4 ms·

Is this really necessary? Retard is not used to refer to people with mental disabilities. It is not a slur. Its a new social justice campaign to get mad about s

by pid_0 6y ago

Is this really necessary? Retard is not used to refer to people with mental disabilities. It is not a slur. Its a new social justice campaign to get mad about something when they ran out of things to complain about. Guess what, stupid, moron, idiot, etc used to refer to people with mental disabilities. Why aren't they campaigning to ban those words too?

darkwater 6y ago
> Guess what, stupid, moron, idiot, etc used to refer to people with mental disabilities. No, they were not. And despite what the "you get offended so quickly" mob says, "retarded" main meaning when used in a negative fashion against someone always, always appeals to the "that person/entity has the mental abilities of someone with Down syndrome or any other similar intellectual disability". And you, me and everybody else KNOW this. You just decided that this won't trouble you.
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  > No, they were not. Yes, they were: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot > An idiot, in modern use, is a stupid or foolish person. > It was formerly a technical term in legal and psychiatric contexts for some kinds of profound intellectual disability where the mental age is two years or less, and the person cannot guard themself against common physical dangers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron_(psychology) > Moron is a term once used in psychology and psychiatry to denote mild intellectual disability.[1] The term was closely tied with the American eugenics movement.[2] Once the term became popularized, it fell out of use by the psychological community, as it was used more commonly as an insult than as a psychological term. It is similar to imbecile and idiot.[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbecile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbecile > The term imbecile was once used by psychiatrists to denote a category of people with moderate to severe intellectual disability, as well as a type of criminal.[1][2] The word arises from the Latin word imbecillus, meaning weak, or weak-minded.[3] It included people with an IQ of 26–50, between "idiot" (IQ of 0–25) and "moron" (IQ of 51–70).[4] In the obsolete medical classification (ICD-9, 1977), these people were said to have "moderate mental retardation" or "moderate mental subnormality" with IQ of 35–49.[5]
- nate_meurer 6y ago
  > And you, me and everybody else KNOW this. No, you may know this about yourself, and I don't doubt that you feel strongly about it, but you're projecting your feelings onto everyone else here. To me, words like retard, imbecile, idiot, etc. don't immediately invoke thoughts of mentally disabled people. Rather, I take them as descriptions of fools. GP's post is a good example of this, and was an effective use of the word to describe extremely foolish behavior.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- 2038AD 6y ago
  >No, they were not Not arguing any real point other than yes those words did. Have a couple of definitions I found in a rather harshly titled old book, Backward and feeble-minded children > Idiots. — Those so defective that the mental development never exceeds that of a normal child of about two years. > Morons. — Those whose mental development is above that of an imbecile, but does not exceed that of a normal child of about twelve years. https://archive.org/details/backwardfeeblemi00huey/page/6/ https://archive.org/details/backwardfeeblemi00huey/page/6/
  - reaperducer 6y ago
    Bonus points for not citing Wikipedia.
- 13415 6y ago
  I think you and others are missing the point of how language works. The situation is similar to famous Dutch insults like Kankerlijer (cancer sufferer), Klerelijer (cholera sufferer), or Pleurislijer (tuberculosis suffer). Using these to insult people who indeed suffer from these diseases is questionable and can be rather tasteless. It may even be confusing and fail to work entirely. By the way, it's also wrong to insult sick people just because they are sick, and it's wrong to insult people with mental disabilities just because they have mental disabilities. But using such expressions to insult, swear, or exaggerate at healthy people is a quite normal function of the Dutch language. So Yes, if this e-ink company was indeed lead by people with mental disabilities, using the r-word to make fun of them would be rather tasteless and possibly also ineffective. Swear words and insults work because they break a taboo. If you regulate language to avoid one taboo, then speakers will simply resort to breaking another taboo.
  - reaperducer 6y ago
    using such expressions to insult, swear, or exaggerate at healthy people is a quite normal function of the Dutch language English, too. It reminds me of early 2002 when all the little kids on the playgrounds were calling each other "terrorist" as an insult. Their parents were aghast, but to them, they just knew it meant a really bad person.
  - darkwater 6y ago
    > Swear words and insults work because they break a taboo. If you regulate language to avoid one taboo, then speakers will simply resort to breaking another taboo. I agree with this indeed, but I stand my point: the use of the word "retarded" is by all mean used to compare someone to a person with intellectual disability. I don't know the Dutch nuances of _Kankerlijer_ so I can probably wrong but I wouldn't think that it is used to compare one person to someone with cancer. What would that ever mean? "Retarded" it is used to compare, and it means that I consider you a lesser person just like an intellectually disabled one.
alisonkisk 6y ago
What do you think "slur" means? All of these words are slurs, and they detract from discourse while adding nothing. No one's banning "words" here. They are discouraging misuse of language that drags down the quality of discourse.
- da_big_ghey 6y ago
  I don't think it detracted from the discussion at all. Rather, I think that RicoElectrico's comment is helpful and that this sub-thread is not. It's not like retard is a clinical diagnosis any more, so there are no "retards" out there to offend, anyway.
1shooner 6y ago
It's called the euphemism treadmill[1]. It's nothing new, and it's a normal part of language. Attributing it to some sort of contemporary 'social justice campaign' seems very reactionary. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill
- wernercd 6y ago
  crying about a word is reactionary... especially when you are getting offended for other people who haven't asked for your help.
  - 1shooner 6y ago
    I don't think anyone is crying about it. Here's a simple thought experiment: would you use that word while sitting at dinner with a developmentally disabled child and his parents?
    - pid_0 6y ago
      No simply because it was _deemed_ socially unacceptable. It has nothing to do with retard actually being used as a slur against people with mental disabilities.
    - wernercd 6y ago
      I would. Because I don't talk down to people or change my speech patterns around people. Unlike, say, those who "champion" people and then speak down to them. https://www.inquirer.com/columnists/yale-study-white-liberals-black-conversation-solomon-jones-20181204.html https://www.inquirer.com/columnists/yale-study-white-liberal... I prefer to talk to people as if they aren't handicapped (or less because they are POC) and can handle regular words.

by pid_0 6y ago

darkwater 6y ago

> Guess what, stupid, moron, idiot, etc used to refer to people with mental disabilities. No, they were not. And despite what the "you get offended so quickly" mob says, "retarded" main meaning when used in a negative fashion against someone always, always appeals to the "that person/entity has the mental abilities of someone with Down syndrome or any other similar intellectual disability". And you, me and everybody else KNOW this. You just decided that this won't trouble you.

TulliusCicero 6y ago
> No, they were not. Yes, they were: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot > An idiot, in modern use, is a stupid or foolish person. > It was formerly a technical term in legal and psychiatric contexts for some kinds of profound intellectual disability where the mental age is two years or less, and the person cannot guard themself against common physical dangers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron_(psychology) > Moron is a term once used in psychology and psychiatry to denote mild intellectual disability.[1] The term was closely tied with the American eugenics movement.[2] Once the term became popularized, it fell out of use by the psychological community, as it was used more commonly as an insult than as a psychological term. It is similar to imbecile and idiot.[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbecile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imbecile > The term imbecile was once used by psychiatrists to denote a category of people with moderate to severe intellectual disability, as well as a type of criminal.[1][2] The word arises from the Latin word imbecillus, meaning weak, or weak-minded.[3] It included people with an IQ of 26–50, between "idiot" (IQ of 0–25) and "moron" (IQ of 51–70).[4] In the obsolete medical classification (ICD-9, 1977), these people were said to have "moderate mental retardation" or "moderate mental subnormality" with IQ of 35–49.[5]
nate_meurer 6y ago
> And you, me and everybody else KNOW this. No, you may know this about yourself, and I don't doubt that you feel strongly about it, but you're projecting your feelings onto everyone else here. To me, words like retard, imbecile, idiot, etc. don't immediately invoke thoughts of mentally disabled people. Rather, I take them as descriptions of fools. GP's post is a good example of this, and was an effective use of the word to describe extremely foolish behavior.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
2038AD 6y ago
>No, they were not Not arguing any real point other than yes those words did. Have a couple of definitions I found in a rather harshly titled old book, Backward and feeble-minded children > Idiots. — Those so defective that the mental development never exceeds that of a normal child of about two years. > Morons. — Those whose mental development is above that of an imbecile, but does not exceed that of a normal child of about twelve years. https://archive.org/details/backwardfeeblemi00huey/page/6/ https://archive.org/details/backwardfeeblemi00huey/page/6/
- reaperducer 6y ago
  Bonus points for not citing Wikipedia.
13415 6y ago
I think you and others are missing the point of how language works. The situation is similar to famous Dutch insults like Kankerlijer (cancer sufferer), Klerelijer (cholera sufferer), or Pleurislijer (tuberculosis suffer). Using these to insult people who indeed suffer from these diseases is questionable and can be rather tasteless. It may even be confusing and fail to work entirely. By the way, it's also wrong to insult sick people just because they are sick, and it's wrong to insult people with mental disabilities just because they have mental disabilities. But using such expressions to insult, swear, or exaggerate at healthy people is a quite normal function of the Dutch language. So Yes, if this e-ink company was indeed lead by people with mental disabilities, using the r-word to make fun of them would be rather tasteless and possibly also ineffective. Swear words and insults work because they break a taboo. If you regulate language to avoid one taboo, then speakers will simply resort to breaking another taboo.
- reaperducer 6y ago
  using such expressions to insult, swear, or exaggerate at healthy people is a quite normal function of the Dutch language English, too. It reminds me of early 2002 when all the little kids on the playgrounds were calling each other "terrorist" as an insult. Their parents were aghast, but to them, they just knew it meant a really bad person.
- darkwater 6y ago
  > Swear words and insults work because they break a taboo. If you regulate language to avoid one taboo, then speakers will simply resort to breaking another taboo. I agree with this indeed, but I stand my point: the use of the word "retarded" is by all mean used to compare someone to a person with intellectual disability. I don't know the Dutch nuances of _Kankerlijer_ so I can probably wrong but I wouldn't think that it is used to compare one person to someone with cancer. What would that ever mean? "Retarded" it is used to compare, and it means that I consider you a lesser person just like an intellectually disabled one.

alisonkisk 6y ago

What do you think "slur" means? All of these words are slurs, and they detract from discourse while adding nothing. No one's banning "words" here. They are discouraging misuse of language that drags down the quality of discourse.

da_big_ghey 6y ago
I don't think it detracted from the discussion at all. Rather, I think that RicoElectrico's comment is helpful and that this sub-thread is not. It's not like retard is a clinical diagnosis any more, so there are no "retards" out there to offend, anyway.

1shooner 6y ago

It's called the euphemism treadmill[1]. It's nothing new, and it's a normal part of language. Attributing it to some sort of contemporary 'social justice campaign' seems very reactionary. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill

wernercd 6y ago
crying about a word is reactionary... especially when you are getting offended for other people who haven't asked for your help.
- 1shooner 6y ago
  I don't think anyone is crying about it. Here's a simple thought experiment: would you use that word while sitting at dinner with a developmentally disabled child and his parents?
  - pid_0 6y ago
    No simply because it was _deemed_ socially unacceptable. It has nothing to do with retard actually being used as a slur against people with mental disabilities.
  - wernercd 6y ago
    I would. Because I don't talk down to people or change my speech patterns around people. Unlike, say, those who "champion" people and then speak down to them. https://www.inquirer.com/columnists/yale-study-white-liberals-black-conversation-solomon-jones-20181204.html https://www.inquirer.com/columnists/yale-study-white-liberal... I prefer to talk to people as if they aren't handicapped (or less because they are POC) and can handle regular words.