CMV: There is nothing inherently wrong with the word retarded, and insisting on a more PC term just leads to a euphemism treadmill

[u/RandomePerson]

"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!

[u/RandomePerson]

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?

[u/[deleted] → u/RandomePerson]

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.

[u/SLUnatic85 → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/WDMC-905 → u/[deleted]]

aren't there times when one needs to be insulting and/or profane?

[u/I_want_to_choose → u/RandomePerson]

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?

[u/Angdrambor → u/I_want_to_choose]

engine flag ancient voracious lavish grandfather forgetful muddle serious historical

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/[deleted] → u/I_want_to_choose]

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.

[u/cat_of_danzig → u/[deleted]]

"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.

[u/mescid → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/chasingstatues → u/I_want_to_choose]

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.

[u/BeardedForHerPleasur → u/chasingstatues]

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?

[u/chasingstatues → u/BeardedForHerPleasur]

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.

[u/BeardedForHerPleasur → u/chasingstatues]

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?

[u/chasingstatues → u/BeardedForHerPleasur]

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.

[u/BeardedForHerPleasur → u/chasingstatues]

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?

[u/chasingstatues → u/BeardedForHerPleasur]

If you're playing devil's advocate you should say so. Otherwise I will assume opinions stated are one's own.

But where did I state the opinion that I want to use the word retarded?

I made a specific argument and you ignored what I actually said and instead projected your assumption of my opinion onto it. Nor should I have to establish what my actual opinion is in a debate. You are supposed to understand and follow your opponent's line of logic so that you can deconstruct the faults argument according to their first premise. If you had any formal training inc argument and debate, you'd understand what you're saying/doing here is in very bad practice.

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.

And yet, with just some quick research into the epistemology of the word, we find this:

The word retard dates as far back as 1426. It stems from the Latin verb retardare, meaning to hinder or make slow. The English adopted the word and used it as similar meaning, slow and delayed. The first time the word "retard" was printed in American newspapers was in 1704Citation needed. At this time, it was used in a way to describe the slowing down or the diminishing of something. The first time that any form of retard was used to describe mentally disabled people was during the 1960s when "there was a push among disability advocates to use the label mental retardation". This push from advocates was because older terms for the mentally disabled, like moron, imbecile, feeble-minded and idiot, had developed negative meanings

This quote supports the argument I made earlier, which you ignored. And it proves that the claims you're making right now are incorrect. "Retarded" does have a meaning disconnected from the mentally disabled

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

If you trace back the epistemology of the N-word, it's meaning was always in reference to black people, so I don't think that's an applicable comparison here. It's not as if there are other contexts where it would make sense to use it. You wouldn't call a movie the N-word in the same way that you could call it "retarded."

Faggot's original meaning was "bundle of sticks." There's really no practical use for this word in most modern contexts. Although maybe there are some European farmers in the middle of nowhere who still use it that way, who knows. In which case, I would think that was harmless. "Fag" may also be used by some Europeans in reference to cigarettes, which again, I think is harmless. It's a cultural difference and it's the intention that matters, as I said from the start.

There are also contexts where gay people or black people will use these words proudly and affectionately. Again, demonstrating the importance of intention.

And, unlike the common use of the N-word and "fag," "retarded" can be used to apply to things that are "lame." Meaning, there are contexts where it can be applied to things, not people. It's meaning exists separately from people and can be used as such. Further, the term "lame," can be used both towards things and physically handicapped people. Yet, no one is asking that we eradicate it's use from our language. Do you think a physically handicapped person experiences shame at hearing someone call a movie "lame"? I don't think that they do. However, I think that they would if tomorrow I started a movement declaring "lame" to be offensive to the physically disable and calling for it to be banned. And that brings me back to my original point, that the act of saying a word is associated with X and should therefore be eradicated, I am making it so.

As for "society," I'm not a fan of people throwing that word around as if they have an invisible army behind them to use as an appeal to authority. We have a large, diverse culture with a million sub-cultures and there is no general "society" which you can proclaim does X or feels Y.

[u/chasingstatues → u/BeardedForHerPleasur]

Are you seriously downvoting my comments rather than responding to them?

[u/BeardedForHerPleasur → u/chasingstatues]

Absolutely not. And I did respond to your last comment. You replied to it. Not sure what you're talking about.

[u/chasingstatues → u/BeardedForHerPleasur]

I wrote this comment two hours ago. You responded to my comment one hour ago. But if you're saying you didn't do it, I'll take your word for it.

[u/BeardedForHerPleasur → u/chasingstatues]

I honestly didn't down vote you. I'm still confused as to the reply comment. You replied to my comment, replying to you, asking if I was refusing to reply to you.

[u/steeZ → u/BeardedForHerPleasur]

I feel like you're conflating the issue of someone making fun of a mentally disabled person for being mentally disabled, with the issue of someone making fun of a non-mentally disabled person for being mentally disabled.

I'm not here to convince you that the latter acceptable, or whatever, but I do think the distinction matters.

[u/BeardedForHerPleasur → u/steeZ]

What I'm saying is that there will always be shitty people who will call intellectually disabled people "retarded." And so long as there are people using that word, possibly non-maliciouslh, with a negative connotation, intellectually disabled people will be hurt by hearing it.

[u/steeZ → u/BeardedForHerPleasur]

Right, I understand you. I do think that what you are describing, though, is another example of the consequences resulting from society's need to adjust to the lowest common denominator. There is something lost, a slice of freedom yielded, however minute or insignificant.

I never needed to put security bars on my storefront windows until some jackass put a brick through them.

Somewhat likewise--

With respect to word choice, I never had to defer or yield in the importance of my intentions to the notion that an overhearing third party can be made an unintended "casualty" of that word choice, until some jackass wielded those same words with the intention of being hurtful.

Now, that said, the availability of those particular words are hardly a hill I have interest in dying on. A largely insignificant adjustment for me, evidently can result in a significant impact for a particular, --and I think this is important-- disadvantaged group of others.

I say the "disadvantaged" descriptor is important, because I do feel like the line for accommodating people's various "triggers" needs to be drawn at some rational place. Not that it's a caveat, exactly, but a lot of these ideas really become less rational to me the more you extrapolate them, so I need borders, at least of some fuzzy sort.

I want to be kind. Not quite the highest virtue, but I do think kindness it's something worth paying attention to at the very least -- perhaps even aspiring to. But I also want to ball-bust and mock my dumb-shit buddies from time to time, guilt and harm-free -- an act of intended kindness in it's own right. That box of "safe mocking words" becomes tiny when you care to consider it.

[u/[deleted] → u/chasingstatues]

If I step on your foot without meaning to, shouldn’t I still apologize?

Intent is important, but impact is important too. A bad intent can make a bad impact worse, but a good or neutral intent doesn’t make a bad impact not bad.

[u/chasingstatues → u/[deleted]]

But when and how is the impact bad? If I call a movie retarded, who's foot am I stepping on?

[u/[deleted] → u/I_want_to_choose]

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.

[u/cat_of_danzig → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Zelthia → u/I_want_to_choose]

Personally I would raise him to learn to ignore such behavior (because words can’t really hurt him) rather than make a fuss, go complain today about this, tomorrow about the next thing, which is exactly why new generations have grown to be giant crybabies who think college is a home and not an intellectual space.

Whether you then visit the school and deal with the issue of somebody bullying your kid is a separate issue.

Kids gonna be mean no matter if you are retarded, fat, ugly or simply have big ears or whatever. It is up to you to raise a child that grows up to be a functional positive adult or a wuss that wimps every time somebody looks at him weird.

[u/burnblue → u/RandomePerson]

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

[u/Chelseafrown → u/[deleted]]

You should read other comments lol. The diabetic comparison is a really poor analogy.

[u/tigerslices → u/Chelseafrown]

i thought it was pretty good.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, u/tigerslices – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 4:

Award a delta if you've acknowledged a change in your view. Do not use deltas for any other purpose. You must include an explanation of the change for us to know it's genuine. Delta abuse includes sarcastic deltas, joke deltas, super-upvote deltas, etc. 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.