Don't say that's retarded, it hurts special kids feelings NOT ABOUT CALLING SPECIAL KIDS RETARDED

[Therumancer]

I have mixed feelings on the subject.

To put it bluntly I'm a big believer in free speech and an opponent of political correctness in all of it's forms. At the end of the day all men are not created equal, the mentally retarded are an example of this, it might not be their fault but there is no denying these people are inferior and broken. As such comparing someone who is normal to someone who is broken in a negative way (that's not something a normal person would do/say/think, it's like something a retard would do) both makes sense and happens to be fair.

The problem I have with political correctness is when it happens to get in the way of common sense, reality, and the basic facts, which happnes more often than not in this paticular case.

Now, I won't say that it's right to insult people, in a perfect world everyone would be polite to everyone all the time. There shouldn't (in theory) be a case where you'd want to insult someone by saying they are like a retard to begin with, but sadly we do not live in a perfect world as nice as it would be to do so.

Tormenting and mocking the mentally ill or retarded is something else entirely, and happens to be wrong. However simply making a referance to them, calling someone insane or retaded by way of comparison when addressing someone who clearly isn't, is perfectly reasonable to me when you consider insults being used to begin with.

This is one of those cases that I think of as "Lib-trolling" that is trolling with a liberal issue. The whole point of going after people for using the term retaded is pretty much to be an obnoxious twit, bringing people who aren't even involved in an incident into it for the sake of creating chaos through guilt. Two people are already annoyed with each other to the point where someone being insulting, some faux-liberal jumping in and saying "you shouldn't use the term retarded" is just being an arsehole.

The problem is we let this kind of thing masquerade as a legitimate issue to the point where it leads to platforms, annoucements, etc... and it detracts from addressing real issues.

As far as retarded people getting upset, understand that as a general rule they get upset about pretty much anything, which is part of what makes them what they are. That combined with a general lack of intelligence (or possession of a deranged intelligence) is why most of them are kept penned up and stored away from society, or require the constant attention of special caretakers. I do indeed have sympathy for people with problems that have caused this reality for them, but at the same time I don't believe in modifying the rest of society for the benefit of a scant handfull of people who for the most part do not participate in it, and are kept relatively isolated, through the effort of a single caretaker, if not the efforts of an entire facility used to warehouse them. Those who have problems, but are capable of more or less functioning on their own in society are retarded more in a technical sense, and not who are generally being referred to by the insult to begin with.

Such are my thoughts, even if they aren't entirely nice.

 

[Moderated]

Okay, after reading through a page of this,I have to clarify some things.
1: THIS IS NOT ABOUT CALLING SPECIAL KIDS RETARDED. THAT IS BAD.
2: THIS IS ABOUT USING RETARD TO INSULT NORMAL PEOPLE.
3: I SPECIFICALLY SAID 2 TIMES THAT GAY PEOPLE HAVE A POINT BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL REFERRED TO AS GAY, THUS IT ACTUALLY IS INSULTING TO THEM. SPECIAL PEOPLE ARE NOT CALLED RETARDED ANYMORE.

 

[axlryder]

I never understood why watching your language is such a big deal. Referring to considering how your words affect others as "B.S.". As if high schoolers calling everything retarded is protecting the english language. You don't need to say it so just choose another word, its not that hard.

Because they want to say it. It makes sense. When you get a group of disaffected youths together and have their [insert typically hypocritical authority figure] explicitly tell them not to say something because it's "offensive", that group perceives themselves as being censored and wishes to partake of this forbidden fruit while simultaneously using it as a way to lash out against said authority figure. Suddenly the word becomes a colloquial mainstay and seeps into pop culture, resulting in the word's self-perpetuation. It also doesn't help that being as hurtful as possible is exactly the sort of thing you'd expected from dysfunctional youngsters who need an outlet and a way to make themselves feel smarter than someone else. Suddenly the word itself becomes symbolically important to the people you're trying to get to stop saying it, and your attempts to prevent its use are viewed as attacks. Regardless, it's not a simple "don't say it". In a way many people who talk and act that way are largely byproducts of the culture they were raised in. note that this is just a bunch of crap I made up right now.

 

[Moderated]

It's kind of funny that you wrote this post, and your avatar is a black guy. There's certainly no parallels there, no sir!

Because that word still refers to black people, that's in the same boat as gay.

 

[Church185]

it might not be their fault but there is no denying these people are inferior and broken. As such comparing someone who is normal to someone who is broken in a negative way (that's not something a normal person would do/say/think, it's like something a retard would do) both makes sense and happens to be fair.

Stephen Hawking would like a digital word with you, since people with problems like his usually get lumped in with the "retards".

Now, I won't say that it's right to insult people, in a perfect world everyone would be polite to everyone all the time. There shouldn't (in theory) be a case where you'd want to insult someone by saying they are like a retard to begin with, but sadly we do not live in a perfect world as nice as it would be to do so.

I'll agree with your initial point about "insulting people probably shouldn't happen but we don't live in a perfect society". But, your tone here sounds (at least to me, but I'm weird) like you are giving people an excuse, when behavior like that should be discouraged.

As far as retarded people getting upset, understand that as a general rule they get upset about pretty much anything, which is part of what makes them what they are. That combined with a general lack of intelligence (or possession of a deranged intelligence) is why most of them are kept penned up and stored away from society, or require the constant attention of special caretakers. I do indeed have sympathy for people with problems that have caused this reality for them, but at the same time I don't believe in modifying the rest of society for the benefit of a scant handfull of people who for the most part do not participate in it, and are kept relatively isolated, through the effort of a single caretaker, if not the efforts of an entire facility used to warehouse them. Those who have problems, but are capable of more or less functioning on their own in society are retarded more in a technical sense, and not who are generally being referred to by the insult to begin with.

That is a large chunk of flame bait right there.

 

[axlryder]

3: I SPECIFICALLY SAID 2 TIMES THAT GAY PEOPLE HAVE A POINT BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL REFERRED TO AS GAY, THUS IT ACTUALLY IS INSULTING TO THEM. SPECIAL PEOPLE ARE NOT CALLED RETARDED ANYMORE.

Yes they are. It's just slang, bro. It's like saying "people of shorter stature aren't called midgets anymore". They're not supposed to be, but it's still an offensive slang.

 

[Rblade]

man you have to be on a pretty high horse for this stuff.

If someone does something that you would expect from someone with a mental disability aka something stupid, you call him retarded. And that is generally not intended to make a mockery of anyone with a real disability.

infact, if a man gave it to another man up the old rectum you would be well within your rights to call him gay wouldn't you?

The only case you could make is being carefull if someone with an actuall disability is around, otherwise it would be best to just shrug it off and not throw a fit about anything that could insult you. Take fat for example, nobody cares unless it is used in some sort of direct and personally offensive manner.

 

[miketehmage]

I play league of legends so I believe I reserve the right to call someone "retarded".

Also I'm still gonna say "that's gay". Maybe not around gay people. Unless I'm referring to the persons sexuality.

 

[Commissar Sae]

Really? I thought the term "Mentally retarded" was medical, not just slang. They did this at my school too. I wasn't a video though. Oh no, it was a full on movement. Posters, speakers, morning announcements, support from school clubs, mainly Special Ed. oriented clubs. It sucks.

But simply this, if I'm around someone who takes offence to that, I won't say it. But if I'm not, I don't care, let the slandering commence.

The medical term is now either "developmentally delayed" or "special needs". Mostly because mentally retarded was used as a pejorative word. Special is coming into use as an insult now too though so chances are we will see a switch away from that as well.

Words can cause serious damage, and using "retard" or "special" as a put down for others basically dehumanizes the people who actually do have a variety of developmental issues.

 

[the7ofswords]

This is a never-ending battle. The word "Lunatic" used to be pretty standard. The word "retarded" means the person has a learning impediment ... something that retards or hinders their development in some way. But then people started using that as an insult. Next came "special" which is being used as an insult, so you started to see official use of the term "Exceptional" to refer to people with learning impediments. I now hear kids referring to others as "exceptional" as an insult, so pretty soon it will be something else.

They're just words, people. They only have the power that we give them.

 

[Daveman]

I don't give a shit about these things. Generally I don't mean it as an insult (or more specifically I don't mean for anybody to be insulted by it). People don't understand the nature of the English language, that you can say something with a literal meaning in a dictionary and NOT mean that thing.

I don't care if I offend people accidentally, I don't mean to so they can get over it, if they can't get over it then fuck them and I'm glad I offended them because they deserve it.

Snip

I disagree. And as someone with a family member who is special needs/disabled. Or might be considered 'retarded' I think it has a lot to do with intent.

When someone uses it as an insult, I know they aren't talking about my brother. They aren't maliciously thinking of anyone who is actually special needs. I dunno, I don't see the point of getting all riled up about it.

No, but that wasn't my point. They aren't thinking about your brother, or Oscar Pistorious, or George Osborne (I mean seriously, there must be something going on there...). They are just using a word they know to be offensive without considering why it is offensive. However, this still betrays the fact that they believe an accusation of disability is offensive, and that they would be offended by it.

It may not be direct or malicious, in fact I'd say the majority of the time it's unthinking repetition of something learned in childhood where any deviation from the norm (too fat or too skinny, glasses or braces, red hair or being too tall) was cause for mockery, but they're still putting people like your brother into a negative category and implying that it is offensive to be compared to him.

... Did you just insult George Osborne by calling him disabled WHILST arguing that calling people who aren't disabled disabled is offensive to disabled people?

Did I just say disabled 4 times in one sentence?

 

[Froggy Slayer]

Is it offensive to call a short person a midget because it's an archaic term for people with dwarfism?

 

[Therumancer]

[

Stephen Hawking would like a digital word with you, since people with problems like his usually get lumped in with the "retards".

That is a large chunk of flame bait right there.

Much snipped to get to the bottom line.

Here is the thing, you pose a question on the internet, you get answers, and then sit here and get snippy with anyone whose answers don't happen to agree with what you want to hear, and then accuse them of trying to bait a flame war for not telling you want you want to hear. Your best basic "counterpoint" being to try and pull out a rare exception and then pass it off as the rule, which ultimatly undermines a thread which is about a general issue (since there are exceptions to every rule, but one cannot base things in a functional society soley around the exceptions, and rather
has to act in accordance with the general realities... which anyone with common sense realizes, and pointing out rare and obvious exceptions in of itself simply becomes troll bait).

It seems to me like your the one who has been hoping for a flame war, or simply wanted to see this answered so rhetorically that there was no point in making a post like this to begin with, when you should rather have just stated an opinion and left it at that... which of course on a subject like this which puts "political correctness" in direct conflict with "freedom of speech" is itself a form of flame bait.

Basically, when you start contreversial topics you shouldn't be screaming "troll" or "flame bait" when someone with a point of view differant from yours, or what you want to hear, sounds off.

At the end of the day though the bottom line is what I'm saying isn't nice. Sometimes the right thing is not the nice or pleasant thing. In cases like the central right to freedom of speech, which includes the right to not be a nice guy, it has a dark side. It's simply a case where the pros vastly outweigh the cons.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Snip

I disagree. And as someone with a family member who is special needs/disabled. Or might be considered 'retarded' I think it has a lot to do with intent.

When someone uses it as an insult, I know they aren't talking about my brother. They aren't maliciously thinking of anyone who is actually special needs. I dunno, I don't see the point of getting all riled up about it.

No, but that wasn't my point. They aren't thinking about your brother, or Oscar Pistorious, or George Osborne (I mean seriously, there must be something going on there...). They are just using a word they know to be offensive without considering why it is offensive. However, this still betrays the fact that they believe an accusation of disability is offensive, and that they would be offended by it.

It may not be direct or malicious, in fact I'd say the majority of the time it's unthinking repetition of something learned in childhood where any deviation from the norm (too fat or too skinny, glasses or braces, red hair or being too tall) was cause for mockery, but they're still putting people like your brother into a negative category and implying that it is offensive to be compared to him.

... Did you just insult George Osborne by calling him disabled WHILST arguing that calling people who aren't disabled disabled is offensive to disabled people?

Not insulting him, I genuinely think there's something going on there. Quite possibly from the autistic spectrum. I know all politicians are shifty by nature, but he seems to really dislike making eye contact. He's also clearly incapable of understanding the feelings of others, as suggested by his various horrible policies which he seems to genuinely think people will approve of, and puzzled by people's actions - remember when he appeared at the Paralympics and was roundly jeered, and he just stood there with a smile like he didn't quite understand what was going on?

I certainly don't like him politically but that doesn't have a whole lot to do with the fact that I think he isn't quite in step with the rest of the world.

Did I just say disabled 4 times in one sentence?

Have you gotten to the point yet where you can say it out loud and be incapable of remembering what the word means? I've done that before, though with a different word. Ironically, I can't remember what.

 

[Quadocky]

If we're going to play this stupid game then how about we stop using "virgin" as an insult. People actually kill themselves over that. Harassment etc.

You know what they say about being offended and living in a free society ...

That you most assuredly have a right to protest against offensive things and that those who purvey such should be held accountable for it. Also we should stop using virgin as an insult if people do in fact kill themselves over it. Sounds like a good idea.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

Meanings of words change - and have changed since we came up with the concept - all the time. The problem today is that changes in language usages are happening at a much greater speed and frequency - thanks in part to the connectivity of this age via the internet and other technological means. A lot of this old-use/new-use conflicting with old-meaning/new-meaning movement is the fact that the changes occur within just a few years and everyone who was using it in the old-use + old-meaning manner is still alive to be offended by the new-use + new-meaning group and further confuses the issue by insisting that the older meaning is the only valid meaning and so the old use the only valid use, because most Western societies function on some form of precedent recognition which has transferred to word-crafting (again, due to the speed at which this happens now, verses the several generations or even hundred year gaps in word formation times that occurred in the past).

People who insist that when they use a word - like retarded, for example here - in a new-use + new-meaning pattern they are not, nor would they consider, recognizing a link between that word and people with legitimate mental development delay issues as they use it. This may be entirely true and absolutely valid. However, since it was linked to that group only a few scant years ago and there are large groups of people who still associate that word with that condition - it is viewed as a pejorative for that group and its use deemed inappropriate. Even when the individual in question using it does not intend or recognize those associations - the word's meaning has shifted for some and not others and the consensus on what the word actually refers to under what situations has become extremely muddied by this multiple association understanding between same-lifespan groups.

I really do wish that education in English would refocus a bit to emphasize the fluidity of language, but the school systems in the US are barely able to meet basic curriculum requirements at this point, so that's a pipe-dream.

Meanwhile, the way I personally deal with this - because my use of a particular word is not worth potentially causing offense I do not intend in the first place - when I start saying retarded I catch myself on the re- part and modulate it to re-diculous instead. That's what I want to be saying, that's the meaning I'm usually trying to convey, and there's a similar sounding word available for the purpose I can use instead. Problem (temporarily) solved.

 

[Phuctifyno]

Well, I would feel exactly the same about somebody calling a person with special needs a retard as I would somebody calling him or her a moron, an idiot, or stupid. I mean, if you're actually making fun of the handicapped, it really doesn't matter what words you're using, you're still pathetic. If there's anybody who still uses that term towards them, even in a non-derogatory way, its time to move on. Regardless of what the word was intended for, or how you feel about it, its been hijacked and is part of the insult vernacular now.

Its never going to be a good word (no insult is), though it may lose it's power over time like the ones before it. I use it occaisionally, and I wouldn't ever try to portray myself to be on any kind of high road after using it, but the disabled are the farthest thing from my mind when I do.

 

[Church185]

snip

Freedom of speech also allows me to point out things I don't particularly like about your post. I'm not a big fan of the PC Brigade, but they too have a right to tell everyone that some words shouldn't be said, they do not however have the right to force you to change how you speak.

I never accused you of trolling, I was simply pointing out how controversial your last paragraph was. Notice how I didn't use a lot of your post when I quoted, it was because I didn't disagree with those parts or find them offensive.

EDIT: You are right, I cherry picked an example there at the beginning, but it was to point out that the below quotes aren't inherently true. They are generalizations that makes it sound like the "retarded" are less than human.

"At the end of the day all men are not created equal, the mentally retarded are an example of this, it might not be their fault but there is no denying these people are inferior and broken."

"As far as retarded people getting upset, understand that as a general rule they get upset about pretty much anything, which is part of what makes them what they are. That combined with a general lack of intelligence (or possession of a deranged intelligence) is why most of them are kept penned up and stored away from society, or require the constant attention of special caretakers."

 

[JimB]

This is not about calling special kids "retarded."

Except it is. When you call anyone retarded, you're making reference to people who are, in fact, developmentally retarded, or else the word makes no sense. The special kids are being called retarded collaterally.