“Retarded” can’t be a slur because it can be used to describe slowed/inhibited things that aren’t people. “Retard” is a slur derived from the adjective “Retarded”. Unlike the F-slur, N-word, and all the other colorful terms hateful people use to show people that they aren’t welcome on the basis of their identity, retarded has OTHER MEANINGS, and it is so much more apt a word than “Dumb” or “Slow” in so many contexts that it’s frankly (choose your adjective here) that we should have to walk on eggshells around it.
Expressing disrespect for a person for things outside their control is cowardly and close-minded. We should censor people who try to co-opt the group they are speaking in to express their prejudice. But extending the censorship of a slur to its root word, even for innocuous contexts, is an overreach of the social policing of our language. It sets a bad example, since ANY WORD can be made to be an insult to someone if used that way, and we set a bad cultural precedent by doing this for “retarded”
I understand that there’s no council that decides what is or isn’t acceptable to say, but I really wish people would think about this with a little more nuance than just “R-word detected, speaker shall be shunned” without considering the context. The way I see it, refusal to consider context is a redirection of the same kind of prejudiced thinking that makes slurs bad. But it’s being applied to a person’s speech rather than their identity, so it’s not as bad a thing to do.
They are entirely different words. No one is calling for an outright ban on those letters; that’s a sentiment you made up.
Don’t use it as a slur. If you are using the word in another, legitimate context where it’s not a slur, I don’t give a fuck. But stop arguing that those two uses are somehow indistinguishable because that’s just not true.
Edit:
Unlike the F-slur, N-word, and all the other colorful terms…
This is false. Examples: “cracker,” the b-word, the f-slur (in UK contexts), “queer,” “gay.”
All of these have other legitimate meanings. So, please reconsider your defense of this specific term, because you’re not even arguing it based on facts.
As someone who learned English through internet, I just thought it had the same meaning as idiot. Took me a long time to actually know the correct meaning.
I used it yesterday and feel kinda bad. Having said that, the guy I said it to was in an online lobby and I’d said one word on mic and he immediately asked if I was a baddie and told me to rate myself out of 10 for him.
I guess I’m getting too old. Is everyone these days offended by crumbs? And don’t come in with your vocabulary evolves, works both ways. Were I live everyone uses a multitude of slurs and nobody is hurt in the process, but if they do. Then they open their mouth and we have a civilized discussion about it. We’re nearing a point of a privacy invaded society by the people and not the governments at this rate, everyone is opinionated about everything and hurt in the feelings if someone doesn’t adhere to their vision on reality.
The issue is, though you may make a distinction between “I’m using this slur as an insult and not against its targeted oppressed minority”, bigots make no such distinction. Hearing others use the slur and normalize it emboldens these bigots to use it against vulnerable minorities, backing up to “I didn’t mean it that way” when they get called out. The word’s legacy also tangles with a fair bit of racism, as children of minority races were often labeled “mentally retarded” for poor English skills or just so they could be shuffled out of class after school segregation was ended. It’s just a word, yes, but one with a lot of ugly history in the US at the very least.
Plus, the dislike of the word really isn’t new, it just has more support these days. We have lots of other words to choose from, what’s the harm in avoiding this one?
I think that’s why I also don’t have this understanding for it, I’m not a native English speaker and our language has a ton of curse words. Cursing with disease is frowned upon more than other words
Is it okay if I direct it towards myself even if I’m not the targeted oppressed minority. Like “damn I’m a retard”, since that’s basically the only way I use the word anyhow.
Me and my friends were all the 1980’s definition of retarded. We all informed each other of this fact constantly. You know who was never ever called retarded??? The kids with learning disabilities. They never got that label because it was always used to refer to hyperactive dumbass sugar junkies causing needless mayhem while hurting themselves in the process. Those were the “retards” as per the common usage at the time.
How would you feel if something you couldn’t change about yourself was used by your peers as an insult? You really don’t see how using the word “retarded” as a stand-in for “stupid” is still an insult to people with mental disabilities? If someone was acting stupid and you said they were acting “like a Chinese person” that’s still insulting to Chinese people even if the person you’re targeting isn’t Chinese.
Also I’m calling shenanigans on “the 1980s definition”. I am the same age as you and I was taught it was cruel to use the word that way back then.
I don’t think I’ve used the word once since high school. Had it been generally unacceptable back then, I wouldn’t have done so. I graduated high school in 2004, and it was at least an acceptable insult back then (though not to call a disabled person), I think. I was a jackass in high school, though, so I could be wrong.
Either way, it offends people now, so we shouldn’t say it. It’s that simple. Deliberately offending people just makes you an asshole.
I think saying it was acceptable is a stretch. I agree it was certainly more commonplace and more acceptable than now, but it was still criticized a good bit.
You’re absolutely right. I meant it was “acceptable” – I don’t recall hearing people judged for saying it, but that was among an immature, high school crowd. It was definitely considered offensive to use as a label, rather than an insult (which was on the same level as f*g; not acceptable, but commonplace).
Fun fact: Abbott sells methylphenidate chlorohydrate with a retardant effect so that it lasts for approximately 16 hours instead of 4, and they called it Aradix Retard lmao. I know why they called it that but I can’t help but laugh every time I see it.
Not your fault of course but it was always a stupid name. It isn’t arrested or inhibited, during a stage of development, resulting in an underdeveloped outcome (retarded). Like a fire retardant door stops the fire developing, as it would usually on doors. In the case of this drug, the release is inhibited, as its, presumably, a pro-drug.
They could have called it “long lasting”, “pro-drug”, “pro”, “inhib” or “slow release” and these would have all been accurate descriptions. However, retarded isn’t accurate. They chose it anyway though.
buh-buh-buh but what about when I refer to mechanical engineering! what about when I need to adjust my cam timing! oh no!
I dunno, I would broadly agree and I think that it’s probably not a good thing to be calling people, but I do have two complaints I would like to file with the official board that governs this sort of thing. Neither of them relate to the word’s banned usage, however. Of course, it’s still gonna be a little weird.
One is that I like -tard as a suffix, I think it has a kind of satisfying mouthfeel in pronunciation, I think potentially we need some more words that use it, and I don’t think that as a kind of, like, workaround, or way to say the slur more. I kind of wish the suffix was dissociated from the slur, so this was more possible. The only other word I can think of that does this is mustard, which apparently arrived at a similar pronunciation through a different etymological route. I dunno, I find it to be a kind of like, inherently hilarious word, or satisfying word to say. Unusual, maybe, maybe like an unusual morpheme pairing. Maybe I have some level of just like unprocessed shitheadery though, that’s very possible. I also kind of wish there was a way that actually worked to de-escalate the weight of a slur, to rob it of it’s weight. Obviously, taking it back doesn’t do much, because it’s just going to be subject to the same in-ground out-ground dynamic, a la the n-word, right. It’s okay if gay people call each other or themselves the f-slur, it’s not okay if some straight guy walks in and does it. More positive associations might work but then, you know, doubtful that would work in the first place, and also you’d probably not see a lot of people wanting to take the L and push it on that one because everyone would hate them for it, both the people insulted and those who would use it as a insult.
Also, I don’t like this kind of mentality more broadly of “oh you gotta be more creative when you insult people.”. Some people are so boring and uninterestingly fucked, that they aren’t worth the creativity you expend upon insulting them. I think it just kind of shadows the problem here. No, you don’t want to say the word because it denigrates an entire group of people when you use it in an insulting manner. There’s not really anything there about creativity, or lack thereof, that makes it a moral problem. Sometimes you do need a low-rent insult, it should just be one that isn’t a slur. Call someone a shitheel, or something, it’s easier than this, there are plenty to choose from.
Okay, thirdly, I think there’s also a broader, and interesting question here, of, how an insult being based on like, unchangeable characteristics makes it more mean or more of a slur, right. But then that sort of, leaves out things we might consider as being changeable, like, say, body weight, which I would also say is a dick move, to insult someone on the basis of their weight, or to constantly bring it up, or anything like that. On the other hand, insulting someone on the basis of their eye color is maybe like, very antiquated, still potentially mean, and potentially very mean in like, maybe india? But I dunno so much if it would be considered a slur, really, as much as just kind of a very weird thing to bring up. Insulting someone on the curliness of their hair, maybe, but then that could be seen as a proxy for other things, just like most traits. It’s hard to do this with something too obvious because most of them have been historically associated with like, eugenics and shit like that. Maybe if you were to insult someone based on how big their feet are or something, that might be a more socially acceptable or lighthearted insult, even if it’s still mean.
We also have, like, technically all characteristics are unchangeable, if we live in a deterministic universe, right? Insulting someone’s intelligence, even if they don’t have autism or down syndrome or what have you, is still insulting a deterministic aspect of their character, which was sort of unavoidable for them to stumble into. If you insult someone for even, their choice of boots, right, you are just insulting a characteristic about them which was ultimately inevitable, the result of many dominoes falling into place. I think perhaps when we attempt to understand the purpose of insulting someone, we give it this guise of free will and agency which I think ultimately makes it more mean than it would otherwise be. It robs it of its whimsy.
We view insults as some sort of like, vehicle for tough love, vehicle for change, perhaps, or we view it as maybe righteous, because you’re insulting someone on something they can change and by implication I think, should change. I think we have to be honest, though. Insults are not for the people who are being insulted. They are for the people saying them, they have always been. If that’s the case, it doesn’t even need to be really related to the person you’re insulting at all, or even necessarily directed at them. It doesn’t need to be such a mean thing, if it’s just for you. And if it is just for you, then I think it’s more valuable to do that assessment and figure out why you’re actually doing it, instead of just like, giving into mindless frustration and calling someone a mean name, like a child.
Blahaj.zone admin here. Let me make this simple and clear. I don’t care what specific word you use, if you are using intellectual disability or neurodivergence as an insult, you’re going to get moderated.
lemmy users will hear “i don’t care what word you use, don’t insult based on disability or neurodivergence” and say “sounds like silence to me, too bad the mods won’t answer my questions of if certain words are allowed”
If I call you “stupid,” “moronic,” or “intellectually bankrupt” you know what I’m saying. Getting offended by the specific wording of an ad hominem, while giving synonymous terms a pass, is truly some of the finest hair-splitting I have ever had the displeasure of seeing.
Imagine calling the difference between people who do stupid things and people who are born with diagnosed mental illnesses “splitting hairs”.
It’s very, very simple. In one case, you are attacking someone who is completely in control of their mental facilities. In the other, you are attacking people who are literally incapable of defending themselves, from birth. They are not synonymous. If you think that level of punching down is okay, then be as indignant and self-righteous about it as you want, but you deserve to be told.
So, we’re just going to pretend that language doesn’t evolve because it justifies your bias?
People didn’t put their foot down when the meaning of those words began to shift, and now they mean something entirely different. In our more socially and culturally aware culture, we as a people understand nuance and are generally educated enough to see what’s happening. We have by and large decided that it’s a bad thing to continue normalizing attacking the mentally disabled.
Fuck off with your pseudo-intellectual defense of toxic, dehumanizing culture. Words mean things. The things they mean can change. Those ones, in a less educated and accepting time, did. The ones we have now have not. Your attempt to dismiss that is genuinely hateful.
The push to get people to stop saying it Streisand Effected the word into a slur. There’s no reason it shouldn’t have just gone the way of “moron,” except people turning it into a bigger problem than it ever had any right being.
The entirety of your final paragraph reads like a guilt by association fallacy.
The push to get people to stop saying it Streisand Effected the word into a slur. There’s no reason it shouldn’t have just gone the way of "moron,
Sure. But it didn’t. And now it is a slur. And no matter how much you’d like to defend your version of the word, that isn’t what it means. Sitting in your own bubble and insisting on your own version of language history doesn’t change the meaning of the word to the evolving world.
Add comment