Use of the word "retarded" as a put down.

Not being able to use retarded would be retarded.

 

Two things:

1. I want to thank BTG for continuing to fight the good fight

and

2. Please stop spelling it 'retarted'! Unless you're talking about something being tarted yet again, the term is 'retarded.' It is a 'd' in it.

 

Of course, people who don't agree with Bob are clearly wrong and fighting the 'bad fight'

That said, I agree with Jeff(but you already knew that)

 

a) If someone is posting something like "Well, you're retarded", it doesn't really matter as to whether you are insulting a group of people or not. Unless you are making a definitive statement as to a person's mental capacity based on both clinical evidence and clinical guidelines (and no, being stupid or saying something absolutely moronic does in now way, shape or form come close) you are flaming a person and therefore should be dealt with as such.

b) Unless you are referring to someone being repelled from another object, saying "You're retarded" is an insult, thus a flame, thus should be dealt with as such.



Otherwise, yes every other usage of the word comes down to context and whether its use is offensive. But something to remember is that just like calling something "gay", it isn't not about the pure definition of the word as you are using it, but the connotation that it draws to emphasise the point you are making (otherwise you'd be using another word instead). Even this quote from above "I'd say I love you for that post, but then I might be considered gay." can be taken to be offensive since that while there was no direct insult, the connotation of what is being said is that being labelled "gay" is derogitory. Just because something is in the "common vernacular" does not automatically make it acceptable since the larger majority of words that do end up becoming slang words are there for their derogitory nature.

I have always taken offense to people using "gay" to derisively describe something, the exact same way Bob, Night, Eagle and others do in "retarded". I'm not going to go around and hound any and everyone for using it though because I came to the realisation a long time ago that humanity is stupid and lazy and cannot get off it's collective behinds and put more than the smallest amount of thought into doing or saying anything.


That does not though mean that the JC has to cater to the lowest common denominator. Just because something is considered slang and people use every day does not automatically mean that we have to accept it here. These are (surprisingly enough considering some people never leave certain specific forums) discussion forums that in and of themselves imply the usage of at least a small amount of thought into writing down the words that you are going to submit when you hit the post button. There is the option of a general encouragement/enforcement of a standard in regards to the language that is used. And it is also partially subjective given the entries that do exist in the "allowed/disallowed words" list.


My point? Just because you lack the sufficient amount of consideration for others, and the vocabulary to actually be able to express yourself without having to fall back on base language does not mean that it actually has to be the accepted standard for these forums.

 

Damn, Dingo just made a great point I've been trying to articulate and failing horribly at. Thanks.

 

On the one hand, I suppose you can't stop people using a particular word, especially if they think nothing of it. On the other hand, if I had been born retarded, I would hate going through life as somebody's insult.

 

My point? Just because you lack the sufficient amount of consideration for others, and the vocabulary to actually be able to express yourself without having to fall back on base language does not mean that it actually has to be the accepted standard for these forums.

The simple response to that, though, is that just because some people are offended by a term does not mean that it needs to be outlawed either, or removed from the accepted standard for these forums.

I, personally, believe that we should limit what terms we prohibit as much as possible. We shouldn't permit profanities, because the owners have asked us to. Personally, I don't use them myself (I believe that swearing shows you lack the vocabulary to keep from swearing). Similarly, there are other terms that we have been told to edit. Beyond that, I don't think we should keep expanding the list.

Yes, people should try to be sensitive to others' feelings when they speak. In high school, my friends knew what my opinion on swearing was, and they started apologizing to me (without me saying anything to them asking them to stop) whenever they swore. However, that sort of thing has to work both ways. Just like they would try not to offend me with their language, I tried not to get offended by their language. If someone says something that you don't like, you shouldn't get all bent out of shape over it. It demonstrates a certain level of maturity to respect others, and that includes both by watching what you say and in controlling your reactions to what they say.

Kimball Kinnison

 

The simple response to that, though, is that just because some people are offended by a term does not mean that it needs to be outlawed either, or removed from the accepted standard for these forums.

Perfectly true, and frankly removing something purely because someone takes offense at it would result in us just locking up the forums and going our merry way. But at the same time, something does not have to be offensive for it to be considered unwanted at these forums (as two widely different examples, slash fiction and religious threads in the JCC (in reference to past policy of just banning them outright) are not offensive at all, but are not permitted). And before anyone starts jumping on the bandwagon of outlining the reasons as to why my specific examples are prohibited: a) I participated in both of their removal from the forums, and b) read to the end of the post for my point.

Kimball, you are perfectly correct that the respect has to go both ways. That doesn't though proclude an establishment of a standard. Bringing up high school situations works well, since that was going to be my example. There is a difference in the expectation of the standard of language that is used inside the classroom as to what is used by people in the playground. It is that kind of difference that I am referring to since the boards themselves lean more towards discussive and debative classes than they do to the middle of the playground.

Now, while what I have said is likely to cause more arguing in here, to be frank in the end I personally don't actually care if what I say is the majority, minority or just plain singular opinion because I'm not setting out to convince every single person to agree enough to get change happening through a majority pressure. As in my first example above, and as KK has brought up in regards to some of the prohibited words/phrases, there are only 4 people who could decide anything over this, the 2 owners and the 2 Head Administrators/Supreme Chancellors. This is something that they have to read over, consider all the viewpoints and then place them against what they individually and collectively want for these boards, and make a decision.

 

Even this quote from above "I'd say I love you for that post, but then I might be considered gay." can be taken to be offensive since that while there was no direct insult, the connotation of what is being said is that being labelled "gay" is derogitory.

Why of course, if you take it out of context. Read the whole post and you realize it's not derogitory at all. Read back to Strilo's last comment and you realize that it was an allusion to that statement made in jest.

Judas Preist, you can take anything out of context and twist it around 180 degrees.

BILLY: "Hey look, the Bible says 'kill' in it!"
LARRY: "No, it says 'do not kill.'"

Of course, now I await everyone named "Billy" and "Larry" on the boards to come swooping down and proclaiming their misrepresentation in that example.

 

retarded lol

 

Honestly people, The dictionary definition is:

To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede.

This is suprisingly similar to stupid. Being:

Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.

Now what is the big bloody deal here? I thought this kind of thing would settle down a little bit when people realized that not everyone says the word "retarded" as an insult to the mentally ill/handicappe. Apparently, I was mistaken.

To set the "gay" thing to rest: If I am to say "this thread is gay" then I am saying one of two things.

1) This thread is Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.

2) This thread is Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex. Also known as homosexual.

One of which doesn't fit at all. This thread is far from happy, or lighthearted. THerefore the only possible definition would be homosexual. Seeing as this thread isn't a living being, it therefore cannot have a sexual preference towards it's same sex. Hence, the only way I can percieve that comment is to be a figurative comment comparing the word "gay" with "stupid" (at least most commonly with the word stupid). This is impolite (among other things)

However, with the word "retarded" it is a different story. If I were to say "this thread is retarded" I would be saying one of two things.

1) This thread is To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede.

2) This thread is Often Offensive. Affected with mental retardation. (please notice the "often offensive" ie, not PC anymore)

Now in this case if I am implicating this thread to be stupid... I am doing just that. As I showed above the definitions for Stupid and Retarded are rediculously similar if not almost identical. You cannot say that I am implicating this thread to be mentally ill... because it has no mentality. And with the first definition fitting as a synonym for stupid, what's the big freakin deal here? If you think that they mean it offensively... hell ASK THEM ABOUT IT!!! If they didn't mean it offensive, then what's the big deal? Your just being over-sensitive at that point.

Remember the adage: He who takes offense when offense is not given is a fool.

JMA

 

If the thread was proceeding at the pace of one post per hour then yes, it would be retarded. If it was to be cut short before it finished it would be retarded. If someone were standing in the way of the thread it would be retarded.

Because you don't like a thread DOES NOT make it retarded.

 

Well that's three instances out of four.

So, you can't ban it can be a useful comment 75% of the time.

But then, people make fun of people with the word "slow," but nobody cares about that. If retarded is synonomous with slow, then it should be fine.


Question: When is the decision gonna be made, anyway?

 

Well that's three instances out of four.

So, you can't ban it can be a useful comment 75% of the time.

If you use some commons ense you'll realize that the "three out of four instances" NEVER come up. People rarely, if ever use the word in the proper context. And if they did, I would hope discretion would be used to determine the intent behind the usage.

But then, people make fun of people with the word "slow," but nobody cares about that. If retarded is synonomous with slow, then it should be fine.

Have you looked up the definition of the word slow, lately?

[image=http://img230.exs.cx/img230/1663/mugatu0ro.jpg]

"I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here!"

 

slow=

Not moving or able to move quickly; proceeding at a low speed: a slow train; slow walkers.
Marked by a retarded tempo: a slow waltz.

Taking or requiring a long time: the slow job of making bread.
Taking more time than is usual: a slow worker; slow progress in the peace negotiations.

If retarded = slow, then retarded is harmless. That was my point.

See, if slow is an insult, but is not edited, then retarded should not be edited either because retareded means slow. see?

I find it ironic that you are offended by it when one of it's meaning is:

Often Offensive.

Actually, I suppose that's not ironic at all.

This is also another instance in which it can be used.

Seriously, when is this thing gonna be decided?

 

Get over it, folks.

The terms "idiot", "imbecile", and "moron" are insults of a person's intelligence, but you know what? They were originally clinical terms, derived from Latin. When they made their way into the common vernacular they had to be discarded from scientific use, and were replaced with the levels of mental retardation (mild, moderate, heavy, severe). After a while the term "retarded" found its way into the vocaulary as an insult as well. It's still a clinical term for the time being, and thus its usage is a matter of interpretation.

This politically correct nonsense is really starting to get old. We're not dealing with a curse or a vulgarity, but a very trivial insult.

 

I have a cousin who is mentally handicapped, but that doesn't stop me from calling my brother "retarded" when he says or does something stupid.

Main Entry: re·tard·ed
Pronunciation: ri-'tärd-&d
Function: adjective
: slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development

Yep. That's my brother!

It's like calling a non-sentient or inanimate object "gay". Last time I checked only people had sexual orientations.

"Gay" can also characterize happiness or merriment, and even mean bright or lively, especially in reference to color: a gay, sunny room.

Many words we use have multiple meanings. Some can say the courtyard through the archway is very gay and have it be valid. Sure, the usage isn't common, but literature and song is crawling with references of people and things being "gay." You can't fault someone for using an alternate definition.

The same goes for "retarded." How many people really use it nowadays to refer to the mentally disabled? I don't. No one I know does. "Disabled," "challenged," and "handicapped" are more common terms used to refer them. Remember Matt Dillon's line in There's Something About Mary? He likes working with "retards." How many people cringed or laughed out of shock when he said that? Now, why would they if it was a commonly used term? They wouldn't. "Retarded" is more commonly associated with the stupid or slow, not the mentally disabled. I haven't heard it used that way since I was a kid.

I forget which mod said it, but I think the intent behind what's posted needs to be looked at. Words themselves hold no power. It's the ideas and meaning behind the words that matter.

L8r

 

Those of us who find the word offensive are being told, effectively, that it doesn't matter because we should be courteous to those of who aren't offended. Is anyone else here seeing this as hypocritical? What about courtesy towards those who do find it offensive? We have just as much a right to not want it used as others do to want it.

Kimball said: However, that sort of thing has to work both ways.

But I'm not seeing it going both ways here. This is intolerance under the guise of tolerance. It's imbalanced.


Dana

 

Dantana, I'm offended by your colors, title, and icon. Please change them, it would be the courteous thing to do.

Now, wouldn't you agree that a request like that is simply retarded?

 

No, Jeff, that request is entirely too Jewish.

 

But I'm not seeing it going both ways here. This is intolerance under the guise of tolerance. It's imbalanced.

Does a lack of balance or respect from other people absolve you of your responsibilities to show respect and do your part?

To use my high school example, I never really did anything to ask people not to swear around me. They simply came to realize my standards and came to respect them. I'd bet you almost anything that if instead I hadraised a fuss over their language, they would have taken a different route and used it to mock me instead.

Regardless of whether others do their part, you should be doing the best that you can to do your part.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I don't think it's a big issue.
If any retarded people come through and take offence, they can PM a mod and lodge a complaint like everyone else.
They want to be treated like normal people don't they? It almost seems discriminatory to do otherwise.

 

Darth Attorney posted on 4/10/05 7:44pm

---

I don't think it's a big issue.
If any retarded people come through and take offence, they can PM a mod and lodge a complaint like everyone else.
They want to be treated like normal people don't they? It almost seems discriminatory to do otherwise.
[hr][/blockquote]

Many of them probably can't PM a mod. That doesn't mean these words don't hurt. Even though they can feel sadness and pain we shouldn't be extended the same courtesy, tolerance and respect we give extend to everyone else because they might not be capable of figuring out our PM system? I see 100 new users with full mental capacity that can't figure it out.

We can't extend basic courtesy and human respect unless there's a squeaky wheel from someone who is personally affected?

 

Many of them probably can't PM a mod. That doesn't mean these words don't hurt.

If they can't PM a mod, they probably aren't reading the boards anyway.

It isn't as if by saying "that's retarded" everyone is saying "that has the same worth as someone with a mental handicap," they're just saying "that's dumb." There's a difference between retardation and mental retardation, and it sounds like a lot of people are automatically assuming that everyone is out to offend mentally retarded people.

I doubt that's the case.