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

[asinann]

If they are offended, they aren't retarded.

 

[Something Amyss]

Ya, we're already moving away from "special" where I live.

Really? Because "special" was a pejorative back when retarded was still in full swing. It's been a pejorative most of my life, and I'm old (by Escapist standards). Hell, looking at media, you can find "special" as a pejorative equated with "retarded" into the early 70s.

 

[Reeve]

The word "retard" has definition not related to mental or physical handicap. Have you ever heard of flame retardants? It basically means the same as revert or regress.

 

[Abomination]

I call people who act or behave like idiots "retards", I call people with actual learning or mental difficulties due to a birth defect or accident "mentally handicapped" as a catch-all phrase should I not know the exact term or definition of their ailment.

The former group should be offended, they have a choice to behave the way they are behaving. The latter group should not be offended as they have no choice as to their predicament, but it's reasonable for others to take note of their situation.

I've always wondered which situation is more offensive to people who are mentally handicapped, treating them like any other person and not taking shit from them even if it is caused by their handicap or by allowing them to get away with things because of their handicap. I feel the latter is both destructive and offensive.

 

[JimB]

The former group should be offended; they have a choice to behave the way they are behaving. The latter group should not be offended as they have no choice as to their predicament, but it's reasonable for others to take note of their situation.

I do not understand why this argument applies to the word "retard" but not to the word "******." After all, black people have no choice as to their predicament (if you will forgive the rather offensive implications of describing one's skin tone as a predicament), so why should they be offended when someone uses a word that describes something they can't change?

 

[Abomination]

The former group should be offended; they have a choice to behave the way they are behaving. The latter group should not be offended as they have no choice as to their predicament, but it's reasonable for others to take note of their situation.

I do not understand why this argument applies to the word "retard" but not to the word "******." After all, black people have no choice as to their predicament (if you will forgive the rather offensive implications of describing one's skin tone as a predicament), so why should they be offended when someone uses a word that describes something they can't change?

I wouldn't call a black man a "******" unless I had the full intention of insulting them as much as possible, usually because they had done something so abhorrent and stereotypical of the "******" lifestyle - as in the ghetto gangster, Lil-Wayne wannabe crowd.

I don't call people with mental handicaps retarded, I would refer to them as mentally handicapped and that's what they should not be offended by. They should not be offended when I call someone ELSE a retard if they are behaving in an unacceptable fashion.

 

[JimB]

I don't call people with mental handicaps retarded; I would refer to them as mentally handicapped, and that's what they should not be offended by. They should not be offended when I call someone else a retard if they are behaving in an unacceptable fashion.

So black people shouldn't be offended when you call someone else a ******?

 

[xdiesp]

Insults represent FEAR: you don't want to be what you are calling the other. That's why their main themes are either sex or intelligence: nobody wants to be impaired in that departments. Before you ask, insults used in racist countries also share the same logic aka fearing to be the outsider.

So if you want to get some damn progress, leave your fears behind. Ignorance causes fear.

 

[Abomination]

I don't call people with mental handicaps retarded; I would refer to them as mentally handicapped, and that's what they should not be offended by. They should not be offended when I call someone else a retard if they are behaving in an unacceptable fashion.

So black people shouldn't be offended when you call someone else a ******?

I can seldom say I would find myself in a situation where I would call someone a ******, it would require a very specific set of circumstances.

The difference between being a black person and being mentally handicapped is being mentally handicapped is actively detrimental to a person's ability to function (with varying degrees depending on the nature of ailment) compared to the average person. Being black does not impair an individual's ability to function.

 

[Rachmaninov]

Really? I thought the term "mentally retarded" was medical, not just slang.

Not since the mid-eighties, at least. It is not a diagnostic term.

Factoid : The derogatory term 'Spaz' is a contraction of 'Spastic', which actually used to be the name of a UK based charity for Cerebral Palsy (citation needed there, don't know if it's just Cerebral Palsy). It became so common as a derogatory term that they changed it to 'Scope'.

I have actually worked with Scope. I'm somewhat amazed to hear that they're so well known as to have had an insult formed from their previous name.

I had no idea there were that much of a big deal. I get the impression that there are a lot of groups like them around these days, attempting to handle each particular niche of health issue, in exchange for government funding, but I might be totally wrong there. I was the "special kid" being helped, as opposed to having anything to do with their funding.

 

[Varitel]

When you compare someone to a group of people as a form of insult, what you are essentially saying is that "it is bad to be one of those people". Ex: If I were to call something I thought was bad "gay", it would imply that I thought that it was bad to be gay. I have another example. There was an incident wherein a relative of mine used the n word to describe a group of black teenagers in his apartment building who had vandalised part of the building. I told him that it was wrong to use the term, and he said that "no, there are black people and there are n**," Which I'm pretty sure is an old Chris Rock bit. Why was he wrong, well the reason is that the term is not universally accepted in that way. If at some point in the year 3537 in the human colony on the planet Glornak 7, people don't even think of it as referring to black people, but instead to refer exclusively to people who do dumb things, then maybe it would be okay. However, we live on Earth in the year 2013 and it is still a blanket racial slur referring to a specific group of people. Therefore, using it to put someone down is in a sense putting that whole group down. Maybe it didn't seem that way in his mind, but you know what, the world ain't about him. The point is that we have to think about how what we say affects other people. If we don't, we risk breaking Wheaton's Law.

How has this still not turned into a giant nuclear flame war? I'm so happy I could cry.

 

[HalfTangible]

So let me get this straight. These people think that putting something on the morning announcements and saying "X is insulting to Y group" is going to help stop the insults.

I dunno where the hell YOU all went to school, but where I went to middle/high school, this is the equivalent of trying to stop sharks from eating people that fall into a pool by dumping a bucket full of blood into it. IE, it's dumb and and only helps the demonic little turdmuffins that throw insults like that around in the first place.

 

[Vault101]

I try not to use studio stuff as examples of talent, considering how easily one can take credit for another's success.

what the heck does that even mean? by that logic ANY song you hear can possibly be "not their work"

[quote/]What I do know is that when I saw him live at a festival once he played "Let me clear my throat" by DJ Phresh, the entire way through (please note this was not a cover version of the song, but the exact same song DJ Phresh put out a decade odd ago), with not a single edit whatsoever, and didn't even give a shout out to the original artist.[/quote]
that was a seperate and specific incident I didnt know about...how else was a suposed to interpret that aside from "skrillex steals stuff for his music"?

[quote/]A few of my friends could tell you why he's appalling within the field of brostep, but that doesn't help much on an internet forum.[/quote]
I didnt think Brostep really has standards but...well I'm generally not into brostep

[quote/]
You seem to have misunderstood. Electronic music takes plenty of skill, talent and artistry to create. Sampling is a perfectly acceptable form of creating music (I'm a big hip hop fan and the vast majority of hip hop beats are sampled).
But I would not call Skrillex's stuff electronic, or music (I'm exaggerating there but you get my point).
Skrillex is to electronic music, what Lil Wayne is to rap.[/quote]
I might have flew off the handle there... it really did sound like those "it aint music cuz computers" arguments I hear now and again...and they make me fly into "you an idiot mode" so I apologise if I was a bit condescending there

but I don't think you worded your post well

 

[Ihateregistering1]

"Retard" and "retardation" are just classic examples of what's known as the "euphemism treadmill". Basically, a word that at one time has a certain meaning over time gets turned into a taboo or pejorative word, to the point that the taboo meaning overtakes the actual meaning.

To give a perfect example, the words "idiot", "imbecile", and "moron" used to actually be utilized as a scientific classification for people with mental retardation (an idiot was someone whose 'mental age' was 0 to 3 years, an imbecile was 3-7 years, and a moron was 7-10 years). In this day and age, no one uses those 3 words anymore to get that scientifically specific; in other words, their actual scientific use was eventually overshadowed by their taboo and pejorative connotation.

 

[Callate]

I always found this confusing. Why do we need to call them special? What's with these blanket terms? Why can't they just be a person that has down syndrome, or a person that has autism? There are a whole range of conditions and disorders that people can be afflicted by, it feels incredibly dismissive to just lump them all together.

Because for your average person it's too hard to remember, let alone identify, all the different conditions and disorders. It's just easier to use one word in everyday conversation.

It may seem dismissive, but it's not meant to be.

The problem though is that 'special' is going to end up being the next pejorative. It's not so much the word, it's the way it's used that is the problem. They're used in an exclusionary way. And yea, some people might not mean to do it, but that's how it ends up being. It's rather frustrating. I mean, I don't know every learning disability or condition out there, or how to spot the differences, but it can't be that hard to just treat them as people and not their conditions can it?

Ya, we're already moving away from "special" where I live. I'm taking education in university and we have an ed psyche course called Students With Exceptionalities." It refers to to a variety of different students. Mentally impaired, physically disabled, English as a second language, blind, and even gifted all are called exceptional learners.

I don't really know if this is more politically correct than "special" but I guess the word doesn't carry as much of a negative connotation.

I think I've already seen "special" used pejoratively, too. It's a little more subtle and snidely used than "retarded", but still negative.

I suspect, though, that reactionary attacks on the way people use language are almost never going to work. If you want people to stop saying things about the autistic or developmentally disabled or whatever other people might fall under those terms, you need to show people that such persons are deserving of their respect, not attack the language.

It's that or commandeer the words to strip them of their negativity, as the African American and gay communities have sometimes done with some success. In this case, though, I don't know that it's much of an option.

 

[JimB]

I don't call people with mental handicaps retarded; I would refer to them as mentally handicapped, and that's what they should not be offended by. They should not be offended when I call someone else a retard if they are behaving in an unacceptable fashion.

So black people shouldn't be offended when you call someone else a ******?

I can seldom say I would find myself in a situation where I would call someone a ******, it would require a very specific set of circumstances.

This is completely unrelated to the question I asked you.

The difference between being a black person and being mentally handicapped is being mentally handicapped is actively detrimental to a person's ability to function (with varying degrees depending on the nature of ailment) compared to the average person. Being black does not impair an individual's ability to function.

So is this, unless you think insulting someone based on an upper limit to his capacity caused by his genetic structure is sufficiently different from insulting someone based on racial deviation from the majority caused by his genetic structure that a comparison of the two is impossible. If that is the case, I would like further elaboration, please.

 

[Shadowstar38]

I don't call people with mental handicaps retarded; I would refer to them as mentally handicapped, and that's what they should not be offended by. They should not be offended when I call someone else a retard if they are behaving in an unacceptable fashion.

So black people shouldn't be offended when you call someone else a ******?

I can seldom say I would find myself in a situation where I would call someone a ******, it would require a very specific set of circumstances.

This is completely unrelated to the question I asked you.

The difference between being a black person and being mentally handicapped is being mentally handicapped is actively detrimental to a person's ability to function (with varying degrees depending on the nature of ailment) compared to the average person. Being black does not impair an individual's ability to function.

So is this, unless you think insulting someone based on an upper limit to his capacity caused by his genetic structure is sufficiently different from insulting someone based on racial deviation from the majority caused by his genetic structure that a comparison of the two is impossible. If that is the case, I would like further elaboration, please.

******, in this day and age, isn't always used as a derogatory term. Even amongst black people its to indicate someone of any race that is being ignorant or just generally being a drain on society.

It all depends in the context. Same with using retard or gay as an insult. Few people should have a problem unless they're trying to be annoyingly politically correct

 

[Abomination]

I don't call people with mental handicaps retarded; I would refer to them as mentally handicapped, and that's what they should not be offended by. They should not be offended when I call someone else a retard if they are behaving in an unacceptable fashion.

So black people shouldn't be offended when you call someone else a ******?

I can seldom say I would find myself in a situation where I would call someone a ******, it would require a very specific set of circumstances.

This is completely unrelated to the question I asked you.

It is directly related to it because everything is contextual and not every black person identifies themselves as a "******".

The difference between being a black person and being mentally handicapped is being mentally handicapped is actively detrimental to a person's ability to function (with varying degrees depending on the nature of ailment) compared to the average person. Being black does not impair an individual's ability to function.

So is this, unless you think insulting someone based on an upper limit to his capacity caused by his genetic structure is sufficiently different from insulting someone based on racial deviation from the majority caused by his genetic structure that a comparison of the two is impossible. If that is the case, I would like further elaboration, please.

I do not insult handicapped people for being handicapped but I will insult a non-handicapped person if they behave in a manner that would be embracing the most negative aspects of being mentally handicapped by calling them something I would not call a mentally handicapped person.

It would be foolish to tell a mentally handicapped person to "stop being retarded" as though they have a choice. A non-handicapped person however can be told such a thing as they do have a choice. If a mentally handicapped person does something stupid or illogical there is a high chance they have no choice in the matter or a valid excuse, a non-handicapped person made a choice to do something stupid and has no excuse for the decision.

Though your question does seem to muddle the idea of intentional insult and unintentional insult - I do wish there were different words for those two activities. I would not intentionally insult someone who is mentally handicapped by drawing attention to that particular aspect of themselves. If I was going to intentionally insult someone who is mentally handicapped it would be because they were doing something negative that their ailment has no baring on - though situations there are few and far between.

Almost every word used to describe someone's intellectual deficiency was previously used exclusively for at time to describe a mentally handicapped person. That being the case, how can one possibly discredit another's mental failings in an efficient manner without indirectly offending mentally handicapped people?

 

[JimB]

So black people shouldn't be offended when you call someone else a ******?

******, in this day and age, isn't always used as a derogatory term. Even among black people, it's to indicate someone of any race that is being ignorant or just generally being a drain on society.

So your answer to the question I asked is no, they shouldn't?

Few people should have a problem unless they're trying to be annoyingly politically correct.

Oh, for god's sake.

Let me preface this by saying I have no idea what people mean when they talk about "political correctness." I have no idea what that term means in their heads, but increasingly, I get the feeling people are talking about it like it's an actual, self-willed being; some sort of evil specter haunting the world, using its terrible black magic to make people think I said something wrong when I said all fags are going to hell because Jesus hates them.* Like people can't accept the possibility that the things they want to say are just plain assholish, so they conjure some phantom enemy to blame for the consequences of their speech when people treat them like they're assholes for saying what they just said.

So yeah, what I'm about to say comes from a shaky understanding that you use the term "political correctness" to describe something that you think should be vilified:

If me thinking it's a dick move for someone to fight to get me to accept and celebrate his choice to use words he deliberately intends to upset and offend with makes me "annoying," then I am fine with being annoying.

This is completely unrelated to the question I asked you.

It is directly related to it because everything is contextual and not every black person identifies themselves as a "******."

Two things, then:

1.) How do you figure that answering a yes or no question about how you think someone else should feel with "I probably wouldn't do it" is relevant, or anything other than a dodge?

2.) Not every black person thinks of himself as a ******, so you're arguing he's not allowed to be hurt by the word when someone calls him one?

I do not insult handicapped people for being handicapped but I will insult a non-handicapped person if they behave in a manner that would be embracing the most negative aspects of being mentally handicapped by calling them something I would not call a mentally handicapped person.

So you will also insult a non-black person by embracing the most negative aspects of being black,** by calling them something you wouldn't call a black person?

Though your question does seem to muddle the idea of intentional insult and unintentional insult.

That is deliberate. You seem to believe that your words stop exactly where you want them to; that they do not ripple out to anyone who can hear them and that, if they do, you can dictate how those words are to be interpreted and what context others are expected to apply. This is crap.

Almost every word used to describe someone's intellectual deficiency was previously used exclusively for at time to describe a mentally handicapped person. That being the case, how can one possibly discredit another's mental failings in an efficient manner without indirectly offending mentally handicapped people?

I do not give a pasty white fuck what words used to mean. I am not advocating for mentally handicapped people in the year 1602. I care about what words mean today.

---

*I did not actually say that. It's just by way of illustrating a point. My apologies if you think I went too far for it, but I figured, hey, I've already typed the word "******" a bunch of times, so why stop now.

**Assuming that black is something you can be.