4 ms·
I have mixed feelings about this issue. When people say it, they're most often than not not even referring to people (as in this case). I don't immediately get
by nkkollaw 9y ago
I have mixed feelings about this issue. When people say it, they're most often than not not even referring to people (as in this case). I don't immediately get how saying that _something_ is retarded is offensive to _people_. People seem to be getting offended for anything nowadays, even that they're asked if they're male of female because they identify as gender-fluid.
Definitely NOT the same as the N word (weird that you even compare it)! However, to be on the safe side I generally agree with you.
But then, we need to find an equivalent that would fit in cases like this. This isn't stupid, it's not inconvenient, it's just _retarded_.
What else would you call this?
- Joeboy 9y ago> I don't immediately get how saying that _something_ is retarded is offensive to _people_. I actually think you could argue the opposite. Maybe it's forgivable to not keep up with the euphemism treadmill when talking about cognitively disadvantaged _people_, but referring negatively to _something_ by comparing it to cognitively disadvantaged people clearly contains a negative message about cognitively disadvantaged people.
- nkkollaw 9y agoI'm not comparing, I see "retarded"as a stronger "stupid". When you say "fat check" you're comparing to fat people, it's just the same adjective.
- kelnos 9y agoI agree that the euphemism treadmill is incredibly annoying, and I wish people in general would abstain from making outrage their default response, but... look, something like "idiotic" would have worked just as well in your original comment, and I doubt anyone would have complained. Even if "retarded" doesn't personally offend you (or me, to be honest), it does offend a bunch of people, and even if just for the sake of having a discussion in public about the actual article without having this useless OT digression, why not just use a less controversial word? If you honestly weren't aware that "retarded" is considered offensive now, ok, that's fine, but just accept it and please remember for next time. To dive more down this rabbit hole, the distinction is that we associate something like "idiot" with an incompetent person who has arrived at their incompetence through their own actions. "Retarded" refers to someone who is developmentally disabled, usually through no fault of their own. So using "retarded" in a derogatory sense -- even when not talking about a person -- is viewed as effectively pushing the idea that developmentally disabled people are to be looked down on. But we, as a culture, are fine with looking down on "idiots", at least for now, so there's no problem using "idiot" in that way. I'm not looking for an argument here about the merits of all of this. I don't particularly care about the merits or your (or my!) opinion of them. That's just how these words are viewed today by enough people to influence social norms. If you don't care about offending people, that's your prerogative, but for the sake of community discussion here on HN, it's better if we try to avoid these sorts of things. Let's try to keep the SN ratio high.