6 ms·

There are at least a dozen or so common insult words, that at one point in time or another were medical terminology for mental retardation. Whenever you have a

There are at least a dozen or so common insult words, that at one point in time or another were medical terminology for mental retardation. Whenever you have a term for something sensitive or disadvantaged, there's a tendency to rapidly cycle terms. Attempting to "outrun" the baggage is easier than solving it.

thegrimmest 5y ago
I mean, there is also the option of politely refusing to have the definitions of words changed from under our feet. I have no trouble using the word "retarded" to indicate a mental deficit. Why do you? Why does anyone? So what if some people used it as an insult? Why do they get to control the narrative?
- etchalon 5y ago
  Because language is a collective action. Definitions evolve with usage. That's just how language works.
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    That's one way of looking at it. Language can also be looked at as a communication protocol - a way of transferring thoughts and ideas from one mind to another. With this perspective, it is extremely important for all users of the protocol to agree on the definitions of the primitives (words). If they don't, they're basically forking the protocol, forcing overhead to clarify terms on every interaction with people who speak a different version. It's also not how all language works - French for instance has a prescriptive dictionary. Many useful languages do in fact.
    - etchalon 5y ago
      That's not "one way of looking at it". It's literally how language works. Words are wholly invented things, whose meaning is completely derived from usage and context. We make up sequences of sounds and over time we get each other to accept what ideas those sequences of sounds represent. Yes, the Académie Française exists, but fun fact … it's reactive to usage. And it's by no means an absolute authority on the language as it's used colloquially.
      - thegrimmest 5y ago
        I'm not sure the wider speaking public is driving a lot of this politicization of English, particularly in the US. It seems to be a small minority with an outsized influence. I'm not sure you should discard the perspective of language-as-protocol so readily either. Computing protocols are also languages, specified to a necessary degree of precision, and maintained by a standards body. These also evolve with usage, and there are many instances of common usage being added to the protocol specification for things like HTTP. All I'm suggesting is that we evolve our language consciously, and all together, and not allow a fringe group to hijack the process.
        etchalon 5y ago
        Fringe groups have always hijacked the process. How many new words are minted by a single speaker, or song, or movie, or pop culture moment? How many from a single group who merely entered the zeitgeist at the right time? How many come entirely from corporations, and advertising? Language is always an "all together" process but it is also always a process that starts in the fringe, and spreads out.
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        I agree that many words are created and spread as memes. But I struggle to come up with examples (outside of religion) where the meanings or usages of words are prescribed by a small group, and great offense is taken when the words are not used according to the prescriptions.
        etchalon 5y ago
        I present you with the word "literally."
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        I think it supports my point. It literally has no meaning. The additional definition basically destroyed any value the word had.
  - colpabar 5y ago
    Indeed, but is that really what's happening here? Is it really collective if all these changes are being pushed by american fortune 500 companies, and most people who abide by them are doing so out of fear?
    - etchalon 5y ago
      "most people" is doing a lot of work without any evidence in that sentence.
      - colpabar 5y ago
        Okay, fine, if I take away that last bit, would you acknowledge my main point? If this is all just a natural evolution of language, why does it all come from american academic institutions and corporations?
        etchalon 5y ago
        So your argument is that the only reason we stopped using the N-word colloquially is because Ford and Harvard made a pact to get rid of it?
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        I'm not sure we've all stopped using it, have we?
        etchalon 5y ago
        There is rarely a literal "all" when it comes to culture.
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        I was referring to the rather large segment of the population which continues to use it in popular culture just fine.
  - nobody9999 5y ago
    >Because language is a collective action. Definitions evolve with usage. >That's just how language works. I'd call language a social construct. Whereas Using language is an action. The former is a noun (person, place or thing -- in this case, a conceptual thing) and the latter is a verb (word describing an action) phrase relating to that thing. And except for group chants (e.g., "Let's Go Mets!"), choirs, etc., using language is definitely an individual not collective action That said, as a social construct, languages change all the time, exactly as you pointed out, based on usage. You'll never catch me calling an SO (significant other -- which is a decades-old attempt to be more inclusive -- and private) 'bae', nor will you hear me say 'very unique', no matter how many other people use those terms. Am I a bad, evil human being because I won't use various terms that are in broad use? I say 'no'. Why? Because I (my brain/consciousness) control my communication systems, not popular usage. I do my best to be kind and empathetic to those around me, not because I'm being forced to do so, but because I believe that doing so is a trait common to decent human beings, one of whom I aspire (and usually succeed) to be. I'll go even further and say that context matters. There are many things I might say while down the pub with friends that I'd never say in a professional context or among strangers. There's actually a term for that. It's called "code switching"[0]. And that brings up an odd, but widespread, change in our social discourse. The online world, and especially social media, has (unless one takes steps to avoid doing so) comingled our personal, private and professional lives. Which is why I took/still take to heart advice I got nearly 30 years ago: Don't put anything online that you wouldn't want to see on the front page of your local newspaper (back then, local newspapers were still a thing). My boss/colleagues/clients/customers don't need to know what I do when I'm not working unless they happen to also be a part of my personal life. And those in my personal sphere don't need to know what's going on in my professional life. That's not to say there's never any overlap, but different facets of our lives don't need to intersect. Nor, in many (most?) cases, should they. What's more, It's my choice as to what words I choose to express. And it's absolutely the choice of other folks to call me out if they feel that those words I choose aren't appropriate. I'd add that I have a big mouth and am often deliberately inappropriate in (mostly successful) attempts at humor. But not in contexts where such things are socially unacceptable (e.g., in professional situations). And if some folks don't appreciate me or my sense of humor and shun me as a result, that's just fine. No one is required to be subjected to me or my language. I want to be around people who want to be around me. And not all of those either. I don't require anyone's approval with regard to what I say or when. But if I misjudge the context of a situation, I may find myself (and I have) facing judgement, and sometimes consequences, for my speech. Fortunately for me, at least in the US, I can say pretty much (with certain exceptions) anything I want without legal consequences. But that doesn't stop anyone from taking issue with what I say. I'd ask that you go back and re-read my comment (several times, if necessary) and let me know if I'm not being inclusive or empathetic. That should be amusing. [0] https://www.britannica.com/topic/code-switching https://www.britannica.com/topic/code-switching
- sacrosancty 5y ago
  I think it's fine to use "retarded" like that if that's your culture and how you learnt it. People will know you're from a different background, maybe very old or foreign, or whatever. But if you're just trying to force an old meaning onto it, people will misunderstand you since you're not using the common "protocol".
  - thegrimmest 5y ago
    I guess the problem is it's hard to pinpoint when precisely the "current" meaning becomes the "old" one. This is doubly difficult for meanings which contradict each other (see "woman"). What happens when a substantial portion of the population refuses to adopt the new meaning? It seems like the language gets forked then. This doesn't seem to do any good at all, increasing polarization and creating obstacles to clear communication.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  At this point the vast majority of everyone alive has only ever heard 'retarded' used as an insult, few people today ever had it applied to themselves in any legitimate context. For that reason I think there's not much point in trying to police its use as some kind of special case -- at this point it is exactly like calling someone a dumbass.

thegrimmest 5y ago

I mean, there is also the option of politely refusing to have the definitions of words changed from under our feet. I have no trouble using the word "retarded" to indicate a mental deficit. Why do you? Why does anyone? So what if some people used it as an insult? Why do they get to control the narrative?

etchalon 5y ago
Because language is a collective action. Definitions evolve with usage. That's just how language works.
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  That's one way of looking at it. Language can also be looked at as a communication protocol - a way of transferring thoughts and ideas from one mind to another. With this perspective, it is extremely important for all users of the protocol to agree on the definitions of the primitives (words). If they don't, they're basically forking the protocol, forcing overhead to clarify terms on every interaction with people who speak a different version. It's also not how all language works - French for instance has a prescriptive dictionary. Many useful languages do in fact.
  - etchalon 5y ago
    That's not "one way of looking at it". It's literally how language works. Words are wholly invented things, whose meaning is completely derived from usage and context. We make up sequences of sounds and over time we get each other to accept what ideas those sequences of sounds represent. Yes, the Académie Française exists, but fun fact … it's reactive to usage. And it's by no means an absolute authority on the language as it's used colloquially.
    - thegrimmest 5y ago
      I'm not sure the wider speaking public is driving a lot of this politicization of English, particularly in the US. It seems to be a small minority with an outsized influence. I'm not sure you should discard the perspective of language-as-protocol so readily either. Computing protocols are also languages, specified to a necessary degree of precision, and maintained by a standards body. These also evolve with usage, and there are many instances of common usage being added to the protocol specification for things like HTTP. All I'm suggesting is that we evolve our language consciously, and all together, and not allow a fringe group to hijack the process.
      - etchalon 5y ago
        Fringe groups have always hijacked the process. How many new words are minted by a single speaker, or song, or movie, or pop culture moment? How many from a single group who merely entered the zeitgeist at the right time? How many come entirely from corporations, and advertising? Language is always an "all together" process but it is also always a process that starts in the fringe, and spreads out.
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        I agree that many words are created and spread as memes. But I struggle to come up with examples (outside of religion) where the meanings or usages of words are prescribed by a small group, and great offense is taken when the words are not used according to the prescriptions.
        etchalon 5y ago
        I present you with the word "literally."
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        I think it supports my point. It literally has no meaning. The additional definition basically destroyed any value the word had.
- colpabar 5y ago
  Indeed, but is that really what's happening here? Is it really collective if all these changes are being pushed by american fortune 500 companies, and most people who abide by them are doing so out of fear?
  - etchalon 5y ago
    "most people" is doing a lot of work without any evidence in that sentence.
    - colpabar 5y ago
      Okay, fine, if I take away that last bit, would you acknowledge my main point? If this is all just a natural evolution of language, why does it all come from american academic institutions and corporations?
      - etchalon 5y ago
        So your argument is that the only reason we stopped using the N-word colloquially is because Ford and Harvard made a pact to get rid of it?
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        I'm not sure we've all stopped using it, have we?
        etchalon 5y ago
        There is rarely a literal "all" when it comes to culture.
        thegrimmest 5y ago
        I was referring to the rather large segment of the population which continues to use it in popular culture just fine.
- nobody9999 5y ago
  >Because language is a collective action. Definitions evolve with usage. >That's just how language works. I'd call language a social construct. Whereas Using language is an action. The former is a noun (person, place or thing -- in this case, a conceptual thing) and the latter is a verb (word describing an action) phrase relating to that thing. And except for group chants (e.g., "Let's Go Mets!"), choirs, etc., using language is definitely an individual not collective action That said, as a social construct, languages change all the time, exactly as you pointed out, based on usage. You'll never catch me calling an SO (significant other -- which is a decades-old attempt to be more inclusive -- and private) 'bae', nor will you hear me say 'very unique', no matter how many other people use those terms. Am I a bad, evil human being because I won't use various terms that are in broad use? I say 'no'. Why? Because I (my brain/consciousness) control my communication systems, not popular usage. I do my best to be kind and empathetic to those around me, not because I'm being forced to do so, but because I believe that doing so is a trait common to decent human beings, one of whom I aspire (and usually succeed) to be. I'll go even further and say that context matters. There are many things I might say while down the pub with friends that I'd never say in a professional context or among strangers. There's actually a term for that. It's called "code switching"[0]. And that brings up an odd, but widespread, change in our social discourse. The online world, and especially social media, has (unless one takes steps to avoid doing so) comingled our personal, private and professional lives. Which is why I took/still take to heart advice I got nearly 30 years ago: Don't put anything online that you wouldn't want to see on the front page of your local newspaper (back then, local newspapers were still a thing). My boss/colleagues/clients/customers don't need to know what I do when I'm not working unless they happen to also be a part of my personal life. And those in my personal sphere don't need to know what's going on in my professional life. That's not to say there's never any overlap, but different facets of our lives don't need to intersect. Nor, in many (most?) cases, should they. What's more, It's my choice as to what words I choose to express. And it's absolutely the choice of other folks to call me out if they feel that those words I choose aren't appropriate. I'd add that I have a big mouth and am often deliberately inappropriate in (mostly successful) attempts at humor. But not in contexts where such things are socially unacceptable (e.g., in professional situations). And if some folks don't appreciate me or my sense of humor and shun me as a result, that's just fine. No one is required to be subjected to me or my language. I want to be around people who want to be around me. And not all of those either. I don't require anyone's approval with regard to what I say or when. But if I misjudge the context of a situation, I may find myself (and I have) facing judgement, and sometimes consequences, for my speech. Fortunately for me, at least in the US, I can say pretty much (with certain exceptions) anything I want without legal consequences. But that doesn't stop anyone from taking issue with what I say. I'd ask that you go back and re-read my comment (several times, if necessary) and let me know if I'm not being inclusive or empathetic. That should be amusing. [0] https://www.britannica.com/topic/code-switching https://www.britannica.com/topic/code-switching
sacrosancty 5y ago
I think it's fine to use "retarded" like that if that's your culture and how you learnt it. People will know you're from a different background, maybe very old or foreign, or whatever. But if you're just trying to force an old meaning onto it, people will misunderstand you since you're not using the common "protocol".
- thegrimmest 5y ago
  I guess the problem is it's hard to pinpoint when precisely the "current" meaning becomes the "old" one. This is doubly difficult for meanings which contradict each other (see "woman"). What happens when a substantial portion of the population refuses to adopt the new meaning? It seems like the language gets forked then. This doesn't seem to do any good at all, increasing polarization and creating obstacles to clear communication.
rootusrootus 5y ago
At this point the vast majority of everyone alive has only ever heard 'retarded' used as an insult, few people today ever had it applied to themselves in any legitimate context. For that reason I think there's not much point in trying to police its use as some kind of special case -- at this point it is exactly like calling someone a dumbass.