Retards, do they care?

[Army of GOD]

Is anxious ever used as an insult?

f*ck YOU YOU DICK WEEDED MOTHERFUCKER

[MrPanzerGeneral]

Just as a by the by... the 1911 UK census form had a column at the end in which one could identify whether the named individual was "an imbecile, half-wit or feeble-minded".
It also had a column at the start to identify whether the position in the household was "head, wife, child, servant or lodger".
How times have changed... in those days one was either the head of the household or the wife...

or a child, or a servant, or a lodger.
Do you want help filling in the imbecile, half-wit & feeble-minded, bit ?

[clangfield]

Just as a by the by... the 1911 UK census form had a column at the end in which one could identify whether the named individual was "an imbecile, half-wit or feeble-minded".
It also had a column at the start to identify whether the position in the household was "head, wife, child, servant or lodger".
How times have changed... in those days one was either the head of the household or the wife...

or a child, or a servant, or a lodger.
Do you want help filling in the imbecile, half-wit & feeble-minded, bit ?

I think you've given me all the help I need.

[Army of GOD]

Beautiful mets.

There's your answer bogan. Inb4 you find some way to [internally] discount it and be at peace with your own world view.

You point at person with downs and say retard, i point at you and say disrespectful asshole. Are you ok with that?

The reason "asshole" is derogatory when used in this way is because it's used to imply that people, who have problems being polite to enough people, are inferior individuals.

Lootifer, please join the Circle of Hubris and regale them with tales of hypocrisy.

Isn't any name-calling offensive on some level? Even if you resort to the childish "doo-doo head", you're still calling someone a shithead, which is offensive. You can't name-call without offending. This whole debate is stupid.

Bollocks.

lrn2readmypost

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm sorry. Your post was so short, I simply overlooked it. Serbia did mention something or another, but when I scrolled back, I still couldn't find it.

[Lootifer]

You point at person with downs and say retard, i point at you and say disrespectful asshole. Are you ok with that?

You're contradicting yourself. You say it's not alright to call someone a retard, yet it's ok for you to call someone an asshole? Isn't calling someone an asshole implying that you think they're inferior ("otherwise it would not be an effective insult")? If a person with Down's doesn't have a choice to have it or not, doesn't an "asshole" not have a choice as well?

Either all of it is ok or none of it is. And frankly, the world would be boring as f*ck if none of it was.

(also, it's funny seeing people who make short jokes towards me [keep in mind I have no problem with the jokes, I'm just pointing out hypocrisy] lead the crusade against "retard")

You misunderstand my stance.

I would quite happily call, say, Timminz a retard for his pick the other week where he thought the Jags were gonna beat the 49ers...

I dont have a problem using the term in a degortory sense; much like I call my mates idiots all the time.

However I make no connection between the term retard and mentally disabled. I would find it very disrespectful to call someone with downs syndrome a retard without even knowing them (i.e. a generic term); this is because why do need to call them anything other than either someone with downs syndrome, or someone who is mentally disabled?

[Metsfanmax]

Isn't any name-calling offensive on some level? Even if you resort to the childish "doo-doo head", you're still calling someone a shithead, which is offensive. You can't name-call without offending. This whole debate is stupid.

Bollocks.

The question is who it's offensive to. If you insult someone, they may very well be offended. if you simultaneously insult a whole class of people, your insult has been brought to a whole new level. In your example, the only people who might be externally offended are people who literally have shit on their necks. Since there are not too many such people, that insult is much less likely to offend people other than the intended target.

As for BBS: unless you are willing to defend that all Jews other than the target of the conversation should not be concerned when someone says "You are a Jew, and therefore you should die," then your points are merely academic. Actually, even if you do defend that, they're still academic, because people are offended when people use the term "retard," regardless of whether they ought to be in some philosophical sense. The point is not that every person who uses the term "retard" in a derogatory manner actually believes that people with intellectual disabilities are inferior; instead, the point is that some of those people definitely do, and continued use of the term invites those people to continue being bigoted because they think it is socially acceptable.

[Phatscotty]

I guess that is the word my generation used, it's the word we learned. There is no way in heck that people, once they are grown, should be expected to change their vocabulary. They can if they want to, but you shouldn't get in trouble for it.

Whatever word you use now is tomorrow offense anyways.

[Metsfanmax]

I guess that is the word my generation used, it's the word we learned. There is no way in heck that people, once they are grown, should be expected to change their vocabulary. They can if they want to, but you shouldn't get in trouble for it.

Whatever word you use now is tomorrow offense anyways.

So then would you state that people from your parents or grandparents generation should not be held accountable for using the N word?

[Phatscotty]

I guess that is the word my generation used, it's the word we learned. There is no way in heck that people, once they are grown, should be expected to change their vocabulary. They can if they want to, but you shouldn't get in trouble for it.

Whatever word you use now is tomorrow offense anyways.

So then would you state that people from your parents or grandparents generation should not be held accountable for using the N word?

accountable? What, ya gonna give them a ticket or throw them in jail? Are black people from that generation held accountable as well when they say it?

Or is this the modern day version of "people can do/say that, UNLESS they are white, then there is a different set of rules"

[Metsfanmax]

I guess that is the word my generation used, it's the word we learned. There is no way in heck that people, once they are grown, should be expected to change their vocabulary. They can if they want to, but you shouldn't get in trouble for it.

Whatever word you use now is tomorrow offense anyways.

So then would you state that people from your parents or grandparents generation should not be held accountable for using the N word?

accountable? What, ya gonna give them a ticket or throw them in jail? Are black people from that generation held accountable as well when they say it?

Or is this the modern day version of "people can do/say that, UNLESS they are white, then there is a different set of rules"

Stop dodging the question. Is it ok for an old person to say it because they grew up thinking it was ok? Is it ok for someone who grew up in Nazi Germany to hate the Jews because they were raised that way?

[BigBallinStalin]

Isn't any name-calling offensive on some level? Even if you resort to the childish "doo-doo head", you're still calling someone a shithead, which is offensive. You can't name-call without offending. This whole debate is stupid.

Bollocks.

The question is who it's offensive to. If you insult someone, they may very well be offended. if you simultaneously insult a whole class of people, your insult has been brought to a whole new level. In your example, the only people who might be externally offended are people who literally have shit on their necks. Since there are not too many such people, that insult is much less likely to offend people other than the intended target.

As for BBS: unless you are willing to defend that all Jews other than the target of the conversation should not be concerned when someone says "You are a Jew, and therefore you should die," then your points are merely academic. Actually, even if you do defend that, they're still academic, because people are offended when people use the term "retard," regardless of whether they ought to be in some philosophical sense. The point is not that every person who uses the term "retard" in a derogatory manner actually believes that people with intellectual disabilities are inferior; instead, the point is that some of those people definitely do, and continued use of the term invites those people to continue being bigoted because they think it is socially acceptable[].

Thanks for clarifying your stance, thanks to my 'academic points', but my point still holds true: people can arrive at the wrong conclusions because of their fallacious reasoning. I'm not sure why you want to sweep that under the carpet.

Your Jew Scenario is a totally different form of dialogue than in the OP (i.e. calling someone, who is not mentally handicapped in some medical sense, retarded). Your scenario is about a policy on eradicating a group and relies on racist reasoning. We're not talking about policy recommendations concerning genocide. Those are calls to violence which definitely affect intended victims, whose conclusions are true--because they use correct reasoning. (e.g. "if that policy is enacted, I will be harmed"). This is totally different from our topic because in our topic the unintended victims use fallacious reasoning to arrive at false conclusions--given a conversation in which they are not at all directly targeted.
Therefore, the Jew Scenario is irrelevant.

We're talking about the use of insults where some users are bigoted; some users are not bigoted; and some unintended victims and defenders of those victims use fallacious reasoning to arrive at incorrect conclusions (my 'academic point'). Sure, they'll feel as if they've been wronged, but erroneous reasoning is not effectively addressed by banning words or supporting moral castigation of the use of that word.

In situations where your underlined holds true, then it's more effective to denounce such people as bigoted--instead of supporting fallacious reasoning to call for the prohibition of some unfavorable word. If you don't like 'call for the prohibition...', then change it to 'moral chastisement against the use of word X.'

I don't deny that some people are offended by remarks which are not directly applied to them. It's their interpretation which is incorrect, and instead of waving the banner of political correctness, it makes sense to explain to people why their reasoning is incorrect--be they bigots or unintended victims using fallacious reasoning. I'm not against moral chastisement against bigots--who actually are bigots, but I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon of fallacious reasoning in order to attack the bigots and any non-bigot who uses the same word (which is what you've been doing). That's just counterproductive because it makes fallacious reasoning socially acceptable, and it punishes non-bigots inappropriately.

You also haven't escaped the reductio ad absurdum of other insults like 'boring' and 'anxious', so again it's difficult to see why your position is correct.

Finally, I doubt using a word invites bigots to remain as bigots. They'll still be bigots nonetheless. Imposing some cost on that behavior may discourage their use of that word, but would it discourage being a bigot? I doubt it. Also, in terms of social acceptance, don't accept the bigot. That's more effective than imposing costs on bigots and non-bigots for the use of a certain word--while encouraging the social acceptance of fallacious reasoning.

[Phatscotty]

I guess that is the word my generation used, it's the word we learned. There is no way in heck that people, once they are grown, should be expected to change their vocabulary. They can if they want to, but you shouldn't get in trouble for it.

Whatever word you use now is tomorrow offense anyways.

So then would you state that people from your parents or grandparents generation should not be held accountable for using the N word?

accountable? What, ya gonna give them a ticket or throw them in jail? Are black people from that generation held accountable as well when they say it?

Or is this the modern day version of "people can do/say that, UNLESS they are white, then there is a different set of rules"

Stop dodging the question. Is it ok for an old person to say it because they grew up thinking it was ok? Is it ok for someone who grew up in Nazi Germany to hate the Jews because they were raised that way?

LULZ I'm not dodging the question at all???, but I needed to know what you mean by 'accountable', as I asked. Did you notice that I asked what you meant by accountable? I even took a stab at it myself, but I will repeat it again in case you aren't trolling.

accountable? What, ya gonna give them a ticket or throw them in jail?

I'm not going to compare a word to describe a people to murdering every people who are described xyz. Why do you keep doing that crap?

[Lootifer]

We're talking about the use of insults where some users are bigoted; some users are not bigoted; and some unintended victims and defenders of those victims use fallacious reasoning to arrive at incorrect conclusions (my 'academic point'). Sure, they'll feel as if they've been wronged, but erroneous reasoning is not effectively addressed by banning words or supporting moral castigation of the use of that word.

In situations where the underlined holds true, then it's more effective to denounce such people as bigoted--instead of supporting fallacious reasoning to call for the prohibition of some unfavorable word. If you don't like 'call for the prohibition...', then change it to 'morally chastisement the use of word X.'

I don't deny that some people are offended by remarks which are not directly applied to them. It's their interpretation which is incorrect, and instead of waving the banner of political correctness, it makes sense to explain to people why their reasoning is incorrect--be they bigots or unintended victims using fallacious reasoning. I'm not against moral chastisement against bigots--who actually are bigots, but I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon of fallacious reasoning in order to attack the bigots and any non-bigot who uses the same word (which is what you've been doing). That's just counterproductive because it makes fallacious reasoning socially acceptable, and it punishes non-bigots inappropriately.

You also haven't escaped the reductio ad absurdum of other insults like 'boring' and 'anxious', so again it's difficult to see why your position is correct.

Finally, I doubt using a word invites bigots to remain as bigots. They'll still be bigots nonetheless. Imposing some cost on that behavior may discourage their use of that word, but would it discourage being a bigot? I doubt it. Also, in terms of social acceptance, don't accept the bigot. That's more effective than not accepting the use of a certain word.

I agree, but I 100% believe that the OP was using the word retard in a bigoted manner. He was referring to a collective group of intellectually disabled people as retards; and therefore my asshole comment stands.

[BigBallinStalin]

In that context, I agree that he's not using the correct word to describe the intellectually disabled, so sure, he's trolling and/or being an asshole. "and/or" because it depends on how one values the comedy of this context.

[Lootifer]

Oh if hes trolling then he has me, but im hardly raging and/or emotionally engaged so i'd give it a 4, maybe 5 out of 10.

[Phatscotty]

it's not that we 'thought' the word retarded was okay, it WAS okay. That was the word for it. And no matter what you change it to, people are still going to say it the same way.

[Metsfanmax]

Thanks for clarifying your stance, thanks to my 'academic points', but my point still holds true: people can arrive at the wrong conclusions because of their fallacious reasoning. I'm not sure why you want to sweep that under the carpet.

The point I made in the underlined directly disproves your claim. You continue to argue that someone offended by the derogatory use of the term retard is offended because they assume that the person is referring to all of the intectually disabled. You thereby engage in the same mistake you accuse them of engaging in, by assuming their reason for being offended. And indeed, my point was that this is false because there are legitimate reasons to be offended even if you don't think the person using the term is bigoted against the intellectually disabled. You basically failed to respond to the particular one I provided, which is that it indirectly provides social legitimacy to the people out there who are bigoted and would use that social intolerance for nefarious means (I'll get to your one response at the bottom). Until you do respond to that, you cannot legitimately claim that it is in general erroneous to be offended by the use of the term.

Your Jew Scenario is a totally different form of dialogue than in the OP (i.e. calling someone, who is not mentally handicapped in some medical sense, retarded). Your scenario is about a policy on eradicating a group and relies on racist reasoning. We're not talking about policy recommendations concerning genocide. Those are calls to violence which definitely affect intended victims, whose conclusions are true--because they use correct reasoning. (e.g. "if that policy is enacted, I will be harmed"). This is totally different from our topic because in our topic the unintended victims use fallacious reasoning to arrive at false conclusions--given a conversation in which they are not at all directly targeted.

1) OK, fair enough -- shouldn't non-Jews also be offended by the statement "You are a Jew, so you should die?"

2) Even though the scenario is different, I was making the point that the statement is narrowly tailored -- the guy didn't say "all Jews should die," he just said it to one particular Jew. However, there is likely a chance that he does think that all Jews should die, so there is a good reason to be offended even though there's a chance we are erroneous in assuming that about this particular person.

We're talking about the use of insults where some users are bigoted; some users are not bigoted; and some unintended victims and defenders of those victims use fallacious reasoning to arrive at incorrect
conclusions (my 'academic point'). Sure, they'll feel as if they've been wronged, but erroneous reasoning is not effectively addressed by banning words or supporting moral castigation of the use of that word.

In situations where your underlined holds true, then it's more effective to denounce such people as bigoted--instead of supporting fallacious reasoning to call for the prohibition of some unfavorable word. If you don't like 'call for the prohibition...', then change it to 'moral chastisement against the use of word X.'

I did not argue for banning words or supporting moral castigation of the use of that word. The only specific action I'm calling for people to do is to actually think about the words they use, because words are powerful.

I don't deny that some people are offended by remarks which are not directly applied to them. It's their interpretation which is incorrect, and instead of waving the banner of political correctness, it makes sense to explain to people why their reasoning is incorrect--be they bigots or unintended victims using fallacious reasoning. I'm not against moral chastisement against bigots--who actually are bigots, but I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon of fallacious reasoning in order to attack the bigots and any non-bigot who uses the same word (which is what you've been doing). That's just counterproductive because it makes fallacious reasoning socially acceptable, and it punishes non-bigots inappropriately.

I cannot really argue with what you are saying here except to insist that the reasoning is not fallacious, for the reason described above.

You also haven't escaped the reductio ad absurdum of other insults like 'boring' and 'anxious', so again it's difficult to see why your position is correct.

Those don't apply for the same reason the "Jew scenario" doesn't apply, among other reasons. If you are describing a person you think is boring as boring, that is very different from describing someone who you do not think is intellectually disabled as a retard. Also, "retard" implies a particular group of people that can be clearly identified, whereas it is unlikely that anyone considers "boring" a defining characteristic of a social group, and so it is unlikely that anyone has ever been offended by the use of the term.

Finally, I doubt using a word invites bigots to remain as bigots. They'll still be bigots nonetheless. Imposing some cost on that behavior may discourage their use of that word, but would it discourage being a bigot? I doubt it. Also, in terms of social acceptance, don't accept the bigot. That's more effective than imposing costs on bigots and non-bigots for the use of a certain word--while encouraging the social acceptance of fallacious reasoning.

They may be bigots either way, but they're more likely to openly express their bigotry and attempt to influence others if they feel that their bigotry is more socially acceptable. When I was growing up in elementary and middle school, people used the word "retard" all the time to insult other kids. None of my young peers seemed to think it was inappropriate. As a result, most people don't think anything of the word (and many people I otherwise greatly respect use phrases like "fucking retarded" often). In this environment, bigotry can roam free. On the other hand, if we can convince people that it's not OK to compare someone to the intellectually disabled as an intended insult (regardless of whether or not that was the intent), then the environment will be a lot more hostile for bigots, and they won't be able to do much with their feelings. I would also argue that there is some amount of bigotry encapsulated when one uses the term, for the above reasons, even if you didn't consciously mean to make a bigoted statement.

[Lootifer]

it's not that we 'thought' the word retarded was okay, it WAS okay. That was the word for it. And no matter what you change it to, people are still going to say it the same way.

I dont have any issue with it as an insult. But the minute it becomes a generic insult you cannot also use it as a title for a bunch of people; if you do you are a bigot (connecting being part of some group with a derogotory label - you are implicitly being bigoted against that group of people).

[saxitoxin]

CURRENT SCORING FOR THIS THREAD

OKAY TO USE RETARD TO DESCRIBE NON-MENTALLY CHALLENGED PEOPLE ONLY - 2 points
Lootifer
BigBallinStalin

OKAY TO USE RETARD TO DESCRIBE MENTALLY CHALLENGED PEOPLE ONLY - 0 points


OKAY TO USE RETARD TO DESCRIBE EVERYONE - 4 points
Phatscotty
BoganGod
Serbia
Army of God

NOT OKAY TO USE RETARD TO DESCRIBE ANYONE - 3 points
Metsfanmax
mrswdk
/

[BigBallinStalin]

Thanks for clarifying your stance, thanks to my 'academic points', but my point still holds true: people can arrive at the wrong conclusions because of their fallacious reasoning. I'm not sure why you want to sweep that under the carpet.

The point I made in the underlined directly disproves your claim. You continue to argue that someone offended by the derogatory use of the term retard is offended because they assume that the person is referring to all of the intectually disabled. You thereby engage in the same mistake you accuse them of engaging in, by assuming their reason for being offended. And indeed, my point was that this is false because there are legitimate reasons to be offended even if you don't think the person using the term is bigoted against the intellectually disabled. You basically failed to respond to the particular one I provided, which is that it indirectly provides social legitimacy to the people out there who are bigoted and would use that social intolerance for nefarious means (I'll get to your one response at the bottom). Until you do respond to that, you cannot legitimately claim that it is in general erroneous to be offended by the use of the term.

Your Jew Scenario is a totally different form of dialogue than in the OP (i.e. calling someone, who is not mentally handicapped in some medical sense, retarded). Your scenario is about a policy on eradicating a group and relies on racist reasoning. We're not talking about policy recommendations concerning genocide. Those are calls to violence which definitely affect intended victims, whose conclusions are true--because they use correct reasoning. (e.g. "if that policy is enacted, I will be harmed"). This is totally different from our topic because in our topic the unintended victims use fallacious reasoning to arrive at false conclusions--given a conversation in which they are not at all directly targeted.

1) OK, fair enough -- shouldn't non-Jews also be offended by the statement "You are a Jew, so you should die?"

2) Even though the scenario is different, I was making the point that the statement is narrowly tailored -- the guy didn't say "all Jews should die," he just said it to one particular Jew. However, there is likely a chance that he does think that all Jews should die, so there is a good reason to be offended even though there's a chance we are erroneous in assuming that about this particular person.

We're talking about the use of insults where some users are bigoted; some users are not bigoted; and some unintended victims and defenders of those victims use fallacious reasoning to arrive at incorrect
conclusions (my 'academic point'). Sure, they'll feel as if they've been wronged, but erroneous reasoning is not effectively addressed by banning words or supporting moral castigation of the use of that word.

In situations where your underlined holds true, then it's more effective to denounce such people as bigoted--instead of supporting fallacious reasoning to call for the prohibition of some unfavorable word. If you don't like 'call for the prohibition...', then change it to 'moral chastisement against the use of word X.'

I did not argue for banning words or supporting moral castigation of the use of that word. The only specific action I'm calling for people to do is to actually think about the words they use, because words are powerful.

I don't deny that some people are offended by remarks which are not directly applied to them. It's their interpretation which is incorrect, and instead of waving the banner of political correctness, it makes sense to explain to people why their reasoning is incorrect--be they bigots or unintended victims using fallacious reasoning. I'm not against moral chastisement against bigots--who actually are bigots, but I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon of fallacious reasoning in order to attack the bigots and any non-bigot who uses the same word (which is what you've been doing). That's just counterproductive because it makes fallacious reasoning socially acceptable, and it punishes non-bigots inappropriately.

I cannot really argue with what you are saying here except to insist that the reasoning is not fallacious, for the reason described above.

You also haven't escaped the reductio ad absurdum of other insults like 'boring' and 'anxious', so again it's difficult to see why your position is correct.

Those don't apply for the same reason the "Jew scenario" doesn't apply, among other reasons. If you are describing a person you think is boring as boring, that is very different from describing someone who you do not think is intellectually disabled as a retard. Also, "retard" implies a particular group of people that can be clearly identified, whereas it is unlikely that anyone considers "boring" a defining characteristic of a social group, and so it is unlikely that anyone has ever been offended by the use of the term.

Finally, I doubt using a word invites bigots to remain as bigots. They'll still be bigots nonetheless. Imposing some cost on that behavior may discourage their use of that word, but would it discourage being a bigot? I doubt it. Also, in terms of social acceptance, don't accept the bigot. That's more effective than imposing costs on bigots and non-bigots for the use of a certain word--while encouraging the social acceptance of fallacious reasoning.

They may be bigots either way, but they're more likely to openly express their bigotry and attempt to influence others if they feel that their bigotry is more socially acceptable. When I was growing up in elementary and middle school, people used the word "retard" all the time to insult other kids. None of my young peers seemed to think it was inappropriate. As a result, most people don't think anything of the word (and many people I otherwise greatly respect use phrases like "fucking retarded" often). In this environment, bigotry can roam free. On the other hand, if we can convince people that it's not OK to compare someone to the intellectually disabled as an intended insult (regardless of whether or not that was the intent), then the environment will be a lot more hostile for bigots, and they won't be able to do much with their feelings. I would also argue that there is some amount of bigotry encapsulated when one uses the term, for the above reasons, even if you didn't consciously mean to make a bigoted statement.

Let's save ourselves some time.

Do your main points boil down to the following?

1. People should think about the words they use because it may affect others--even if they are not at all part of the conversation.
2. The use of mean words causes bigotry.

[BigBallinStalin]

CURRENT SCORING FOR THIS THREAD

OKAY TO USE RETARD TO DESCRIBE NON-MENTALLY CHALLENGED PEOPLE ONLY - 2 points
Lootifer
BigBallinStalin

OKAY TO USE RETARD TO DESCRIBE MENTALLY CHALLENGED PEOPLE ONLY - 0 points


OKAY TO USE RETARD TO DESCRIBE EVERYONE - 4 points
Phatscotty
BoganGod
Serbia
Army of God

NOT OKAY TO USE RETARD TO DESCRIBE ANYONE - 3 points
Metsfanmax
mrswdk
/

I am deeply concerned about the rampant inequality here. For the sake of egalitarianism, we need some brave souls to join the OKAY TO USE RETARD TO DESCRIBE MENTALLY CHALLENGED PEOPLE ONLY category.

[Metsfanmax]

Let's save ourselves some time.

Do your main points boil down to the following?

1. People should think about the words they use because it may affect others--even if they are not at all part of the conversation.
2. Use of mean words encourages bigotry.

Let me amend those to better summarize my views.

1. If people know that words they use (negatively) affect others outside of the conversation, they should reconsider their use of those words.

2. Use of bigoted words encourages bigotry.

[Lootifer]

I use muppet the most out of my idiot-based insults.

Do i need to think of the puppets feelings?

[BigBallinStalin]

1. If one person might be negatively affected by a particular word, should that particular word be used? (How much consideration needs to occur in order for you to be satisfied?)


2. What are the criteria for 'bigoted words'? (I don't get how a word itself can be bigoted. Bigotry requires human action within a specific context. For example, "nigger" itself can't be a bigoted word because it depends on the context, i.e. the speaker and audience of a particular dialogue).