"retarded" and insult policing

[PsYcHo]

So just quickly , Brimstone- I agree with your overall points regarding autism, just as I would agree that playing the lottery for financial gain is not the 'most likely to be positive' scenario. I think I won the autistic lottery with my relative, so I just enjoyed debating it from the point of someone akin to those who have won the actual lottery. ( "You can't win if you don't play!! ")

I found this George Carlin routine while researching an altogether different subject (which jokes go too far?) and it seemed relevant to the thread. (I can either debate Brimstone or EquAllity, I'm not taking on both of you! )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkhUivqzWv0 Not scientific fact by any means, but a humorous take on the situation.

[EquALLity]

So just quickly , Brimstone- I agree with your overall points regarding autism, just as I would agree that playing the lottery for financial gain is not the 'most likely to be positive' scenario. I think I won the autistic lottery with my relative, so I just enjoyed debating it from the point of someone akin to those who have won the actual lottery. ( "You can't win if you don't play!! ")

I found this George Carlin routine while researching an altogether different subject (which jokes go too far?) and it seemed relevant to the thread. (I can either debate Brimstone or EquAllity, I'm not taking on both of you! )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkhUivqzWv0 Not scientific fact by any means, but a humorous take on the situation.

Haha. I used to be a huge fan of George Carlin. I don't listen to him much anymore, but I agree with a lot of what he said.

I don't agree with what he said in that clip, because I don't see it as a big deal for language to change throughout the years. Why does it matter if we use 'physically challenged' instead of 'crippled'? Does that matter?

When it comes to 'offensive humor', I have mixed feelings. I think it depends on the joke.

[PsYcHo]

I don't agree with what he said in that clip, because I don't see it as a big deal for language to change throughout the years. Why does it matter if we use 'physically challenged' instead of 'crippled'?Does that matter?

When it comes to 'offensive humor', I have mixed feelings. I think it depends on the joke.

The whole point is it doesn't matter what you call it, it's still the same exact thing. We only change the terms as a society to make ourselves feel better, without causing any real changes.

I refer to my relative as "autistic", but that is only because it would sound horrible to others if I said he was "retarded". I could call him "retarded", "autistic", "mentally challenged", "differently abled" "potatoed" but none of the words that make me feel better change the reality of the situation.
All those terms (except potatoed, I coined that one myself) mean the exact same thing!. In ten years, "differently abled" will be offensive, because it describes the exact same people, and the stigma with being in that group will make some people sad, so they will try to divert attention from the real concern (retarded people have it bad), and call it something else to, once again, make themselves feel better by trying to take the stigma away from the "potatoed" boy. But they haven't changed a damn thing in reality! But they tried to make it nicer, like painting an abandoned crackhouse so the neighborhood looks better.

(I know the thread is comparing the difference between calling something "gay" or "retarded". but I feel the underlying issue needs to be addressed.)

[brimstoneSalad]

I think that teaching people why it's wrong to use words like that in a derogatory way will decrease the amount they use the word.

It's fine to let them know it might be hurt the feelings of the mentally retarded to use the word, but they'll use the words they want to use, often because they're discouraged. Frequency of use will naturally be diminished as the word loses its sting (which is when it will no longer be hurtful either).

While it may be that it is desirable to shelter them from reality, is that the job of society at large, or the job of the parents and caretakers of these people?

I don't agree with the framing of this, but I don't understand the distinction here.

These people are sheltered, they have special classes, or even special schools sometimes. Parents often even keep them out of school. If they think it's best to shelter them from ridicule -- and they will be ridiculed if exposed to other children, because they're retarded -- then they should just do that.

It's kind of like the idea that, yes, there are men out there who will rape you. We can't stop them, and we can't "teach them not to", because they want to and they mostly know it's wrong and don't care. It only takes a few assholes to ruin everybody's day. The amount of heavy handed draconian policy required to eliminate every threat is so great, that sometimes it's better (more efficient, fewer resources, more effective) for the potential victims to take precautions.

Mental retardation is uncommon. If they can't handle the ridicule they will inevitably receive, it's more efficient to keep them better sheltered (they already largely are) than to try to reform society around them. You can't convince people retardation is a good thing, because it's obviously undesirable. That would be like convincing society that severe acne is a good thing and beautiful (look at the pretty colors?). It goes against every fiber of human instinct. And in the case of retardation, it would even be harmful to convince society that it was good, even if you could.

Or better yet, maybe they should just not be taught to be offended at these words, and to grow a thicker skin.

But the word is actually offensive. It is literally insulting people who are mentally challenged.

No word is offensive in and of itself. What about the sounds "re" + "tar" + "ded" trigger an innate chemical reaction in the brain to stimulate offense and anger? Nothing, of course.

There may be possible arguments about an instinctual link to fear from skeletons, corpses, maybe spiders and snakes -- the arguments are weak. There is some instinctual fear of heights (babies demonstrate this).

There's no instinctual link to language that biologically forces somebody to be offended by it. "Retarded" could mean "kitchen". "I'm going in the retarded to prepare something for lunch."

Nothing about it is inherently offensive.

Don't teach people to be offended by it. Teach them not to. Teach them that when people use the word, it doesn't say anything about you, it says something about the people using it. That they are small minded: laugh at them. Pity them.

I'm typically not offended by direct insults. The harder people try, the more funny it is. I'm more offended by certain ideas than by facile attempts at insults (vicarious redemption, etc.). Offense serves a purpose sometimes, but not usually when somebody is trying to offend you.

Even if somebody is trying to offend you, that doesn't mean you have to comply with his or her attempts. The same goes for any well adjusted person. I'm saying those who raise mentally retarded people need to do the same. And if they are too retarded to understand it, it's the same situation we have with the dog; taught to become upset at the word "bitch", likely without understanding the implications or real meaning.

1) No people actually see themselves as stupid, so there's no one to be offended. It also isn't always referencing IQ;

Then retarded people need to stop seeing themselves as retarded so they don't get offended. There's an effort to make them see themselves as special, or just different, or having cognitive diversity. Fine. It's rooted in delusion (as is stupid people not knowing they're stupid), but if that's what they need to do, they can do it.

it's often about things like open-mindedness, and being open-minded or not is a choice.

Before you said criticising a choice was a personal attack. Offense is offense. Why does it matter what the offense is about, if it creates the same feeling? Many people think being closed minded is a good thing (faith).

2) Using dogmatism in a derogatory way encourages critical thinking (the opposite of dogmatism). Using 'retard' doesn't make people not mentally challenged, so it doesn't have the same utility.

Actually, it can and does when it comes to birth. Parents make a choice whether to abort or continue a pregnancy where there are signs of cognitive disability. The more retardation is stigmatized, the more will choose to abort and try again.

See the article I linked a few posts back about the mother of the Down's syndrome man wishing she had aborted.
Actually, please read all three of those articles to understand the burden these children are upon their families and society.

3) I don't know about you, but I don't go around calling people ugly. Yeah, I don't think you should do that.

Obviously they're all mean things to say, but that should be the focus if you're going to criticize the practice of insulting on the grounds that it hurts feelings.

If something is harmful and it lacks utility, that's a reason to criticize it. But, that's a case-by-case issue, not a word-by-word issue.

The reason that list goes too far is because nobody associates things like 'crazy' with psychiatric conditions like schizophrenia. Everyone knows that 'retard' is a reference to mentally challenged people.

Not everyone knows that, and many people know the others are too: and they used to be. As a word becomes an insult, it stops being used to refer to them. It's a never ending cycle. Retarded has fallen out of useage too, it's just the most recent.

I've never heard of anyone say that it's wrong to use the word 'stupid'. That's the fringe of the fringe of political correctness. It's like me trying to discredit veganism because of Freelee the Banana Girl.

It's a real slippery slope, because it's using the same reasoning for not using the word. Freelee is just crazy; she's not making fundamentally the same arguments and just carrying them to their conclusion.

I'm not against offending people- I'm just against offending people when there is no actual utility to it, and you're just insulting a group of people who haven't done anything wrong (particularly about something that makes their lives difficult- it's adding insult to injury).

It's not insulting them if there aren't any around to hear it... which there usually aren't. Aside from maybe user_id, I don't think we have any members here who are clinically retarded: and he doesn't think he is, but he might also just be a troll pretending to be profoundly stupid.

Using the word in the proximity of a literal short bus or at some kind of mental disability convention would be insensitive.

I think offending people intellectually by challenging their beliefs is a good thing. I think inadvertently attacking mentally challenged people when you can just use a word that doesn't is bad.
Again, why do it when you can replace it with a different word? What is the purpose?

I've probably used the word "retarded" casually four times on this forum. But what's the purpose of any word when it can be replaced by another?

Removing a word shrinks one's available vocabulary. Just using "stupid" over and over again weakens the rhetorical appeal of an argument, and using common and popular words increases the relatability. Sometimes my posts are pretty advanced, and throwing in some "cool" words for the rad sk8r kidz may help appeal to the younger generation.

It's not clear that it's harm without benefit, because variety of vocabulary in itself is an advantage, as well as the relatability of the word. It has value because people use it.

Unlike "gay" it doesn't have the additional disadvantage of devaluing retarded people -- they are already devalued, it just hurts their feelings to remind them of that, and they're much less likely to even be around to witness the word useage.

but it's also not healthy to essentially tell people to "grow a pair".

Put like that, it may not yield results, but it is essentially what people need to do.

Why does it matter what provoked them to find the word insulting?

I asked you the same thing above. When it matters is when it can be more easily prevented on the other side of the language: on the receiving end.

And what about the caretakers being insulted?

They should stop being. Sensitivity begets sensitivity. They are not helping their wards by being sensitive.

I don't find it to be very widely used. It's certainly not used as much as bitch,

Search the forum. Even without the topic titles, it seems to be used more than "bitch".

"Retarded" is used more to refer to ideas and movements. It has significant social utility as a word. It's a stronger word than "dumb" or "stupid".
It's used in more moderation, if it is, for the same reason "fuck" is used in more moderation. That doesn't make it less important.

If you give in, and you do that, you will likely find that you're bullied into replacing every word until you have none left.

What?
This isn't some slippery slope in which certain people are in a conspiracy to destroy language.

They're not trying to destroy language, they're trying to control it for their purposes. And those purposes are ultimately wrong.
However, we have many different groups who on equally poor arguments (based on offense or hurt feelings) want to restrict other language for their purposes.

The problem is not any single group, but regarding with equal credibility and responding with equal compliance to all of them: that's what destroys language.

It's like people setting up a religious display at a courthouse. Ten commandments monument in the lawn? That should be OK, but then you also have to allow a monument from every religion. If you do, as you must, then you have no more space to walk or see the courthouse.

I'm just saying that it's wrong to insult people by calling them 'retarded' because it's unnecessarily insulting to people who are mentally challenged.

And I'm saying it isn't.

1. It's necessary, because most if not all words and phrases are ultimately insulting to somebody's condition or belief (regardless of whether it's regarded as a "choice" or not), and we can't eliminate all capacity for insult in language.
2. Even if we set an arbitrary line for insult or offense based harm of language, that line will move to tighten as people become sensitized (just as it's expanding now from people being desensitized). It's an inherently slippery slope.
3. Importantly, it is not degrading them: they are already degraded. The idea of avoiding the word is only about sheltering them from reality. In this way it does not compare to most other slurs and derogatory usage of words.
4. You're not necessarily even doing them favors by sheltering them from the truth. A better option is probably to desensitize them to it, and help them grow a thicker skin to cope with the disability and its social ramifications. Yes, retardation is an undesirable thing, but strive to be a valuable person despite that.
5. They're profoundly unlikely to even be around when you use the word to have their feelings hurt by it when used in casual conversation. So even ignoring all of the above, the chances of harm and degree of it are extremely small. There are probably far more people who do it deliberately because they know it hurts their feelings. For this reason, effort would be better directed at sheltering them from society, if that were the desired consequence, rather than trying to change all of society to be a safe space for them.

[EquALLity]

The whole point is it doesn't matter what you call it, it's still the same exact thing. We only change the terms as a society to make ourselves feel better, without causing any real changes.

I refer to my relative as "autistic", but that is only because it would sound horrible to others if I said he was "retarded". I could call him "retarded", "autistic", "mentally challenged", "differently abled" "potatoed" but none of the words that make me feel better change the reality of the situation.
All those terms (except potatoed, I coined that one myself) mean the exact same thing!. In ten years, "differently abled" will be offensive, because it describes the exact same people, and the stigma with being in that group will make some people sad, so they will try to divert attention from the real concern (retarded people have it bad), and call it something else to, once again, make themselves feel better by trying to take the stigma away from the "potatoed" boy. But they haven't changed a damn thing in reality! But they tried to make it nicer, like painting an abandoned crackhouse so the neighborhood looks better.

(I know the thread is comparing the difference between calling something "gay" or "retarded". but I feel the underlying issue needs to be addressed.)

Yeah, I agree, it doesn't matter what you call it in terms of what it actually is. I just don't see what's wrong with the words used to describe certain conditions changing. It may not be necessary for it to change, but so what if it does?

[AlexanderVeganTheist]

http://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-w ... avoid.html

I like this. I think it's right to prevent unnecessary hurt to people with disabilities. Take neuro-atypical instead of e.g. "a mental case" for a person with autism, schizophrenia or other mental aberrations. The former term rightly includes both the advantages and disadvantages to being neurologically atypical. The latter is just unnecessarily reminding people of their problems.

A lot of the words in the glossary are indeed unnecessarily hurting of peoples feelings. If you are actually concerned about preventing unnecessary harm to sentient beings, being considerate of harmful language is a small effort. It's not about reshaping society to the whims of thin-skinned people, it's about avoiding unnecessary harm. Needlessly reminding people of their differences that lower their quality of life is an unnecessary harm. The perceived utility from calling things bad when they are bad, such as people being obtuse, could be equally well achieved without insulting the disabled.

[brimstoneSalad]

http://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-w ... avoid.html

I like this. I think it's right to prevent unnecessary hurt to people with disabilities. Take neuro-atypical instead of e.g. "a mental case" for a person with autism, schizophrenia or other mental aberrations. The former term rightly includes both the advantages and disadvantages to being neurologically atypical. The latter is just unnecessarily reminding people of their problems.

I'm not talking about using the words to insult the people who are clinically diagnosed just to remind them. There's something to be said for being nice.

There are cases, as with aspergers, that people can possess advantages and disadvantages from mild autism. And it's good to remind them of those advantages, as per the golem effect and pygmalion effect, they may do better because of it.

For high functioning cases, "neuro-atypical" is a good word.

The perceived utility from calling things bad when they are bad, such as people being obtuse, could be equally well achieved without insulting the disabled.

There's also potential utility to insulting more "innate" qualities such as ridiculing a person as having a low IQ. Calling somebody stupid just seems to possess immense rhetorical power, particularly on a public platform. When reason breaks down, ridicule encouraged people to distance themselves from the ideas or people being ridiculed.

Insults should generally be a last resort, though.

[Grant_Barnes]

I'm proudly autistic. It's simply inaccurate to characterize autism as undesirable. More than most others, autists sweat details and strive for integrity, honesty, and consistency, traits the world could use more of.

[brimstoneSalad]

I'm proudly autistic. It's simply inaccurate to characterize autism as undesirable. More than most others, autists sweat details and strive for integrity, honesty, and consistency, traits the world could use more of.

Only severe autism causes significant developmental retardation. Asperger's on the other hand may be beneficial; it's even been argued to be the next stage in human evolution. I'm not sure about that, but some diversity in cognition is probably good for humanity; just not the extremes that render people unable to communicate or live on their own.

[Jebus]

homosexuality isn't a trait that has lesser value.

I may be misunderstanding you but are you suggesting that there is no disadvantage to being homosexual compared to being heterosexual?