Retards, do they care?

[Phatscotty]

I call them sticks......ya stick!

[Metsfanmax]

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?)

I'm not here to make that determination for you, nor do I think there's an obvious bright line to be chosen. I see this particular instance as a clear case where a simple modification to vocabulary can result in the tighter integration of a substantial segment of society. The fact that it is difficult to find the dividing line is no excuse for choosing a bad dividing line. I said that people should reconsider it simply so that they are consistent with their own ethical systems. If, after reflection, they feel that there is not a net benefit to discontinuing the use of that word, then at least they are being consistent.

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).

The same could be said about "mean words" in the statement you made. I was using it as shorthand for "words that are used to reflect a bigoted attitude." I believe that the word retard, when used in a derogatory manner as an insult, is very commonly used to reflect a bigoted attitude.

[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.

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).

Hurm...

I can't think of a reason I would call a group of people retards. I mean, if a group of people continually hopped a fence and ripped their pants and damaged their junk, without a single one of them checking to see if the gate was open.....that calls for a word that is beyond stupid. I guess here I would say "what the hell people, are ya ALL f*cked in the head??"



I guess the closest thing I can relate to is Rorschach's first journal entry, where he says the awful city beneath him screams like an abattoir full of retarded children. I did not find offense in that sentence, to me the word helped describe a people who are helpless and don't understand what they yell about.

[Lootifer]

I'm not here to make that determination for you, nor do I think there's an obvious bright line to be chosen. I see this particular instance as a clear case where a simple modification to vocabulary can result in the tighter integration of a substantial segment of society. The fact that it is difficult to find the dividing line is no excuse for choosing a bad dividing line. I said that people should reconsider it simply so that they are consistent with their own ethical systems. If, after reflection, they feel that there is not a net benefit to discontinuing the use of that word, then at least they are being consistent.

I think in this particular case you need to step back a bit and really look at the root cause of the problem. We can fight the use of a word and even potentially get people to make better decisions around the language (victory!), however if they see a down syndrome kid walking down the street and still lower their eyes and try and pretend they're not there (i.e. seeing them as something less than human) then you aint gained shit in terms of society.

You teach people to genuinely respect everyone in their culture with equal worth and i am pretty confident most intellectually disabled people will not give a crap what they are called (reference: both my mother and brother have careers in teaching/caring for the intellectually disabled).

The same could be said about "mean words" in the statement you made. I was using it as shorthand for "words that are used to reflect a bigoted attitude." I believe that the word retard, when used in a derogatory manner as an insult, is very commonly used to reflect a bigoted attitude.

I can only talk about myself. I can wholeheartedly say they when I use the words idiot/muppet/retard I draw no connection to people who are intellectually disabled. I use those insults when someone makes a poor decision. Yes I make a minute increase in "net" bigotry in the world (or run the risk of), but I think my proactive behaviour on the side of the coin more than makes up for my "weakness" in this respect.

[Phatscotty]

I'll clarify too. What I was saying (to Mets) was that was the common term from my generation, and I still do not see anything wrong with using the word in it's proper context, but that goes for all words.

[mrswdk]

I'll clarify too. What I was saying (to Mets) was that was the common term from my generation, and I still do not see anything wrong with using the word in it's proper context, but that goes for all words.

Things change. Society changes.

[BoganGod]

I'll clarify too. What I was saying (to Mets) was that was the common term from my generation, and I still do not see anything wrong with using the word in it's proper context, but that goes for all words.

Things change. Society changes.

Thank you captain obvious!

Some excellent points here folks, thank you for your input.

I'm still leaning towards people other than the retard care more about the word retard. If someone calls me a fat gay cunt, I know that there will be others more offended than I am. Worked in commercial kitchens my entire adult life, can't think of anything I haven't been called, or accused of liking/doing/hating/loving you get the drift.

[BoganGod]

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 ?

Love it!

[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?)

I'm not here to make that determination for you, nor do I think there's an obvious bright line to be chosen. I see this particular instance as a clear case where a simple modification to vocabulary can result in the tighter integration of a substantial segment of society. The fact that it is difficult to find the dividing line is no excuse for choosing a bad dividing line. I said that people should reconsider it simply so that they are consistent with their own ethical systems. If, after reflection, they feel that there is not a net benefit to discontinuing the use of that word, then at least they are being consistent.

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).

The same could be said about "mean words" in the statement you made. I was using it as shorthand for "words that are used to reflect a bigoted attitude." I believe that the word retard, when used in a derogatory manner as an insult, is very commonly used to reflect a bigoted attitude.

1. Of course, but then we're back to accepting any range for using that word.

2. Sounds like fallacious reasoning, on your part again. You're just making that up.

And where's the causal link which demonstrates that using a Bad word causes more bigotry?

[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.

This is good criticism, but it's easy to counter. The author of that article you quoted exhibits exactly what I'm talking about. Mrs Courtier isn't talking about the author, but the author insists that she is. He then 'puts words in her mouth' and comes to his conclusion. Your (2) example is also a stunning example of what I'm talking about. Obviously, more than one person exemplifies his behavior; therefore, we can simply apply my description to these particular cases (which are plentiful). From what I observed, they're a common strain within the political correctness arena.

I agree that there are 'legitimate' reasons for people to be offended. Surely, even when someone makes the wrong conclusion, they can still get offended. This is 'legitimate', but it's still stupid.

Your social acceptance argument has yet to be demonstrated. A story about your time in kindergarten isn't convincing.

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.

(1) Wait, now you're switching it. Should non-Jews be offended by the words or by the implied policy recommendation? Or is it the loss of other people's lives--given our agreement on upholding at least classical liberal principles, which should concern us? If it's the former, then you'll need to use a more relevant example to clarify your point, and context matters. You're belaboring a dead point.

(2) For example, "You are being retarded" != "You are a Jew; therefore, you must die." Note the difference in the consistent application of the two statements. The first applies to one person (obviously). The second applies to one person (obviously--assuming 2nd person, singular), but the second statement has an obvious implication which applies to >1 Jew. The first statement does not have this implication. It only applies to one person, who is the target of the conversation. There is a difference between "you" and "Jew."

[Metsfanmax]

Yeah, I'm not going to continue this argument because it doesn't really matter. See my first post in this thread. If you know that people are hurt by the use of the word and you continue to use it anyway, that's on you.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, I'm not going to continue this argument because it doesn't really matter. See my first post in this thread. If you know that people are hurt by the use of the word and you continue to use it anyway, that's on you.

It's okay to acknowledge the limits of your position and to admit that you don't have sufficient evidence for your arguments--specifically about causes of bigotry and its relation to the use of words, but shutting down the debate isn't productive. It also fails to encourage a social acceptance of understanding and reason, so when you react this way, you should consider how others are affected by your behavior.

RE: your last sentence, again it's not that simple, nor is it clear that the onus is on the speaker--instead of on the eavesdropper, as has already been explained.

[Metsfanmax]

Yeah, I'm not going to continue this argument because it doesn't really matter. See my first post in this thread. If you know that people are hurt by the use of the word and you continue to use it anyway, that's on you.

It's okay to acknowledge the limits of your position and to admit that you don't have sufficient evidence for your arguments--specifically about causes of bigotry and its relation to the use of words, but shutting down the debate isn't productive. It also fails to encourage a social acceptance of understanding and reason, so when you react this way, you should consider how others are affected by your behavior.

RE: your last sentence, again it's not that simple, nor is it clear that the onus is on the speaker--instead of on the eavesdropper, as has already been explained.

I don't particularly have a position or stance. If you notice my first post, all I stated was that people do care. Do with that information what you will. If you think the 'eavesdropper' is in the wrong, so be it, and continue to offend. I think many people are willing to modify their behavior if they knew their behavior is offensive, and so those people should know when their behavior is offensive. The title of this thread is "do they care?" The answer is yes.

[Army of GOD]

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
/

Where do you stand?

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't particularly have a position or stance. If you notice my first post, all I stated was that people do care. Do with that information what you will. If you think the 'eavesdropper' is in the wrong, so be it, and continue to offend. I think many people are willing to modify their behavior if they knew their behavior is offensive, and so those people should know when their behavior is offensive. The title of this thread is "do they care?" The answer is yes.

Throughout the history of this thread, it was interesting to watch your argument start from a very minor point and expand into several larger points with possibly greater implications, but they expanded beyond their 'gravitational' foundation and were flung out into the Cyber Cosmos. All that remains is the very minor point of extremely faint implications--a Brown Dwarf of a point, as it were.

Oh, I apologize; let's settle on White Dwarf. I wouldn't want to offend 'brown' people. God damn it! Let's settle with White Little Star. I wouldn't want to offend short people like AoG. f*ck! Let's settle with "gosh darnit"---oops, 'f*ck' and 'gosh darnit' and 'white' have implied meanings for the fallaciously offended. Let's settle with "drat"--no offense to rats, and "Size-Impaired Star: Type A."

[Metsfanmax]

I don't particularly have a position or stance. If you notice my first post, all I stated was that people do care. Do with that information what you will. If you think the 'eavesdropper' is in the wrong, so be it, and continue to offend. I think many people are willing to modify their behavior if they knew their behavior is offensive, and so those people should know when their behavior is offensive. The title of this thread is "do they care?" The answer is yes.

Throughout the history of this thread, it was interesting to watch your argument start from a very minor point and expand into several larger points with possibly greater implications, but they expanded beyond their 'gravitational' foundation and were flung out into the Cyber Cosmos. All that remains is the very minor point of extremely faint implications--a Brown Dwarf of a point, as it were.

Oh, I apologize; let's settle on White Dwarf. I wouldn't want to offend 'brown' people. God damn it! Let's settle with White Little Star. I wouldn't want to offend short people like AoG. f*ck! Let's settle with "gosh darnit"---oops, 'f*ck' and 'gosh darnit' and 'white' have implied meanings for the fallaciously offended. Let's settle with "drat"--no offense to rats, and "Size-Impaired Star: Type A."

You have a very annoying habit of starting an argument where there was none, and then claiming victory when the other person is not interested in continuing the debate that you started.

[Phatscotty]

Should Huckleberry Finn be edited/censored/pulled from shelves?

[BigBallinStalin]

Unfortunately, some people have an unproductive style of advancing positions (thus arguments). They start with a position, build it into more positions, but then discard what they previously said in the face of rising counter-arguments. It's as if they lie to themselves that they made no previous arguments--except one minor point; it's weird. What explains this rejection of history?

Maybe they don't know what 'argument' means. The point of arguing/debate is to develop a better understanding of each person's position, and throughout this process, some positions can be demonstrated as false; conditionals can be changed; and so on.

For example, the claim 'bigoted words cause/reinforce more bigotry' is clearly an "if this, then that" argument, which is different from the other argument, "people should care about what others think about certain words." Why? To what extent should they care? Why is the onus on the speaker and not the fallaciously offended? [The defense of that position failed to advance]. When asked for evidence about the bigotry claim, one gives a kindergarten story. When pressured for better evidence, one throws up their hands and say, "oh it doesn't matter."

If you don't wish to debate/argue, then just say "[monologue] blah blah blah [/monologue]," and then refuse participate in the debate/argument. Monologues are not very productive nor scientific, but at least your intentions would be clearer. Also, there are some merits to your various positions ITT, but it's not very sportsmanlike to get fussy when you fail to defend your positions/arguments or to pull a jedi mind trick: "there are no arguments."

[Lootifer]

Should Huckleberry Finn be edited/censored/pulled from shelves?

I would be ok with editing*. I would be very strongly against censorship.

* By this i mean ctrl-f -> replace retard with mentally disabled and leave it at that (I cant remember what Huck Finn had in it btw, been a long time since I read them).

[saxitoxin]

I cant remember what Huck Finn had in it btw, been a long time since I read them.

I remember Huck and Jim were naked on a raft together for a week. At the time Huck was obviously under 18 and Jim was obviously an adult. Combine that with the underlying theme that Mark Twain presented - it was immoral for Huck to report Jim to the police.

EDIT: just looked it up ...

Soon as it was night out we shoved; when we got her out to about the middle we let her alone, and let her float wherever the current wanted her to; then we lit the pipes, and dangled our legs in the water, and talked about all kinds of things -- we was always naked, day and night, whenever the mosquitoes would let us -- the new clothes Buck's folks made for me was too good to be comfortable, and besides I didn't go much on clothes, nohow.

http://web.archive.org/web/201102120256 ... c&part=all

[Metsfanmax]

Unfortunately, some people have an unproductive style of advancing positions (thus arguments). They start with a position, build it into more positions, but then discard what they previously said in the face of rising counter-arguments. It's as if they lie to themselves that they made no previous arguments--except one minor point; it's weird. What explains this rejection of history?

Maybe they don't know what 'argument' means. The point of arguing/debate is to develop a better understanding of each person's position, and throughout this process, some positions can be demonstrated as false; conditionals can be changed; and so on.

For example, the claim 'bigoted words cause/reinforce more bigotry' is clearly an "if this, then that" argument, which is different from the other argument, "people should care about what others think about certain words." Why? To what extent should they care? Why is the onus on the speaker and not the fallaciously offended? [The defense of that position failed to advance]. When asked for evidence about the bigotry claim, one gives a kindergarten story. When pressured for better evidence, one throws up their hands and say, "oh it doesn't matter."

If you don't wish to debate/argue, then just say "[monologue] blah blah blah [/monologue]," and then refuse participate in the debate/argument. Monologues are not very productive nor scientific, but at least your intentions would be clearer. Also, there are some merits to your various positions ITT, but it's not very sportsmanlike to get fussy when you fail to defend your positions/arguments or to pull a jedi mind trick: "there are no arguments."

Please go back and read the OP. This thread is clearly about whether people who are intellectually disabled care about the use of the word retard. It is not about whether they ought to care. Your thesis is entirely off-topic, and so it is correct to say that the argument you created doesn't actually matter for the purposes of this thread. If you would like to have a discussion on whether it is indeed erroneous to care about that usage of the word, you are welcome to create a thread to do so. An example of a contribution which would actually be relevant to this thread would be to find someone with an intellectual disability who says they do not care about the word retard.

[khazalid]

my god, how is it possible to care this much about semantics? re-appraise / move on

[Phatscotty]

It's important, words are power. Whether or not something is right or wrong or just a matter of opinion, people are always going to use words and the banning of words to exert power and force over others.

Newspeak - The official language of Oceania. Newspeak is "politically correct" speech taken to its maximum extent. Newspeak is based on standard English, but all words describing "unorthodox" political ideas have been removed. In addition, there was an attempt to remove the overall number of words in general, to limit the range of ideas that could be expressed.

The most important aim of newspeak was to provide a means of speaking that required no thought what-so-ever. It uses abbreviations or clipped conjunctions in order to mask or alter a word's true meaning. For example, words such as Miniluv and joycamp, allow the speaker to speak without actually being force to think about what they were talking about.. or at least, not as much as if they were required to use complete phrases such as "Ministry of Love" or "Forced Labor Camp". These words just roll right off the lips before the speaker can even contemplate what he is really saying.

Reducing the number of words also removes any literary value to writing, because there would only be one distinct way to present any particular concept. It would be impossible to write a book like Common Sense , Uncle Tom's Cabin, or even 1984 in Newspeak. Not only would the correct words for certain concepts not be available, but a lack of adjectives would cause the writing would be completely bland and unemotional, which in itself would keep people from reading at all.

Here is the official definition from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

new•speak ('nü-"spEk, 'nyü-), noun, Usage: often capitalized. : propagandistic language marked by euphemism, circumlocution, and the inversion of customary meanings. Etymology: Newspeak, a language "designed to diminish the range of thought," in the novel 1984 (1949) by George Orwell. Date: 1950

be careful when people start telling you they will not tolerate you calling something exactly what it is. Not that some of the words we have discussed here aren't offensive, obviously they are to some people. But it's the next step to watch out for, when it becomes 'your kind of person cannot say anything offensive to this kind of person, but because of what kind of person you are, they can offend you all you want, because you deserve it"

[khazalid]

make up a new word then. give it any arbitrary definition and connotation you like. pick it well and watch it flower in the lexicon.

[Serbia]

You have a very annoying habit of starting an argument where there was none, and then claiming victory when the other person is not interested in continuing the debate that you started.

You have a very annoying habit of posting.



Bollocks.