lemmy user(ule)s: "this sign won't stop me because i can't read"
lemmy user(ule)s: "this sign won't stop me because i can't read"
It was offensive even way before that. I remember us not serving a customer at the fast food place where I worked because he used it around my co-worker whose brother had Downs Syndrome.
I've never really associated with people who use that word.
Lemmy seems to be pretty good about not using it, though. Reddit, on the other hand...
Edit: After reading this thread, I take it back. There are some straight up disgusting people in this community who really, really want to use the r-slur.
I understand not calling disabled people the word, because mocking people for something about themselves they didn't choose (like a disability) is cruel, I am totally on board with never using words in this way to target disabled people.
I don't understand why I can't use the word to mock someone who is not intellectually disabled for choosing not to use their perfectly well-functioning brain, it seems like a very apt analogy. It communicates "you aren't disabled, you have no excuse for acting like it, start choosing to use the fully functional brain you have".
Additionally, only the "r-word" seems to be the bad one, despite there being many other words in our language that originally began as a medical descriptor for intellectually disabled folks. If I call someone a moron for running a red light because they're playing with their phone nobody bats an eye, but if I call them the "r-word" I'm a terrible person?
I asked a question about this after seeing it quite a bit here!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Any time I hear about this, I can't help but think of this comedy bit by Louis CK - https://youtube.com/watch?v=DXtHF0WRX64
Yes, I realize Louis CK is a POS and shouldn't be seen as a moral authority on any subject.
Here's an image many of you will like.
"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.
#R E T A R D
