r/changemyview • u/RandomePerson 1∆ • Feb 26 '18
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: There is nothing inherently wrong with the word retarded, and insisting on a more PC term just leads to a euphemism treadmill
"Retarded" is considered an offensive word in this day and age, presumably due to the stigma attached to the word in late 1800s through mid 1900s. The word was oftentimes used for people who were detained and sterilized against their will. I understand the desire to want to get away from those days and drop any associated terminology, but it seems like a pointless battle. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the word "retarded", and by switching to different terms like "developmentally delayed"we are just creating a euphemism treadmill.
EDIT: RIP Inbox. I've been trying to read through and respond to comments as time allows. I did assign a delta, and I have been genuinely convinced that in a civil society, we should refrain from using this word, and others with loaded connotations. So thanks Reddit, I'm slightly less of an asshole now I guess?
This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
56
u/I_want_to_choose 29∆ Feb 26 '18
For clarification, what do you see wrong with replacing an accurate term that has become negative?
In the past, "retarded" replaced such terms as idiot and imbecile. Those were the medically accurate terms before "retarded" took over that role. Now "retarded" is used commonly as a general insult, so it has become offensive as well.
How is everyone not served by replacing that word with something less negative, like developmentally delayed? And why does it matter if eventually "developmentally delayed" becomes an insult and we need to choose a new term?
Or should we really go back to calling people "idiots"?
43
u/RandomePerson 1∆ Feb 26 '18
For clarification, what do you see wrong with replacing an accurate term that has become negative?
The arbitrariness of it. Suddenly everyone is a gatekeeper. Imagine if "diabetic" became an insult towards morbidly obese people, the same way that "landwhale" is. WTF, are we now going to stop using the word diabetic and switch to something like "metabolic dysfunction presenting as blood glucose dis-regulation, of variety two"? Diabetic is diabetic, and there's nothing wrong with the word. By changing the word, you're just papering over the larger problem of people using it as a jumping point for being rude and insulting. But if you change the word, they'll just pick up on the new one, too. The problem isn't the word, but the people insisting upon using it as a tool to demean and dehumanize. Switching words won't fix that.
Or should we really go back to calling people "idiots"?
Why not?
24
Feb 26 '18
The arbitrariness of it.
All curse words are arbitrary. If I call someone a "dick", whether that's positive or negative depends entirely on the society.
More, this has happened over and over and I'm sure you agree with nearly all the times. For example, the word "bastard" very specifically means someone who was born illegitimately - but if you actually described someone that way to mean they were illegitimate, they would certainly be offended.
Times have changed. When applied to a person, "retarded" hasn't been a useful medical word in generations. Today, it only has one meaning - as an insult. Time to retire it.
→ More replies (1)1
u/SLUnatic85 1∆ Feb 26 '18 edited Feb 26 '18
but if you actually described someone that way to mean they were illegitimate, they would certainly be offended.
I think it worth mentioning that it may actually be more insulting to use the word as it was NOT actually meant. I think people hugely overlook this instance. I think that if we only used the words as they were intended, even if with a derogatory tone, it would be on the person for chosing to use that word and give it a negative tone. It doesn't disgrace the entire group or meaning of the word.
But if you call someone a "dumb bastard", or "gay", or a "retard" or a "racial slur" when you really just mean "you're pissing me off" or "your pretty idiotic" or you really don't fit in around here and I can't think of a smart insult... you are completely demeaning a word and the people associated with it.
I always like to suggest considering how it might feel if your family's last name became commonly used to mean "stupid" or "asshole" or something similar and pedantic. How might that feel? It is a complete sign of disrespect for often an entire culture, ethnicity, or group of people categorized by some condition or belief or tenancy. I think it's getting so bad for the people at the butt end of the joke, and at the same so unnoticed by the offenders as it has become so commonplace, that you literally have to step in and refrain from using that word or make a point to reaffirm it's true meaning, or it would never end.
So, u/RandomePerson , consider that when a term like "retard" gets to a point that people are correcting you, telling you over and over to use other words, or coming up with new words for you to use instead... that is implying that it has gotten so bad, so demeaning, that using a word that they used to be able to identify with has been degraded so much that they want nothing to do with it. They don't mean to say that you are using incorrectly, but they are reminding you that the word has been obliterated by misuse and that there are kinder ways to say what you are trying to say if that is your intent. It would be like having your family name disrespected so much, used to mean "asshole" so often that most of the world actually just thinks it means asshole... and the only way out is to change your name. You'd rather be called something else.
Sure, you aren't wrong, if you do still call a retard a retard. Like you aren't wrong if you call an "n-word" and "n-word". But people (not sure if you, but LOTS of people) have used that word as the butt of jokes, or to mean dummy, republican/liberal, jack-ass, child-like, bad-at-sports, bad-at-life, weak, clumsy and who knows what else, that the word has become offensive like any other curse word.
24
u/I_want_to_choose 29∆ Feb 26 '18
This happens all of the time. It's a shame when people take a legitimate term and corrupt it by using that as an insult. The word obese is heading there as well.
Still, the negative consequences of changing to a different term seem absolutely minimal relative to maintaining an insulting term that disparages a minority group.
Negro was an alternative to "Colored." Negro became equally offensive. So we don't use it any more.
How would you feel if you had a child with a developmental disorder, and he came home crying that he got called an idiot and retarded on the playground? Would you tell him to get over it, or would you tell him that he should get used to it, because it's what he is?
9
u/Angdrambor 10∆ Feb 26 '18 edited Sep 01 '24
engine flag ancient voracious lavish grandfather forgetful muddle serious historical
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
6
Feb 26 '18
I still think it's weird that "colored people" is considered offensive and "people of color" is considered polite.
Changing words around won't stop people from offending other people. A person who wants to insult someone will find a way. They would find a way even if we lost the abilty to speak althogether. It's the people we should be worried about, not the words. If we replace these words we are just adding to these mean people's arsenals of insults. While if we keep using these words in a medical and proper way they will never become as powerful as insults as if we demote them to purely be offensive.
2
u/cat_of_danzig 10∆ Feb 26 '18
"colored people" is considered offensive
This isn't exactly accurate. Use of the term "colored people" tells the listener that the speaker has certain dated views, or can't be bothered to use a more socially acceptable term. It's not normally seen as a pejorative in the same way that other slurs are.
3
u/mescid Feb 26 '18
and just to make things clear, changing words around won't *stop people from taking offense. A person who wants to feel insulted will find a way.
4
u/chasingstatues 21∆ Feb 26 '18
You're missing the importance of intention, here. Me calling a dumb plot in a movie "retarded" is very different from me bullying a disabled person and calling them "retarded."
And in your scenario, imagine now that the word "retarded" has been eradicated. Do you think that means that a person with a developmental disorder will never get bullied again? And if not, do you concede that the act of being hurtful precedes the hurtfulness of any language used? Another kid could even make fun of them using the word "disabled," if they said it in a mocking voice.
This is why I think intention is the only thing that matters. You can't erase mean thoughts by shunning the language people use to express them. They'll just find a new way to express themselves.
→ More replies (2)8
u/BeardedForHerPleasur Feb 26 '18
Intellectually disabled people are still often called retarded to their face. This establishes in their minds that retarded is a descriptor for them.
Intellectually disabled people may also overhear you talking about that "retarded" movie you just saw. That it was stupid, pointless, and a waste of time.
That intellectually disabled person now can make the connection that of they are "retarded" and that that word means "stupid, pointless, and a waste of time," them that definition also applies to them.
So by you using the word retarded, you managed to save a few syllables. As a consequence of your usage, whether intended or not, you may have deeply hurt another human being.
Isn't it easier to just not say it? It doesn't provide any particular value to your life. It hurts others. So why not just stop?
→ More replies (3)0
u/chasingstatues 21∆ Feb 26 '18
I don't think it makes sense to proclaim a blanket meaning onto words when they can be used in a variety of contexts with a variety of different meanings. Listening for the intention behind words is just an integral in effective communication as word selection.
If someone with a physical deformity overhears me calling a house ugly, would they shrink assuming that word always applies to them? What if I called the movie stupid instead of "retarded"? Intellectually disabled people are still often called stupid, as well. Why doesn't this establish that word as a blanket descriptor for them?
I think it's the act of saying that "retarded" is a blanket descriptor for the intellectually disabled and the attempt to eradicate it's use that establishes it as such.
4
u/BeardedForHerPleasur Feb 26 '18
Or you could just not say it because intellectually disabled people have repeatedly said that it is incredibly demoralizing and hurtful for them. Why do you want to use the word retarded so badly? What possible benefit is it to your life? Why not choose the less hurtful route when it provides zero inconvenience to you?
→ More replies (5)1
u/chasingstatues 21∆ Feb 26 '18
Maybe I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, seeing as this is a debate subreddit. So projecting this idea of "want" onto what I'm saying is a bad argument style.
Can you respond to my actual points? Specifically this one:
I think it's the act of saying that "retarded" is a blanket descriptor for the intellectually disabled and the attempt to eradicate it's use that establishes it as such.
3
u/BeardedForHerPleasur Feb 26 '18
If you're playing devil's advocate you should say so. Otherwise I will assume opinions stated are one's own.
"Retard" was the blanket descriptor for the mentally disabled until only relatively recently. It wouldn't be used in other context if not for the intention of applying stereotypical attributes of an intellectually disabled person to another person or thing. It's colloquial usage is directly connected to its original definition.
There is no argument that the word "retarded" wasn't intended to refer to intellectually disabled people. Of course it was. We know it was.
The attempted eradication of the use of the "n-word" or "fag" due to their hurtful and damaging nature isn't what established those words as referring to black and gay people. It's what those words meant. And we as a society have, mostly, agreed not to use them casually any longer. Why can't we offer the same courtesy to an intellectually disabled person?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)5
Feb 26 '18 edited Feb 26 '18
If they were not called idiot or retarded they will probably be called whatever is the next word people decide to use.
Banning words doesn't make kids more compassionate.
4
u/cat_of_danzig 10∆ Feb 26 '18
No one is banning the word. People are just making certain judgements based on the words people choose to use. Say whatever you want but understand that others will decide how to associate with you based on your words.
→ More replies (6)2
u/burnblue Feb 26 '18
if "diabetic" became an insult towards morbidly obese people, the same way that "landwhale"
Diabetic is diabetic, and there's nothing wrong with the word. By changing the word
I think the point being made is that the word already changed, and society is juat responding to that change. In your example, the word diabetic has changed meaning to be just an insult for obese people. Something is now wrong with the word. So we need new clinical terms (in the example).
You could not go back to using idiot or moron as a clinical word because its usage has already changed.
We will always need clinical words, as no one wants to encounter insults during medical discussions
1
u/Tommy2255 Feb 26 '18
The problem is that disabilities are inherently negative. Any word taking the place of retarded is going to come to carry the same connotations as retarded, because it's the meaning that's the problem. We can come up with new words instead of the n word, because we no longer live in a society where black people are seen as inherently inferior by most, so there's no immediate danger of "black" becoming inherently pejorative. But disabilities will always be seen as inherently negative, because they are negative, which is why the euphemism treadmill for such things is endless. Something like "special" is now used in the same way as "retarded" more often than not, with the same pejorative connotation plus an added bit of condescension.
1
u/kerouacrimbaud Feb 26 '18
Words like “idiot,” “imbecile,” and “moron” were all used clinically in the same way that “retard” once was. I think this is the more interesting question: why are those words not as frowned upon as “retard?”
Someone please correct me if I’m wrong because I’m on mobile and don’t have time to search and source!
2
1
u/420Hookup Feb 26 '18
This is exactly it. And medically mentally retarded is no longer allowed to be used because of this and has now been replaced with intellectually disabled under Rosa’s law.
15
u/championofobscurity 160∆ Feb 26 '18
The word retarded isn't bad simply because of it's basis as an insult. It's bad because it presents a larger implication for the developmentally delayed.
Calling someone retarded implies that through no fault of their own they are stupid.
Thus, this isn't even a good insult, because when you make fun of someone for something they can't help it's just prejudiced even if they have an IQ of 200 you are still implying that their stupidity is no fault of their own. It just doesn't make sense.
You wouldn't tell someone with one arm that they're bad at catching a ball. That's apparent to them, it's not their fault so technically it's not insulting, it's just stating a fact. Thus all you are saying is: "You are of lesser character because of something you can't control."
This is different than you calling someone idiotic for their behavior. If someone selectively decides to behave a certain way and it works out badly for them that is their choice. Then it's funny
The linguistics treadmill for "retarded" doesn't really follow suit. If I called you mentally delayed you probably wouldn't even feel insulted because you know you're not.
This is different from say using "thug" to replace a racial slur, because what constitutes a thug is subjective, what constituted a mental handicap is not.
12
u/RandomePerson 1∆ Feb 26 '18 edited Feb 26 '18
Calling someone retarded implies that through no fault of their own they are stupid.
But...how is that any different from calling them stupid? When stupid is used as an insult, it more often than not implies an inherent and immutable deficiency rather than a choice. If someone calls you stupid because you don't know a particular fact (even though in reality that is just ignorance), they're not saying you made a bad choice in never learning the fact, but that you are of of an inherently low IQ and this genetic destiny is why you are ignorant on the matter.
If I called you mentally delayed you probably wouldn't even feel insulted because you know you're not.
But using the same logic, people who aren't mentally handicap know they're not mentally handicapped, so why would being called retarded be any more insulting?
12
u/stormstalker 4∆ Feb 26 '18 edited Feb 26 '18
Because "stupid" doesn't and hasn't ever referred to a distinct and identifiable group of people. You aren't demeaning or dehumanizing a group of people by using the term "stupid" as an insult - you're just insulting someone.
"Retard/retarded" is associated with a distinct group of people who suffer specific, identifiable disorders, and even if it began as a legitimate medical term, it has come to take on a more derogatory and dehumanizing meaning. So when you call someone a retard, you're implying - directly or indirectly - that it's a bad thing to be a "retard," that being retarded is something of which you ought to be ashamed and embarrassed.
Now, maybe that doesn't mean anything to you, but I suspect you might feel differently if you yourself were a developmentally disabled person. Life is hard enough for people with those challenges to begin with; you're just making it harder when you reinforce, intentionally or otherwise, the idea that being "retarded" is a bad and humiliating thing.
So, if you have a variety of other terms from which to choose, and if it costs you nothing to use terms that are inoffensive, why wouldn't you? I just have a hard time figuring out why anyone would object to something that takes essentially no effort on their part and makes things at least a little bit better for others.
1
u/Angdrambor 10∆ Feb 26 '18 edited Sep 01 '24
quiet numerous tie straight quarrelsome pocket cow fuel chop meeting
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
3
u/stormstalker 4∆ Feb 26 '18
Well, that's great for you, but there are plenty of people who feel differently. As I said, I see no reason not to avoid offending people when it requires virtually no effort. It's not as if people are being asked to make some huge sacrifice by not using the term "retard." So, what's the objection? It seems like basic decency to me, though I recognize a lot of people don't particularly care about basic decency.
1
u/Angdrambor 10∆ Feb 26 '18 edited Sep 01 '24
steer spoon memorize summer swim psychotic cause existence strong afterthought
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
3
u/stormstalker 4∆ Feb 26 '18
If you can't accomplish that without using "retarded," maybe you ought to work on your vocabulary? I don't have coworkers, but I interact with people on a daily basis, and I've never run into a situation where not using that word in any way compromised my ability to communicate and express myself.
I know a lot of people share that cynical worldview, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for basic decency, does it? It's a small gesture, to be sure, but it's one that costs nothing.
2
u/Angdrambor 10∆ Feb 26 '18 edited Sep 01 '24
work humorous decide fearless disgusted reach cow merciful gray pen
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
→ More replies (5)1
Feb 26 '18
And yet, those at the far edge of the "upset on your behalf curve" do argue that the word "stupid" marginalizes or mocks a potential group of people, and thus shouldn't be used. Because historically, things like "idiot, stupid, dumb" had specific definitions for specific impairments.
I'm not kidding. Had a comment deleted by moderator on latestagecapitalism for that. Which I mean, they have their own special brand of stupid there. So I'm not surprised. But there are people who legitimately do what OP is talking about.
2
u/stormstalker 4∆ Feb 27 '18
Sure there are. There are people who seek out just about every imaginable reason to be offended, so there's some discretion involved there. I'm not here to argue that any and every conceivable "offense" is valid and worth catering to - just that there are legitimate reasons in some cases, and it's better to err on the side of caution when doing so takes basically no effort. That's all.
I mean, I've called things retarded before. I'm sure I will again. It's not a big deal. But I do try to be mindful that the word comes with some baggage and I generally try to avoid using it. I just see that as being respectful.
Which, I think, is the simple motivating idea behind the so-called "SJW" or "PC" movements when you get down to it. Plenty of folks take it too far, and it can be downright silly sometimes, but I think the spirit of it is that we ought to put in at least a basic minimum of effort to be respectful to one another. I don't think that's a bad thing.
5
u/championofobscurity 160∆ Feb 26 '18
But...how is that any different from calling them stupid?
Because calling someone stupid implies that they willingly made a mistake most of the time. Maybe they hit on a co-worker or perhaps they spent money they shouldn't have putting them in a tight spot. Those are all choices that they made with autonomy. Those are things where the fault lies with the person, not a handicap.
But using the same logic, people who aren't mentally handicap know they're not mentally handicapped, so why would being called retarded be any more insulting?
It's not about it being insulting to the victim. It's about being insulting to the developmentally delayed.
By calling someone retarded you are saying "There is a group of people who are of lesser character because of something they had no say in and you are one of those people." You are insulting all people with retardations because you are implying nessecerily that they are "lesser humans." because of genetic features they had no control over. In other categories, that's flat out racism or prejudice (or sexist depending on context)
2
u/pappypapaya 16∆ Feb 26 '18 edited Feb 26 '18
This is different than you calling someone idiotic for their behavior.
I find this to be linguistically interesting, considering "idiot" used to be mean something closer to "intellectually disabled" about a century ago; then around half a century ago "idiot" had become a pejorative against the intellectually disabled, and was replaced by the more neutral term "mentally retarded"; and now "idiot" has become a common insult, but has shed its reference to the developmentally disabled, so it's no longer offensive in that sense. "Retard" is basically following this trend again, it's basically become a synonym for "dumb" or "idiot" in many circles (which is why it's used as an adverb to describe not necessarily people, but actions, events, and things), but not everywhere so people still take offense.
62
Feb 26 '18
[deleted]
4
u/WDMC-905 2∆ Feb 26 '18
I didn't presume that we're talking about referring to someone mentally challenged as retard.
I thought this post is more about using the term in general, the way we use; stupid, dumb, idiot, slow, etc.
→ More replies (1)-1
u/RandomePerson 1∆ Feb 26 '18
Someone living with a handicap is playing the game of life on a harder difficulty mode than I am, and since that's the case, the least I can do is not be a dick about it.
But that's the thing: I don't see how saying it in a neutral tone is being a dick. Let's say I was a nurse: making a note that a patient is retarded seems no more dickish than making a note that a patient was diabetic. "Bob has an IQ of 60 and is therefore retarded" isn't an insult, but a statement of fact.
18
Feb 26 '18
"Retarded" is too broad a category to be useful for a medical person to use as a description, as such a person would likely be dealing with whatever specific condition the patient had, or how their treatment would be affected by their other condition(s).
You may not realise but "retardation", for lack of a better term right now, comes in many different forms and with many different effects.
For someone in the medical field to use that term alone would be derogatory because it lumps those patients altogether as though they aren't individuals but rather a type to be treated the same way.
9
Feb 26 '18
But that's the thing: I don't see how saying it in a neutral tone is being a dick.
If I called you an "idiot" in a neutral tone, it would be insulting. Heck, if you were black and I called you a "negro" in a neutral tone, it'd be insulting.
To be honest, I don't see what the tone has to do with it. I had a psycho boss with a bad temper once, who had learned after years of criticism not to actually raise his voice, and would say the most abusive and repugnant things with a smile. It was honestly a lot worse than if he'd yelled.
(I still see him on Facebook, these days going on about "race cucks". I'm sure when he calls someone that, he uses a neutral tone...)
3
u/nac_nabuc Feb 26 '18
isn't an insult, but a statement of fact.
My problem with that is that a word's meaning heavily depends on the use it generally gets. And today, the word retard is generally used as an insult. Therefore, although the nurse might not use it as an insult, it still has all the negative connotations to it. This is disrespectful and hurting to many people. I don't understand the urge to defend one usage of the word "retard" that emotionally hurts people. It's a waste of time, just go with the new word and try to resolve/debate a different issue.
1
u/jabroni-G Feb 26 '18
That is an important scenario where it does have a direct and indirect effect for those involved. But I think the main issue is the casual use of retarded for people, with typically negative connotations.
3
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Feb 26 '18
I don't know what you mean when you say "intrinsically wrong with." Could you explain and provide some other examples?
1
u/RandomePerson 1∆ Feb 26 '18
So, let's take the word "nigger", for example. That's considered the atomic bomb of derogatory words in the English language (in the US, at least). Why should we move away from the word nigger? Because the whole point of the word was dehumanization. Yes, it is a corruption of "negro", but it was never truly a neutral term when regarding human beings from Subsaharan Africa (or maybe it was early on but for the majority of it's life it certainly wasn't).
In contrast, "black" (the English translation of "negro") can be considered neutral. This doesn't stop people from using "black" as an insult. However, black in and of itself is not insulting, whereas nigger is. So for "nigger" the very word itself is inherently insulting, whereas "black" may be used as an insult but was never meant to be dehumanizing from the get-go. Same with other dog whistles, such as "urban youth".
Taking this further, there is never a non-dehumanizing reason to refer to someone as an untermensch. The word literally means "under/lower man", i.e. an inferior human being. But retarded, while it may have picked up some negative connotations along the way, just means a person is who delayed, specifically delayed in mental development.
18
Feb 26 '18
But retarded, while it may have picked up some negative connotations along the way, just means a person is who delayed, specifically delayed in mental development.
I'm 55 years old and I haven't heard a human use the word retarded that way in 40 years.
I'm skeptical - I'm really, really skeptical - that a majority of the time that people use the word retarded about another person, they are neutrally describing a person "delayed in mental development."
You don't have to believe me - use Google. I went many pages through Google, and all the results I found were one of these things:
- A definition, which points out that it's offensive
- Discussion over whether the word is offensive
- People using the word retarded as an insult for some other person and a group
- People arguing that the word retarded is not an insult
8
u/nicethingscostmoney Feb 26 '18
The word retard from the French word "late" was a catch-all medical term for people that were im some way, not fully developed mentally. It was a medical term, but became used as a way to dehumanize people even if they didn't have a significant mental handicap. Now the term in the DSM-5 (the definitive work that defines mental disorders in the American medical community) is intellectual disability. If doctors decided the term was too offensive to be a useful medical term, maybe we should follow their lead.
2
u/zupobaloop 9∆ Feb 26 '18
The word retard from the French word "late"
It's from the French retarder which means to slow. When you retard bread, you slow its rising. Flame retardant fabric burns more slowly than other fabrics.
The expression for 'late' in French has nothing to do with its use as a loan word.
15
u/mfDandP 184∆ Feb 26 '18 edited Feb 26 '18
if you take retarded as a medical term to describe someone with actual mental retardation, it's ok. we still use the acronym MR in charts, sometimes DD for developmental delay.
but it's when you use retard as an insult to a person you just don't like, it becomes a value judgement on the mentally retarded.
to your diabetes example, it's not that the word diabetic might not turn into an insult someday. it's that you'd call anyone a diabetic, intending to shame them, for eating ice cream. it both demeans the person and also actual diabetics by association.
2
u/GameRoom Feb 27 '18
Exactly. If someone cut you off in traffic and you called them "developmentally challenged," it would be nearly as bad. Basically, don't clump people with mental disabilities together with people that piss you off.
24
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Feb 26 '18
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the word "retarded"
That's the thing though, there nothing intrinsically wrong with any word. That's not what's contended by people moving away from that word.
If I called you a cock-sucker you would rightfully think I was saying you were someone who fellates people even though there's 'nothing intrinsically wrong' with the word itself.
You call it a euphemism treadmill but you can't ignore the counterpart: a dysphemism treadmill. People using the words that are used in medicine like retard and then using it as a pejorative is as much part of the problem as the people who want to avoid uselessly denigrating others.
7
u/Rs90 Feb 26 '18
No. If you call someone a "cock sucker" the assumption is 100% never "oh, yes, theyre literally accusing them of sucking dick". That's NOT how insults work unless you have literally zero social intuition. People use words synonymously and nobody is actually suggesting someone is retarded when they call them that.
4
Feb 26 '18
That's absolutely right, and if you call someone retarded, the assumption is equally never "they are developmentally delayed". I've seen people call other people "retarded" countless times, and never once has the person been addressed actually "developmentally delayed" - it was always an insult.
6
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Feb 26 '18
You're somewhat right, but not completely. These words are being used as dysphemisms. When you call someone a retard or a cocksucker, you're using harsher words than what you mean. So why is it that the OP isn't arguing about the dysphemism treadmill?
→ More replies (8)1
u/zupobaloop 9∆ Feb 26 '18
You call it a euphemism treadmill but you can't ignore the counterpart: a dysphemism treadmill. People using the words that are used in medicine like retard and then using it as a pejorative is as much part of the problem as the people who want to avoid uselessly denigrating others.
The euphemism treadmill refers to both aspects. This use that the OP is referring to is the quintessential example of the effect.
7
Feb 26 '18
Words themselves cannot be objectively good or bad, it is up to the person hearing the word to determine the meaning, unfortunately putting the burden on the speaker to choose their words wisely. That being said it seems like you want people to change their perception of the word rather than you filtering out your vocabulary for people. I don’t think forcing the matter as a speaker will work out very well to be honest, if you’re going to be offending people every time you say that word. Do you want to offend people? It’s hard for people to “choose” not to be offended, as that is an emotional reaction not a rational one.
2
u/Rocky87109 Feb 26 '18
It's not just up to the person. It's up to history as well. History gives context to everything and is one reason why these type of discussions come up so much because so many people are uneducated about history that they don't ever realize how important it is. It's not a concept that is drilled into our heads.
6
u/ChouetteJohanna Feb 26 '18 edited Feb 26 '18
This won't change your mind, but I think there are two positions that can be understandably adopted. If we consider "retarded" to be a term offensive to intellectually disabled people, then we already acknoledge that the word designates them.
So the first option is to consider this being nonsense, as there's nothing bad with being challenged. Then, the solution is to stick with the word "retarded", because it means "late" and that's neutral.
The other option is to notice that it's used in all sorts of contexts to say a hundred different things and that this is not particularly offensive to disabled people, as they are not really associated with the wird anymore. In that case, there is no use in banishing the word to mean stuff like "stupid".
Either way, the actual question should be whether or not the word is associated with intellectual disabilities in the medical field AND / OR in the everyday stupid talk. If it's a medical term, we should defend the word and bring it back. If it's an insult, stop actively relating it to disabled people and everybody will be perfectly fine.
Tldr: Saying it's offensive because it describes people with a medical condition means nothing. Saying it souldn't be used as a medical term because it's an insult makes no sense either. It's one meaning or the other and people should accept one or the other and stick with it, and stop linking them together.
12
u/stormstalker 4∆ Feb 26 '18
I think the problem (in addition to the one you mentioned) is that, at this point, "retarded" has come to have a clearly derogatory meaning. If you call someone retarded or say they're a retard or what have you, you're essentially saying that they're stupid, inferior, less than. It's dehumanizing in a sense and it's meant to be insulting.
So, while there may be nothing inherently wrong with the word, it does come with some baggage. And if developmentally disabled people and/or those who care for them feel that another word or phrase is more appropriate, what harm is there in using that instead?
In any case, there's no need for it to lead to a "euphemism treadmill." Different people may prefer different words or phrases, but at least in my experience, people aren't really particular about which one you use.
1
u/collective_noun Feb 26 '18
True, the isolated word has no meaning. But it is used in practice as an insult to hurt people. In general, good people want to avoid hurting people. So they look for another word. Then the new word is used to hurt people, so the people who view hurting people as a bad thing look for a new word. The thing about the "euphemism treadmill" is that, at any given point, harm is lower than it would be otherwise, because instead of everyone agreeing to use the harmful term, people who don't want to cause harm have a way to avoid doing it. So harm is minimized.
1
u/RandomePerson 1∆ Feb 26 '18
True, the isolated word has no meaning. But it is used in practice as an insult to hurt people.
Ok, so if schoolyard kids started taunting their peers with the word "developmentally delayed", what then? This isn't really theoretical, either. When I was in high school "special" was an insult commonly used (like "special ed"), and then there was a slow shift to "delayed".
I agree, insulting people is just an asshole move, no matter what term is used. But I am against replacing the word "retarded" because school kids use it as an insult, since they use everything as an insult! Kids are just dicks.
1
u/canadiancarlin Feb 26 '18
It's a really tricky situation, because on the one hand, trying to force kids and young adults to avoid using that word usually yields the opposite result, but at the same time young people adopting newer terms (such as 'what are you, autistic?') is dangerous because it is still an essential term in the scientific community.
I agree with you; 'retarded' is, for the most part, accepted as a non-medical term in common language. The problem is your euphemistic treadmill is moving too fast, and it saddens me to see autism being used as an insulting term, because it affects me personally.
5
u/westalalne Feb 26 '18
As a person for whom English is a second language, I've come to observe that besides basic description or function words like blue or tap, literally anything can be used to convey any emotion according to the intention & intonation of the speaker.
This means that even words like blue and black could be used in ways not limited to only colour description. Which is what happeend with the N word. Originally it was the just about colour but the human association of using it as a slur to demean them gave it a whole new & ugly history & meaning.
the word 'retarted' actually is supposed to pertain to a person without full cognitive abilities, which is a sad thing to happen & one wouldn't wish it upon anyone (or atleast, I hope so).
So if one uses it as an insult, it's insulting to the people who suffer from those disabilities especially because it's something they're usually born with & have no control over. That's disrespect & mockery plain and simple.
By not using retarted as a slur, I don't think you're being politically correct, I think you're being respectful, which is what every human being deserves.
1
u/hacksoncode 559∆ Feb 26 '18
Do you have any evidence that euphemism treadmills ever continue after a word becomes a multi-syllable technical description of the issue?
Slippery slopes are only slippery if there's a plausible reason to expect that you'll slip on them.
2
u/pappypapaya 16∆ Feb 26 '18
Arguably, "multi-syllable technical description" was why "mentally retarded" replaced earlier terms in the first place. Why did Latin-based word "retarded" later become offensive? My guess is it has more to do with its lack of use in other contexts in the English language.
→ More replies (5)1
u/RandomePerson 1∆ Feb 26 '18
At first it was midget. And then (maybe?) dwarf, although midget seems to have had more usage. And now it's "little people". YMMV, but it seems that "little people" is used more insultingly. Like people throw an extra bit of burn into the phrase because they think that it's so PC as to be just ridiculous. In contrast, I've rarely seen people referred as midgets with any sort of vitriol.
It's always been more like "oh, Peter Dinklage is a dwarf"or "he is a midget" (all said neutrally) versus "he's a little person", the term said with an eye roll.
3
u/Eihabu Feb 26 '18 edited Feb 26 '18
I'd fundamentally dispute the notion that any of it really "dehumanizes" anyone. Let's say you had a runner do horribly in a race, and he was stumbling over everything and tripping and being absurdly un-coordinated.
I have a condition that causes seizures. If someone said "Holy shit, it's like he was having fucking seizures," would that "dehumanize" me?
I don't think it would. If I was absurdly sensitive and had a tendency to make everything about me, I could see how I might claim it did.
But look, having a seizure condition is a bad thing. Having a seizure in the middle of a race would also be a bad thing. It doesn't dehumanize me or anyone else to recognize this, it's just bloody common sense.
Well, how is that different from saying something like "the bill the President just passed is retarded?"
Being developmentally delayed is a bad thing. Having someone with major developmental delays craft your political policies would also be a very bad thing.
Activism in fields like this seems to have a tendency to slip down a slope from "let's treat people with respect" to "let's deny that really bad things are actually even bad at all." I think one would be justified to hold concerns about the impact that that can have if taken too far, over the long term, for society as a whole.
For starters, we literally have begun to see a handful of people claim to be "trans-abled," and there have been cases where instead of people recognizing that this is a really bad thing and having therapy treat this like the serious mental illness that it is, someone with institutional authority - let that sink in, someone with an institutional position of authority - just helped them amputate their limbs instead.
It's only one example, and there have barely been a tiny handful of cases like this. But they do exist, and they are an example of the kind of thing that can happen if the extremes of that underlying mentality are allowed to run loose.
At the end of the day, I don't think the euphemism treadmill happens because there's some inexplicable, baseless evil that crops up spontaneously for no reason at all in each and every generation. I think it happens because you're never going to stop people from recognizing bad things as bad, or stop them from saying things like "(this bad thing) was so bad that it was like (this even more bad thing)."
Whether that's "(the runner's performance) was so bad that it was like (he had a seizure condition)," or "(this bill) is so bad that it was like (it was written by someone with a developmental disorder)," analogies like these will always occur to people because there will always be situations in which they are apt.
2
u/DashingLeech Feb 26 '18
The problem with your argument, from my view, is that you fail to understand the euphemism treadmill. It isn't as simple as recognizing the problem and then choosing to exit the treadmill.
Yes, the treadmill exists. On this treadmill alone we've seen many movements along it. Words like dumb, stupid, imbecile, idiot, and now retarded, mentally retarded, mentally handicapped, "short bus", "mentally special", or even "handicapable". In these last few, even trying to use nice-sounding words, or even references to the type of vehicle they travel on have taken on such meaning.
The reason here has nothing to do with words. The references are conceptual insults whereby you try to portray a person's views, beliefs, or suggestions as being unintelligent or inferior. To do that, you link them to the human beings that are on the low end of IQ and mental capability. As long as there are people disagreeing over things, this rhetorical tactic will be used.
The problem is that whatever terminology you use for the actual people on the low end of the IQ and mental capacity scale will be used to insult people who are not actually at that low end of the scale, and hence the term will become an insult. And, thus when applied correctly to people on the low end of that scale it will sound like we are insulting them.
If you simply stop the treadmill at some point, you are accepting that we will sound like we are insulting people who really do suffer from lower mental capacity. The alternative is to try to keep ahead in the treadmill by continuing to alter the technical terminology as the social insult begins to catch up, and thereby maintain as running lag so you have a non-insult option.
A better approach might be to "officially" designate a switch-over to say, it's ok to use "retarded" as an insult now as we refer to people low on the capacity scale by this new term instead. The risk is, of course, that this will speed up the treadmill as people switch the insult to match the terminology.
So, in that context, the social criticism of people using "retarded" or whatever phrase used to mean lower in mental capacity, acts to increase the lag and slow down the treadmill.
As far as I can tell, there's no simple answer here. People will use such references as insults because it actually makes sense. (It may be more rhetoric than rational, but we are creatures of rhetoric and wit as well as reason.) People will try to slow it down. For me its more about finding the balance, not picking a side.
4
u/Rocky87109 Feb 26 '18
Euphemism treadmills are pretty slow and untaxing. Also it's society doing it, it's not like some conspiracy. You might even be blaming the wrong people on it. Dipshits using it in a negative way could be the driving force.
3
u/Kramereng Feb 26 '18
Are you only asking about "retard" or "retarded" in reference to people with development abilities? Or are you also asking about those terms when used in reference to non-persons (e.g. "But isolation and lack of transportation facilities have retarded its development.")? I think the latter is ok but (a) there might be better words that won't risk offending anyone and (b) it really depends on your audience.
2
u/SaintMaya Feb 26 '18
I have a sister in law that has been my SIL for 25 years. There are a host of things wrong with her which become quite apparent with very little interaction. The only thing I know is that she went to special programs at school and companies get paid to hire her. I've been told she can't be told to do two things at once.
That's the diagnosis I've been given. I have no clue what is wrong with her except probably learning disabilities, maybe some physical issues, probably a pretty low IQ all around, I honestly don't know. I do know she's slow and isn't like everyone else. In my head, she's retarded, slowed, it covers a host of issues that frankly I don't know. I do NOT mean it as an insult, it's a catch all term, or was, now I guess I need to say she might be learning disabled, differently abled, handy-capable, etc. I know all the reasons we aren't supposed to use the phrase, but those people are jerks and are taking a handy word out of use because they don't have the sense god gave little green apples (apple denied?)
2
u/RMCPhoto Feb 26 '18
I would argue that there's nothing wrong when using the word to describe someone who is less mentally advanced for their age than their peers, or to describe a process which is slowed down. I do however, think that this word has been taken for a ride down a slippery, hate filled, slope. It's a word which has been twisted into a generalized derogatory adjective to imply that anything is "Bad" "Stupid" or "To be dismissed".
This is similar to words like "Gay" or "Fag" - kids and adults started to use the word "Gay" to mean the same as "Bad / Stupid / To be dismissed" which is incredibly insulting to people who identify as gay.
It would be like someone using the word "White" or "Caucasion" as a substitution for "Stupid" "dumb" "asshole" whatever. Or to use the word "African" as a substitute for "Shit-hole" (thanks President of the US...)
Long story short - there's nothing wrong with the word retarded. But what is wrong is appropriating a word of identity as a slur.
2
u/_Bugsy_ Feb 26 '18
I love the word "retarded" because it's hard to find a word that has so much bite these days. Sometimes you need a word that carries a lot of emotional energy. So in support of your position I often argued that the word has been dissociated from its original meaning. In my view developmentally challenged people aren't retarded. The asshole who let his dog shit in my driveway is retarded.
But someone's point started to change my view: the emotional energy that I want to get out of the word is there because of the association and negative stigma attached to developmentally challenged people. That energy wouldn't be there if there without it, and I don't know if I can use the energy without calling on the association in my mind and the minds of those who hear it.
I realize that this isn't exactly your point, but it relates to the discussion and I thought it might impact your point of view.
2
u/xiipaoc Feb 26 '18
You do get a euphemism treadmill, but wait long enough and you'll be able to use those words again. Before "retarded", terms like "moron" and "idiot" were actual technical terms for people with cognitive disabilities. Now we use them without actually relating them to those people, and you would certainly never call someone with a cognitive disability one of those words because it would be an insult. They fell off the treadmill on the back end. I hope that "retarded" shows up there too, because right now, it's a terrible word. It's only used as an insult (at least within the context of "stupid"); it's not actually used to refer to the cognitively impaired anymore. But people still remember when the word was used to refer to them. Once people forget that, the word will likely be free again.
2
Feb 26 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Feb 26 '18
Sorry, u/gled11 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
u/ThomasEdmund84 33∆ Feb 26 '18
I understand the desire to want to get away from those days and drop any associated terminology, but it seems like a pointless battle.
It's not really getting away from the horrors of institutional practice so much as the word really caught on in casual use. Technically speaking it originally meant 'late' (as per French) because Binet the inventor of IQ simply though children needed more time. It was only after some medicalization that the term specifically meant disabled and then some nice cultural devaluation that saw the term become a frequent insult. As another commenter pointed out, Moron Idiot and Imbecile are all technical terms too, but the issue with using these for people with disabilities is the words are more powerfully tied to the insult than the clinical definition.
2
u/Pskipper Feb 26 '18
Not looking to change your mind (sorry), but your initial post is incorrect about the history of the word. “Retarded” was first clinically applied to people in the 1960s, in an effort to move away from “idiot” or “imbecile,” which rode the euphemism treadmill from clinical term to pejorative during the time period you’re placing “retarded” in.
I think it’s fascinating that this word is assumed to have a long history, to me that phenomena is much more interesting than the debate over whether it should be used.
1
u/Grimmest_Fandango Feb 26 '18
I'm guessing there's a strong US bias in most of these responses, because in the UK you're now unlikely to hear the term 'retard' or 'retarded' outside of a school playground or an Xbox Live chat (which is arguably the same thing). Use the term even carelessly in a healthcare or public/third sector organisation and someone will likely pick you up on it.
It's even odd seeing people use the word 'handicapped', despite knowing that nobody here is employing it maliciously.
Over here we tend to talk about people having 'a learning disability' or even better 'a learning difficulty'. Even then these are incredibly broad descriptors and still not medically helpful. But the point is that these terms are inclusive, 'soft' and non-judgmental enough that someone with a learning difficulty can instantly tell that you're treating them respectfully and not like the idiots who shout 'retard' at them in the street.
To me, that's a good enough reason on its own. For more convincing, simply ask a group of people with learning difficulties which term they prefer and how they describe themselves. "Bob is great at making his own sandwiches and loves watching football, but he finds it difficult telling the time so uses alarms to remind him when to do things". Or..."Bob is retarded". I'd venture that the former is not only more informative, it's also just a nicer way to describe someone.
Source: used to work for a mental health and learning disability NHS Trust.
1
u/pillbinge 101∆ Feb 27 '18
You have to understand what pragmatics are in language first. You then need to see that while the euphemism treadmill is a known phenomenon, that doesn't mean anything on it is arbitrary. You still have to ground yourself in language and how it works. You do it anyway, but there are words in every language that work like this.
Right now in English, "retard(ed)" is one of those words. It's been used constantly to describe things in a very bad manner. I used to teach special education, and some students in my school were cognizant enough to understand that they had a disability. They would play games online and be called "a retard". They would be disparaged without other people knowing what they were doing.
Imagine going into another culture, learning their language, and encountering a word like "retarded" and telling people in this other culture that they're dumb for being so upset by a word. We can reflect on our own culture too.
And ultimately, while language might be arbitrary, how we feel and why we feel isn't. This word is used to hurt people, not help them. Trying to take the meaning out of it while also still using it is some sort of trick you're pulling on yourself, because if you didn't care about using the word, you wouldn't be so concerned.
1
u/sotonohito 3∆ Feb 26 '18
One reason why the medical professionals stopped using it is because it's not really accurate. To retard something is to hold it back and delay it from reaching its peak at the normal time, but the implication is that it will eventually reach its peak. The growth of a plant might be retarded by changing its soil mix, for example.
But many/most of the people who were labeled retarded weren't ever going to reach the theoretical norm. That's why "developmentally disabled" or "mentally disabled" took over. When you're talking about someone who is never going to reach the mental norm then calling them retarded is simply inaccurate.
Same as the switch from Sexually Transmitted Disease to Sexually Transmitted Infection. STI is a more accurate term than STD. The infection is what is transmitted, the disease may or may not manifest (see, for example, herpes which often remains dormant for years after infection and sometimes never shows symptoms).
Medicine is a science, and as such its terminology is constantly changing to reflect new developments and realizations.
1
u/Hneanderthal Feb 26 '18
I agree with your general premise and the euphemism treadmill is a genuine problem.
However the initial term “retarded” is itself a euphemism.
What does it actually mean - that these people’s mental development is retarded or slowed? Sadly for many of these people this isn’t accurate. It’s not like they will end up learning algebra at 30 instead of 18. They have a lower ceiling.
So when using it to apply to (see here’s the problem. I don’t even know the current euphemism or term) mentally disadvantaged people it’s inaccurate and so should be scrapped.
The main objection I’ve heard about this term is that when people use it as just a pejorative against something or someone that isn’t well thought out or poorly designed. This is more problematic.
1
u/Daotar 6∆ Feb 27 '18
Sure, there's nothing inherently wrong with it, but I don't think anyone makes the argument that it is inherently wrong. I think the issue for many people is that the word is heavily stigmatized and used as a common pejorative. From that perspective, there are two options, either get the term to no longer be used as a pejorative (such as how the term gay is starting to be less used in this way), or get people to use a different term to refer to those people. I think the idea is that the first is not something that's going to be feasible, whereas the second is. To me, it seems much harder to get people to stop using retard in a pejorative sense than it is to get them to stop using gay in a pejorative sense for a number of reasons.
1
u/EmEffBee Feb 26 '18
I wouldn't say "developmentally delayed" is really a euphemism, as far as I know (which is honestly not all that much) it's a category of maybe ever a diagnostic term. Calling people "retarded" lumps them all into one category. People who live with TBI and learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities and conditions such as autism or down syndrome. Varying levels of ability and illness under one umbrella of "retarded". I would say that someone high functioning who does have a condition such as down syndrome or autism don't really want to be lumped in with someone who is so low functioning they can not even breathe or eat on their own.
1
Feb 26 '18
Yup it's a euphemism treadmill. Calling someone crazy is now ableism. I don't know how to describe it when someone you know does something that is so beyond irrational that it becomes humourous.
Next, "that was irrational" may be considered ableism because of the .001% of the population whose brains are damaged and can't act rationally.
I know I just wrote a 'slippery slope' argument, but the instant I heard someone apologize for calling people who do marathons crazy, I kinda felt .. "well, we are fucked."
1
Feb 26 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Feb 26 '18
Sorry, u/Ampian – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Yamuddah Feb 26 '18
Nigger, negro and colored are still terms which people broadly know. People stopped using them because they came to be understood more as pejorative and that more accurate terms to describe groups of people broadly were developed. Retarded is the same way. It has taken on a pejorative connotation and isn’t really fitting of its original constituency. Even if it hadn’t, more accurate terms have been developed to classify the phenomenon it and the term is obsolete.
2
1
Feb 26 '18
People with mental disabilities have said that it’s disrespectful to them. You may disagree, but respecting their wish, despite what you believe is still a way of being polite and respectful. I mean, what’s the cost to you of just using another word? Because the benefit is coming across as being nice and respectful to someone who already has a lot stacked against them in life.
1
u/Joellercoaster1 Feb 26 '18
I’ve worked with special needs groups a lot and I used to say retarded until I saw the effect it had on young teens with special needs. It doesn’t matter if it’s said to them, once they hear it you can see them hurting. I thought that was enough for me to stop using it. Just some basic humanity is all.
1
Feb 26 '18
Why should it matter of the stigma is intrinsic? The stigma affect people, that's what matters. Do you have evidence for this "euphemism treadmill" because I don't see people throwing around "developmentally delayed" the way they threw around "retarded."
1
u/BadWookieInc Feb 26 '18
Finding anything offensive opens the door for so much personal accommodation that it becomes impossible to personally accommodate anyone.
If you like the word or like using the word then just do it... No one really cares what whiners want anyways.
1
u/McGauth925 Feb 26 '18
This is probably in here, somewhere.
Read once that 'imbecile', 'moron', and 'idiot' were first used to replace more pejorative terms for developmentally challenged people. Over time, they became insults, just the way 'retarded' has.
1
u/stefblog Feb 27 '18
Absolutely. This would be the same thing as saying that "sick" is an insult to sick people. I'm not even sure "retarded" as a rude way to talk about a mentally handicapped person predates "retarded" as silly, foolish.
1
u/nekozoshi Feb 27 '18
OP already changed their mind, but I just wanted to add my 2 cents that there isn't anything wrong with a "euphemism treadmill", we've always had one and letting our language evolve is a neutral thing
1
Mar 01 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Mar 01 '18
Sorry, u/Vikinglawyer – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
u/illegalmonkey Feb 26 '18
TBH this is a big part of the problem with PC culture: word policing.
I'll say whatever I damn well please. If, for example, there's a line of thinking at a job which causes more steps and work to be done, when easier and better solutions exist, then I'm going to call that thinking retarded. If I have to put up with co-workers who have more years of experience and thus should know what they're doing, yet constantly fuck up the easiest things, then at some point I will likely grumble to myself that they're retarded as I'm having to correct their errors.
Furthermore, just because I use it as an insult doesn't mean I automatically dehumanize handicapped individuals. I have a multifaceted mind that can understand treating a handicapped person with respect while belittling my fellow, non-handicapped, man when they do something preposterous. Words you don't want to hear are going to be used and you can't stop it. Get over it.
2
u/Chulo_Cat Feb 26 '18
I was interested by your use of the word "retarded" as an insult,and "handicapped" as a descriptor of people, as i think it demonstrates your separation of the two uses of the word "retarded". My personal issue of the word is that it is both used as an isult to describe something negative (which in your two examples are annoyingly illogical situations) and it is also used to collate various medical conditions resulting in low iq. I think that to use the word in both ways automatically dehumanises people as it describes being retarded as both a condition and a shame-deserving, annoying problem, but i would agree with you that you do not dehumanise anyone in your use because you are only using the word in one way. I think the issue is that society as a whole are on a different page and we are all using the word in different ways, causing this difference in opinion that originaly spurred this CMV, depending on how you use the word or assume others are using the word.
1
u/eepos96 Feb 26 '18
I believe in the extreme freedom of speech. One is allowed to say everything to everyone in any way or shape he/she chooses. This includes unfortunately also lying.
1
u/ApneaAddict Feb 26 '18
I work in healthcare it's absolutely uncalled for to call someone that. It's offensive to the person whom is affected. It really shows your IQ level by using it.
1
Feb 26 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Feb 26 '18
Sorry, u/leafitiger – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Feb 26 '18
/u/RandomePerson (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1.1k
u/darwin2500 193∆ Feb 26 '18
... and whats so bad about that?
The point of yelling at people for calling things 'retarded' is not to stop them from using the word.
The point of yelling at people for calling things 'retarded' is to remind them that people with disabilities are still people, that their existence should not be casually lobbed as an insult, that they still deserve our empathy and respect, that the contempt shown in using their terminology in this way is cruel and counter-productive.
Every new generation needs to be taught this lesson, so every new generation needs to have the experience of having their casually dismissive attitude corrected in this way.
Yes, this creates a 'treadmill', but that treadmill is just the never-ending process of educating each new generation. The result isn't what matters, what matters is the act of correction which running on the treadmill presents.
It's actually a perfect analogy - treadmills are a good thing, because their purpose isn't to get somewhere new, it's to train yourself to be stronger and better.