me and she smiles. She has a beautiful smile; it lights up her face. Her two front teeth are faintly stained from the years of intense epilepsy medication but I don’t notice that anymore. I lean over to her and say, “Good morning, Olivia.” She stares at me for a moment and says quickly, “Good morning, Soeren,” and goes back to her Cheerio’s.



I sit there for a minute, thinking about what to say. “What are you going to do at school today, Olivia?” She looks up again. “Gonna see Mista Bee!” she replies loudly, hugging herself slightly and looking up. Mr. B. is her gym teacher and perhaps her favorite man outside of our family on the entire planet and Olivia is thoroughly convinced that she will be having gym class every day of the week. I like to view it as wishful thinking.



She finishes her Cheerio’s and grabs her favorite blue backpack and waits for her bus driver, Miss Debbie, who, like clockwork, arrives at our house at exactly 7 o’clock each morning. She gives me a quick hug goodbye and runs excitedly to the bus, ecstatic for another day of school.



And I watch the bus disappear around the turn and I can’t help but remember the jokes. The short bus. The “retard rocket.” No matter what she does, no matter how much she loves those around her, she will always be the butt of some immature kid’s joke. She will always be the butt of some mature kid’s joke. She will always be the butt of some “adult’s” joke.



By no fault of her own, she will spend her entire life being stared at and judged. Despite the fact that she will never hate, never judge, never make fun of, never hurt, she will never be accepted. That’s why I’m doing this. I’m doing this because I don’t think you understand how much you hurt others when you hate. And maybe you don’t realize that you hate. But that’s what it is; your pre-emptive dismissal of them, your dehumanization of them, your mockery of them, it’s nothing but another form of hate.



It’s more hateful than racism, more hateful than sexism, more hateful than anything. I’m doing this so that each and every one of you, student or teacher, thinks before the next time you use the word “retard,” before the next time you shrug off someone else’s use of the word “retard”. Think of the people you hurt, both the mentally handicapped and those who love them.



If you have to, think of my sister. Think about how she can find more happiness in the blowing of a bubble and watching it float away than most of us will in our entire lives. Think about how she will always love everyone unconditionally. Think about how she will never hate. Then think about which one of you is “retarded.”



Maybe this has become more of an issue today because society is changing, slowly, to be sure, but changing nonetheless. The mentally handicapped aren’t being locked in their family’s basement anymore.



The mentally handicapped aren’t rotting like criminals in institutions. Our fellow human beings are walking among us, attending school with us, entering the work force with us, asking for nothing but acceptance, giving nothing but love. As we become more accepting and less hateful, more and more handicapped individuals will finally be able to participate in the society that has shunned them for so long. You will see more of them working in places you go, at Dominicks, at Jewel, at Wal-Mart. Someday, I hope more than anything, one of these people that you see will be my sister.



I want to leave you with one last thought. I didn’t ask to have a mentally handicapped sister. She didn’t choose to be mentally handicapped. But I wouldn’t trade it for anything. I have learned infinitely more from her simple words and love than I have from any classroom of “higher education.” I only hope that, one day, each of you will open your hearts enough to experience true unconditional love, because that is all any of them want to give. I hope that, someday, someone will love you as much as Olivia loves me. I hope that, someday, you will love somebody as much as I love her. I love you, Olivia.



Soeren Palumbo

[ArenaBoy]

Threads like these make me wish that people would read dictionaries more. Mainly because I think we need a better grasp of a word's origins. Or just bring back Latin.

Retard comes from ORIGIN late 15th cent.: from French retarder, from Latin retardare, from re- ‘back’ + tardus ‘slow.’

Yep, nothing relating to a mental handicap. No siree. Wasn't it not too long ago that we were referring to those with mental handicaps as "special"? Point is that the English language changes. Example being "shell-shock" to what we now refer to as "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder". Same goes for queer and gay, queer was meant to be strange or unusual while gay meant happy though those meanings changed.

Funny old language English.

[DesignFox]

I think the word is only insulting if it's intentionally thrown out to be insulting.

I don't think the term retarded is a bad word in and of itself. I don't see the issue with using it to describe something someone thinks is stupid...or slow...or "off."

For one thing, I haven't heard the word retarded used to describe any one with a mental handicap in a long time. People aren't labelled as "mentally retarded" anymore... They have a mental disability...

I equate the word retard with someone who is acting stupid or being slow. I don't associate the word retard with someone who has a mental disability. I guess that's why it doesn't offend me.

I don't look at a child with Down's Syndrome and think they are retarded. I think they are a child with Down's Syndrome. I differentiate those things in my head...am I making sense?

I know I'm sort of babbling, but I can't figure out how to make my argument clearer...I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't agree that retarded is a bad word... I don't agree that people throw around the word retard and immediately that means they're comparing a stupid person to a person who has a genuine disability and thereby make having a mental disability make that person less human....

Anyway- I know it bothers Ree and Saydrah. So I try to check my words at the door. If I slip, please know the term is not meant as a derogatory term towards the mentally handicapped. Nor does it mean that I think of mentally challenged individuals as less than human.

I've said this before and I'll say it again...
I just have to wonder at all this arguing over words. I mean, pretty soon we aren't going to have any words left to describe each other....pretty much everything is insulting to someone nowadays. I think the big thing to remember with the use of a word is the intent. And in different areas, the words mean different things to different people.

[crazylegs]

In the UK the use of both 'Handicapped' and 'Retarted' are both frowned upon, and neither are in widespread use, in the Chemist I worked the disabled looshad 'Handicapped' written on them (is it was last decorated circa 1970) and we received complaints every day from members of the public, so not only are they not used officially but the general public don't use them either.

[Seshat]

I know I'm sort of babbling, but I can't figure out how to make my argument clearer...I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't agree that retarded is a bad word... I don't agree that people throw around the word retard and immediately that means they're comparing a stupid person to a person who has a genuine disability and thereby make having a mental disability make that person less human....

I haven't seen anyone saying it does. The argument Ree made, and the one Saydrah finished on, was 'it hurts some of the people who lived through the period when it was used with intent to offend'.

They're also saying that those who had the label 'retarded' applied to themselves or their families are hurt by the word's continued use as a pejorative.

They're not saying anything about the intent of current users. They know current users typically have no intent to offend. They're saying that regardless of intent, it hurts. Even keeping in mind the lack of intended offence, it hurts.

Anyway- I know it bothers Ree and Saydrah. So I try to check my words at the door.

That's all they ask.

I think the big thing to remember with the use of a word is the intent. And in different areas, the words mean different things to different people.

I think historic meanings are important too. Historic meanings, and the time span in which they had the meanings, let us know if we can expect there to be living people who remember hurtful meanings for the word. That lets us know which words can remind people of past pain - and in some cases, past trauma.

Communication does not end with the speaker/writer. Communication is incomplete until the listener/reader has interpreted the speaker/writer's words.

If you use words which are ambiguous or are loaded with emotional meaning, you can expect at least some of your listeners/readers to misinterpret the words and/or receive the emotional meanings - regardless of what you intended.

[blas87]

"Gay" bothers me more than retarded does. People referring to inatimate objects or bad situations as "gay" really irks me. So does "Jewish". I don't understand why people still call getting a parking ticket "Jewish" or calling someone who doesn't want to come to the bar with us a "Jew".

I will openly admit that I use "retarded" a little too loosely. In fact, I remember my threads about DipShit, I openly called him a retard. I called him a retard behind his back constantly. I feel regret a lot of the time for saying such things.

It's been my New Years Resolution for quite a few years to stop calling people "retarded".

[Lace Neil Singer]

No offence to anyone here, but I'm not about to watch what I say just on the offchance I might offend someone. If someone has a problem with a post, then there's always the back button. I guess I just don't see the point of making a song and dance over words, unless they're used in a hateful and unpleasent way. I do try to use descriptive words tho in my posts, as I find it annoying for people who use the same word for everything; it's like they need a whack over the head with a thesaurus.

I've listed the words and phrases I don't like already; one that comes to mind that someone I know doesn't like, is the c word. I know she doesn't like it, so I don't use it around her. However, if I slip and use it, she doesn't hysterically berate me for the slip as she knows I'm not trying to offend her. I think that people are too offended by stuff nowadays but *shrugs* that's just my opinion, man.

[Seshat]

I think that people are too offended by stuff nowadays but *shrugs* that's just my opinion, man.

I see it as people being more willing to tell others what hurts them.

[Lace Neil Singer]

There's got to be a happy medium between being more willing to tell, and making a song and dance over every single thing. :/

[Greenday]

There's got to be a happy medium between being more willing to tell, and making a song and dance over every single thing. :/

Amen.

One time, during an SAT verbal class in high school, I muttered "Oh God" about something. My teacher flipped out on me. Took me out in the hallway and started explaining to me how I cannot say God because that might offend some people. I told him that if people are going to be so offended over one word that they'll flip out, they might as well stop leaving their house in the morning.

[Sylvia727]

Amen.

One time, during an SAT verbal class in high school, I muttered "Oh God" about something. My teacher flipped out on me. Took me out in the hallway and started explaining to me how I cannot say God because that might offend some people. I told him that if people are going to be so offended over one word that they'll flip out, they might as well stop leaving their house in the morning.

If it was during a test, you should have told him that it was a prayer. :p

[Saydrah]

I see it as people being more willing to tell others what hurts them.

This is how I see it too.

http://davehingsburger.blogspot.com/2008/03/feelings.html

Dave Hingsburger's blog talks about this often, this being the most recent. An excerpt:

"'Is everything alright?' I asked, concerned. I like her. She is a woman with a disability who works at the front desk, who answers phones, does photocopying and jokes with Joe every single time she sees him. I've never said it, but I like the fact that the office has people with disabilities working as full time employees. It seems odd that agencies that serve people with disabilities often don't employ them. Anyways, as I said, she looked like something had upset her....


...The Journal's name, Psychiatric Aspects of Mental Retardation was blazed across the top of the paper.

"This word is wrong, it hurts people. I don't think it should be used."

OK, she's right. I explained to her that the article was nearly 20 years old. That the journal had changed it's name so that it no longer uses the word. That it comes from a time when that word was more commonly used.

'It doesn't matter,' she said, resolute, 'it hurt people then and it hurts people now.'"

[DesignFox]

'It doesn't matter,' she said, resolute, 'it hurt people then and it hurts people now.'"

Ok, so we should go back and change history? I understand being upset seeing a word that bothers someone...but that's just the way it was. The paper was over 20 years old. No one nowadays is going to title their paper something like that.

There's just a point where you have to accept it and move on...or just not look at it if it bothers you.

I mean, another example that REALLY bothered me was at the Hoover Dam.

In the museum, they have an article about a dog. How beloved this dog was at the work site. How the men took care of it, set up a bank account so they could pay for all the dog's needs. And how, when the dog was killed in an accident at the site, they lovingly buried him at the base of the damn.

Something struck me as very odd about this article. Not once do they mention the dog's name. If the guys loved this dog so much...it had to have a name!

So I asked. It was a black dog. The workers named it "Nig."

Since we can't offend people, the name was deleted from the article.

Make it even better, they removed the name from his graveside placard.

Because ONE person complained about it.

It's a dead dog's name for crying out loud. It should not be deleted from history because someone is offended by it now. It was acceptable back then. Accept it as a part of history, maybe not a NICE part of history...but accept it. Be happy our world is evolving and people don't use that word now!

So, I can understand being hurt when seeing a word we now consider unacceptable. If someone asks that I not use that word in their presence, I certainly won't use it! But goddamn...if I see an article that's particularly insulting in some way or other, I try to take into account when it was written, and the attitudes of people at the time it was written...If it really hurts my feelings...I have the power to NOT read it.

I can't go back 20 years and yell at that person not to use a word I find offensive!

I can't change the men's attitudes back when the Hoover Dam was built and convince them that Nig isn't really a nice name and maybe they should call their dog something else. I just have to accept it. And move on!

[Saydrah]

The point of that post is not that the 20 year old journal should be burned- its contents were valuable enough to photocopy for the author's office. The point is that there was a time when it was unacceptable for someone with a cognitive disability to speak up and tell people what hurt them, and as the author says if you read the entire post, he could never have imagined when he first began working in the field of disability that he would one day be working alongside an intellectually disabled woman who was willing to speak up for herself in such a strong way. It was at one point unimaginable that people with disabilities would be taught to use the word "NO!" when they did not want something done to them. Now, things are far from perfect, but more people with disabilities are taught that they are valuable people and deserve protection from abuse, just as able-bodied children are taught about "no-zones" and "stranger danger." That has led to the willingness to speak out about hurtful and discriminatory language, as Seshat pointed out.

[DesignFox]

I agree with you Saydrah.

But someone at the bottom of the blog states that the cover page needs to be edited. I disagree.

I think the man asking her to do the copying is thoughtful not to have her photocopy the same article again. He recognizes that some of the terminology it uses is hurtful to his office assistant, and he is not forcing her to look at it.

I think his reaction is a balanced one. :)

[Seshat]

Earlier in this thread, I mentioned that I believe people should know the history of some types of words.

Editing away the title of a journal isn't going to contribute to people knowing the history.
The fact that many people younger than me have never heard of Disney's "Song of the South" film or "blackface" musical comedy isn't going to contribute to their understanding of the casual racism of former times.

Eh. I could go on, but I don't think it's necessary. I think you all understand my basic point.

[Saydrah]

I agree with that, DesignFox and Seshat. I don't think you should edit away historical uses, because the exact problem with this word is a LACK of knowledge of its power to hurt, not too much knowledge of its original use. I don't think most people who use it in an insulting way are evil disphobic people who want to make sure they get a chance to hurt the feelings of any disabled people around; I think they just don't understand the power to hurt that is carried by this particular descriptor. I didn't actually read the comments on that blog post- this particular blogger gets a lot of spam comments and doesn't tend to moderate out any except the most obvious ones, so I rarely even click through to comments unless I want to leave one myself.

[claidhmore]

I read this thread, and this is what popped into my head:

From Something Happens (http://www.somethinghappens.net/d/20070111.html)

It just sounded to me like the OP had more issues with the repeated use of "retarded" as a slang term, which is something that can be fixed with some of them thar learnins. I guess I try to not take offense when no offense is meant.

[BlaqueKatt]

Definition from the american heritage dictionary:

Retarded-

To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede.

To be delayed.

A slowing down or hindering of progress; a delay.

those are the ONLY three definitions-I generally do not go by "common usage"-but dictionary definitions.

NOTHING about mental disability in there anywhere-from this dictionary definition-"standing in this line is retarted"(slowing down progress) is proper usage

wonders what to call fire-retardant so as not to be offensive......

[Seshat]

Sorry, BlaqueKat, but I looked up 'retarded' specifically, and got the following in the first online multi-dictionary I tried:


Dictionary.com:

–adjective
1. characterized by retardation: a retarded child.
–noun
2. (used with a plural verb) mentally retarded persons collectively (usually prec. by the): new schools for the retarded.

—Synonyms backward, disabled, handicapped.

American Heritage Dictionary:


retard: (As per BlaqueKatt's post)

retarded:
1. Often Offensive Affected with mental retardation.
2. Occurring or developing later than desired or expected; delayed.

WordNet:

adjective
1. relatively slow in mental or emotional or physical development; "providing a secure and sometimes happy life for the retarded" [ant: precocious]

noun
1. people collectively who are mentally retarded; "he started a school for the retarded" [syn: mentally retarded]

[Rapscallion]

the word retarded is offensive to people who are mentally disabled.

Says who?

Who is it that defines what offends other people? Who defines what is acceptable?

I'd like to meet these people so I can explain to them that they're always going to lose. People - especially youngsters - are arseholes. If they see a term being used to describe someone who has an affliction etc, they're going to use it to hurt someone they know and want to get a rise from. The more people tell them it's not nice to use it, the more they use it because they don't want to be nice.

Humans - when you perfect them, you can tell them what's acceptable. Until then, leave me out of it.

Rapscallion

[RecoveringKinkoid]

It hasn't for white people, but apparently there's nothing wrong with black people saying it. They've decontextualized it for themselves.

There's everything wrong with using that word. Decent people do not use it. Decent white people, nor decent black people use it.

Only ignorant people use it.

As for "retarded", well, the OP might be fighting a losing battle...but it's a battle that should be fought, regardless. By decent people.

Using it casually, the way people do, is hurtful to a great many people. So does using "gay" to denote "bad." It may not be said in malice, but I would argue that it IS indeed said in ignorance.

[the_std]

By decent people.

This word, used over and over again in your post, is interesting. I consider myself a decent person and am not going to fight against using the word retarded because I, like a great many others, do not see it as meaning anything derogatory against mentally disabled people. I very rarely hear it used in that context and, when I do, it's by the kind of person who will use any word to piss other people off. It has become a slang word that can be used interchangeably with "dumb" and "stupid" and I do not feel any less of a decent person for using it in that fashion. It feels as though you are trying to shame people by saying that they are not decent if they do not fight for this cause. Appeal to emotion?

Then again, I am young (early twenties) and have never heard the "it's derogatory" line from anyone in my general age bracket. Could that have something to do with it as well?

[Boozy]

Most people under the age of 25 or so (in my experience) don't recall a time when "retarded" was used to describe the mentally challenged, either as an official diagnostic term or as a derogatory one. Like I said in my original post, the word has become completely removed from its linguistic origins in my area. So much so that I don't believe it is widely believed to be offensive, when used by young people to describe something they don't like.

I freely admit that other geographic areas may differ from mine.

[BroomJockey]

I freely admit that other geographic areas may differ from mine.

Same around here.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

I guess I come from a generation that DOES remember when "retarded" was openly used to describe kids with handicaps. I also remember those same kids, some who were profoundly handicapped, just dumped into general population public school.

I saw some stuff that makes me cringe to this day. Maybe younger people don't have the association of insensitivity or outright cruelty that I do, so I admit that the word is probably far more emotionally charged with malice for me than it might be for people in their 20s. I'm in my 40s.

Fair enough.

[Lace Neil Singer]

When I was a kid, the word "spastic" was used as "retard" is now; to refer to someone who was stupid or acting stupidly. No-one saw anything wrong with the word; there was even a charity called "The Spastics Society".

[Ree]

As I said, I find the word "retarded" used to describe something annoying or ridiculous to be offensive.

You can split hairs all you want to justify the use, you will never convince me otherwise, just as we who do take offense to the word will never convince you otherwise. Nobody likes to be told that something they have been saying without thinking or without intended malice is really not a very nice phrase or word to use because it stirs up unpleasant feelings in some who hear it.

The bottom line is, people don't like to be told what they can say or think.

Why use the word, really? It's just as easy to use any of the other words for which the "R" word is being substituted.

I was at a workshop this summer where the use of the "R" word was discussed and I was given the link to a video with Soren Palumbo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yTGNcAZUgE) delivering the speech which Saydrah posted.
It's actually quite thought provoking if you watch it through to the end.
It certainly had an influence on some of the teens who attended the workshop, judging by the conversations and the results stemming from the group activities. Some of them vowed to make an effort to find other words to use and other ways of expressing their thoughts.

[BroomJockey]

Why use the word, really? It's just as easy to use any of the other words for which the "R" word is being substituted.


Because literally every single one of them was originally used to describe either a physically or mentally disadvantaged group.

Idiot: people with low IQs and learning disabilities. It was an official term, similar to how retard was.

Dumb: someone physically incapable of speech.

Stupid: Like idiot, but not an official diagnostic term.

And so on and so forth.

There are NO WORDS available that have not been used in the way you're saying make retard unacceptable. So, if you're saying to use those, despite the exact same connotations being attached, what's the difference? The fact that it was longer ago? Does that mean we have to wait until your generation dies to use retard like idiot is now?

Language evolves. Usually faster than people die off. "Mouse" doesn't bring visions of small furry rodents to people's minds very often any more. So on and so forth. Again. I know I won't convince you, as you've already pointed out in your post, but I figure I should make my position clear now so the next time I use retard, I won't need to bother justifying it.

[Ree]

Because literally every single one of them was originally used to describe either a physically or mentally disadvantaged group.

Has the word "ridculous" been an actual clinical label previously attributed to a certain group of people with mental or physical defects?

That seems a pretty good substitute that expresses the same thought with only 1 extra syllable.

While "stupid" is a word that has been used to describe people of limited intelligence, I don't believe it was an actual clinical label given to a mentally or physically challenged group of people.

Instead of calling someone a "retard" when they do something absurd, call them a twit. Less syllables, and, as far as I know, that wasn't an actual clinical label previously attributed to a certain group of people with mental or physical defects.

Instead of saying, "What a retard," why not, "What a bonehead."
Same number of syllables, and, again, I don't believe it was an actual clinical label given to a mentally or physically challenged group of people.

The word, in its current usage, is derogatory and negative.
While people argue that the mentally challenged are no longer called "retarded" the fact is that they once were labeled with that term. I have to wonder how the word came to be used in its current form, then, if not taken from that usage and adapted to mean something that is absurd, ridiculous, annoying, or any other meaning currently attached to it.

The fact is, people began using it in that derogatory way while it was still in acceptable use as a label for the mentally challenged. That was why the "politically correct" began asking for a new term to label the mentally challenged. "Retarded" had taken on a negative meaning because of its use outside of the original intent.

[guywithashovel]

A few years ago, I worked at a camp for disabled kids and adults. During our training period, they went over a list of terms that we were encouraged to use and others that we were discouraged from using. Here are a few examples.

1. Instead of saying someone was "retarded," we were encouraged to say that the person "lives with mental retardation."

2. Rather than say that someone was "confined to a wheelchair," we were encouraged to say that the person "used a wheelchair to get around."

3. If a camper had to wear a diaper, we were encouraged to call it an "undergarment" instead of a diaper (especially with the adults).

4. If a camper needed to wear a bib while eating, we were encouraged to call it a "clothing cover" instead of a bib.

The camp referred to these as "terms with dignity." To some extent, using terms that sound better or sound less negative is good. However, extremists on both sides blow it completely out of proportion. On one hand, you have PC extremists who pick apart everyone's language and act like anyone who calls a mentally challenged person "retarded" or a black person a "Negro" is a KKK member. Then, you have the other side that goes out of their way to be insulting to anyone who isn't a white, middle-class, American male. The concept of a middle ground is lost on these people.

[violetyoshi]

Try to imagine growing up in a world, where you are told almost everything you do is wrong. Then try to imagine, being taught that your natural behaviors, are sick and need to be fixed. Try to imagine that then people say, [I]you[I] are wrong and should be fixed.

No matter how much you try to convince others, that little is wrong with you except for a few differences from what have been deemed "normal" and proper people, nobody will hear you.

You are always hearing about how the "normal" people are right and you are wrong, despite several things that "normal" people get involved with that are negative, that people who are neurodiverse tend not to:

1. drinking, drugs, promiscuousness

2. Becoming involved with the wrong people

3. Learning to harm others with language, and having it be excused as a social behavior, rather than seen as a sign of tendency towards emotional abusiveness in general.

4. Lack of compassion and understanding for those who are different than them, regarding those people with fear instead of understanding.

When a "normal" person has a problem, they are supported, when a neurodiverse person has a problem, they're infantilized and regarded as one regards a child. Their adult issues and concerns, are demeaned and ignored, in favor of a "normal" person's desire to see them as different from them, so they can feel better about themselves.

If you were to take inventory of all the behaviors "normal" children, and adults are able to get by with, you'd notice that "normal" people are far from perfect, they could even say given that they happen to be the majority, this is why they're allowed behaviors that would otherwise be seen as pathological in a person who is deemed neurodiverse.

When someone says the word retard, they are saying "I'm so happy I'm not you!" "I'm so happy I'm not neurodiverse!" "I'm glad I have the freedoms I have to make mistakes, without it being seen as a result of being feeble minded!" Nobody would say those statements to someone neurodiverse, or would say them out loud in public, yet that is what they are saying when they use the word retard. They are bragging how just by being born with what is deemed the proper brain type to have, that they're able to get by with anti-social behaviors.

A person who is neurodiverse may be told not to stim, which is moving arms or fingers around, in most cases as a way to ward off anxiety. Where it's seen as "normal" to harm your body by drinking alcohol or doing drugs to avoid the same anxiety.

I don't see why people suggest stimming is somehow worse, than killing yourself with drinking or drugs. Stimming doesn't harm anyone, people who stim, are able to drive if they choose so. Stimming doesn't cause their mind to slow down, and it doesn't lead to accidents which kill others. Drinking does, and continues to do so.

Am I saying then that neurodiverse people are better than "normal" people, no, everyone is capable of good or evil. What I am saying is that people with neurodiversity, tend to be more compassionate towards others. Perhaps this comes from the seemingly endless adversity they are made to face throughout their lives, while simultaneously being told to make friends with the people who emotionally abuse them.

What I am saying, is that most neurodiverse people I've run into, would never go out of their way to harm someone. Many people who are "normal" seem to give it no thought. Should it have to take someone spending a lifetime of being seen as other, in order to be able to see how words hurt someone? Is it so much to ask, for people to understand that language does have power, and that it's more than reasonable for a person to be offended by defending the word retarded as it was used in the past as a techinical term. Should we justify the N-word as well, by saying well they used it in the past?

I've never understood the tendency for "normal" people to use language as a weapon, to hold power over someone, and make someone feel less like a person. I've never had a desire to hurt others, and this has been deemed as a lack of social understanding.

Just because the majority does it, doesn't make it right. There are many aspects of "normal" behavior, that can be seen as a sign of leaning towards agressive or abusive behavior, it's glossed over because the majority of people do it. It's easier to try and change the few who are different, and convince them that such pathological behavior is normal, and they are the ones who are wrong in how they think. Instead of telling the majority, the fact is that in many cases they behave completely immoral when it comes to the feelings of others, making a game of how many people they can upset.

So really then who's the one who's retarded, the person who is neurodiverse or different, or the person who is cruel enough to go out of their way to use a word they know will harm someone. I'm leaning towards the latter.

[Nyoibo]

Stupid was widely used by psychologists as a descriptor, so I would guess it had some form of officialness.

One guy I knew was a hoot, he hated political correctness, found it offensive and patronizing, I can just imagine his response to those terms being something along the lines of "Bullshit, I wear a damn nappy and I'm stuck in a fucking wheelchair because I'm a cripple damn it, but at least I get the good parking spots."

Try to imagine growing up in a world, where you are told almost everything you do is wrong. Then try to imagine, being taught that your natural behaviors, are sick and need to be fixed. Try to imagine that then people say, [I]you[I] are wrong and should be fixed.

Try to imagine that you're not the only one in the world who's had experiences like this , try to imagine that you don't need to 'educate' us on the hardships.

[violetyoshi]

http://www.fratching.com/showpost.php?p=29680&postcount=20

Some people still need an education on this apparently. I wouldn't have made the post, if people had stopped throwing around the r-word. We've been able to learn that the N-word is bad, we can learn the R-word shouldn't be said as well.

Neurotypical is used by those in the neurodiversity community as a descriptor for "normal" people. Should I be able to justify then to clinically referring to normal people as Neurotypical? Perhaps then they would understand how it feels to be different, if they were referred to as a clinical oddity.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

eeee...Yeah, I was gonna say. Most of us don't have to imagine Suck. It's a brutal planet, and we all are missing some skin.

People can't make you feel like less of a person unless you let them. Or something like that. I don't mean to be insensitive to your problems, but defining yourself by your problems is not a great way to deal with them.

And anyways, I wasn't aware that being Autistic had anything to do with mental retardation. One of the guys in my band is Autistic, and he's freaking brilliant.

And by the way, if you are using the word "retarded" to describe the villian in the last bit of your last post...well...you're kind of doing it.

[violetyoshi]

eeee...Yeah, I was gonna say. Most of us don't have to imagine Suck. It's a brutal planet, and we all are missing some skin.

People can't make you feel like less of a person unless you let them. Or something like that. I don't mean to be insensitive to your problems, but defining yourself by your problems is not a great way to deal with them.

And anyways, I wasn't aware that being Autistic had anything to do with mental retardation. One of the guys in my band is Autistic, and he's freaking brilliant.

And by the way, if you are using the word "retarded" to describe the villian in the last bit of your last post...well...you're kind of doing it.

No, what I am suggesting is that the people who use the term retard, are the type of stupid that they are making fun of in another.

[Boozy]

As I said, I find the word "retarded" used to describe something annoying or ridiculous to be offensive.

You're not alone in that, and I don't think you're wrong either. Many people find that word offensive in any context, and I get why the do. They can't separate the word from the way they used to (perhaps still do) hear it used. That's why I never use it in public or with people I don't know, since I don't want to upset anyone. I don't use it on message boards, either.

But I don't see the issue with using it (out of its derogatory context) around close family and friends who don't find it offensive. There's no one there to get hurt, and we aren't bad people. We simply don't concern ourselves with etymology, and we all know what is meant. Just as we understand that "pen" can mean the dog run in the backyard or the Bic on the desk in front of us, it is understood that no one is making fun of the mentally challenged when we call some idea or inanimate object "retarded."

[Ree]

I do get that, Boozy, and I understand your reasoning.
My point is, though, that even using the word casually among family is still using an unpleasant word, so why not just stop it?

Like I said earlier in the thread, I won't allow the children in my house to use the word because the only way to break a bad habit is to stop doing it. If I allowed them to just use it randomly around the house and not in mixed company where others could be offended, there is still a chance that it will slip out it in a context where they will offend someone.

(For the record, it's not just the word "retarded". I won't let them use the term "gay" in that context either.)

It's easier to just make the choice to use a better word with a less offensive history around it.

That's just my opinion.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Sorry you feel that way, but I'm not about to stop using words just in case I accidentally offend someone. To my mind, practically everything offends people nowadays, whether it's wishing somene a "Merry Christmas" or describing a person as being fat. I don't really see why I should watch every word I say to avoid offending stick up the arse people.

By the way, Ree; that wasn't directed towards you. Just the whole "I am so offended so everyone must bend over backwards for me" society we live in now. -.-

[RecoveringKinkoid]

No, what I am suggesting is that the people who use the term retard, are the type of stupid that they are making fun of in another.

Actually, no they aren't. Willfull ignorance and malicious cruelty are not the same thing as having an actual condition that give a person, through no fault of their own, cognitive difficulties.

What you are suggesting is that it's okay to use the word as an insult in some instances (those instances being "when YOU do it.") . And I'm saying is that no, it isn't. If it's offensive, don't do it yourself. If it's not, don't bust on others for doing it. There's no hair-splitting or double standard here.

[violetyoshi]

Sorry you feel that way, but I'm not about to stop using words just in case I accidentally offend someone. To my mind, practically everything offends people nowadays, whether it's wishing somene a "Merry Christmas" or describing a person as being fat. I don't really see why I should watch every word I say to avoid offending stick up the arse people.

By the way, Ree; that wasn't directed towards you. Just the whole "I am so offended so everyone must bend over backwards for me" society we live in now. -.-

Happy Hannukah! Okay, now I'm just being an ass. :p

[Lace Neil Singer]

And a Merry Winterval back atcha. XD

[Slytovhand]

A couple of my Master's degree colleagues are doing their survey assignment on insults.. what's considered offensive on a 1-5 rating...

Might be interesting to see the results (although, it's only required to get 20 people to do it).

Violet, I've been saying for years that humanity is basically insane, and your long post on the other page pretty much sums up a large reason for that thought... people willfully choose to be cruel to other people...(and this is called a 'coping mechanism').

Ok, so my next question becomes obvious... if 'retard' is out, and 'nigger' or 'negro' (I don't understand the logic behind that, other than a phase in history when it became derogatory, but for the thousands of years before that it wasn't!), what about calling someone a 'dick'? Or a 'prick'?? different connotation, but still making associations that aren't actually merited (nor particularly logical). What's the relevantly significant difference?

[Rapscallion]

Ok, so my next question becomes obvious... if 'retard' is out, and 'nigger' or 'negro' (I don't understand the logic behind that, other than a phase in history when it became derogatory, but for the thousands of years before that it wasn't!), what about calling someone a 'dick'? Or a 'prick'?? different connotation, but still making associations that aren't actually merited (nor particularly logical). What's the relevantly significant difference?

I doubt it will get around to 'prick' etc. The politically correct crew will find something they consider 'acceptable' to describe people who are unfortunate in some way or another, and then people will use that new term to describe people they don't like, and then the politically correct crew will deem that term as inappropriate and demeaning, and then they'll come up with a new term, and that term will be used as an insult, and then it will become unacceptable and...

You get the idea.

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

Well, yes Raps, I do get the idea... and that's pretty much the sort of point I'm making.

The whole idea of being insulting and offensive is to insult and offend. So, does it matter what choice of words you use?? If this thread is about not using terms that are offensive to people, then it ought to be about any form of insult.. not just a particular one that happens to offend 1 group of people, but still insist it's ok to use terms that are meant to offend a different group.