ret*d, ret*d etc..

Post Reply New Topic

Please don't ban words just because someone uses them in an offensive way. I reckon everyone who thinks that banning those words solves any issue is pretty much mistaken.

Because what does that solve? You ban "ret*d", then people will say "challenged" or "delayed" and start using it in an offensive manner, then you ban "challenged"/"delayed", and you start using new words, and so on. The core issue will remain unfixed and people who want to insult other people will always find a way to do so.

Also, banning words is very dangerous for maintaining freedom of speech.

65536

Exactly

The correct euphemism changes with time

Words labelled as insults, slang. Change with time too.

"ret*d" has an official, proper, correct definition.



Yesterday, the current counselor told me to sign a form she filled out, to apply for one extra year of counseling.

One of the boxes she checked was "motor retardation".

"Retardation" is an obsolete term, but by banning the word, that gives the word more power......

Not once did the counselor use any form of the word "ret*d", in my presence.

Instead she said "neurodiverse"

But seriously I do not want to be a special snowflake

Velocity impaired

Living challenged

Aesthetically original

The previous licensed clinical social worker had the nerve to keep telling me "I know you are smart", in a condescending tone. She was 35 and I was 33. She had a Master's and I only had a Bachelor.

Seriously I would have preferred for her to have told me I was "ret*d" or stupid.

She told me that, like she expected me to blindly believe anything that can out of her trap.

Then she told me that someone that was "stupid" could not make good use of community college

Ok that is not how the dictionary defines "stupid"

Duality

You let them say it. You just dismantle them personally (As in you do it yourself).

Yep...that's how you do it. Exactly!

I listened to a couple of comedians doing a podcast, and they said it several time. It just didn't sting me in the least.

Being "ret*d" is not a choice or a moral flaw

Everyone can say whatever they want

But they do not have the legal authority to administer IQ tests. Only certain psychologists are allowed to do that.

The word "ret*d" used to be official medical terminology.

Right now the word "ret*d" is outdated.

But a word is just a word. A word has no inherent morality. A word is just a collection of letters.

"Developmentally disabled" and "neurodiverse" are the latest greatest euphemisms.

Later on, euphemisms and insults change.

The other thing is that euphemisms are sometimes too vague and have a different definition than the allegedly bad word.

For example, "neurodiverse" has a positive connotation. (Unity and diversity club). But one person cannot be "diverse". It is an entire group that can be "diverse". Or not

Besides, what is so great about the word "neurodiverse"?. What is the dictionary definition?

Would Einstein get labelled "neurodiverse"?

And "neurotypical" has the dictionary definition, of not autistic. But someone brain damaged that is not autistic is still "neurotypical"

Euphemisms are sometimes necessary and beneficial

But euphemisms do not solve the problem of how precious lil "people" are so judgmental of different people.

Society puts a lot of value on academic intelligence. At least united States. (Japan, China and India, I would imagine, puts more emphasis on academic intelligence than the United States)

Academic intelligence is not a choice or a moral virtue

Academic intelligence is just a job skill

Just like physical strength is a job skill

If someone lifts ten pounds and I only lift one pound, someone is athletically superior to me. All things being equal. But that does not mean i am morally inferior

The way some precious lil "people" call someone "stupid" (or "smart"), sounds like the speaker has a moral right to judge intelligence. And intelligence is important. And intelligence is a moral virtue. And smart is good. And "ret*d" is bad. And it sounds like the speaker is smarter than the recipient

a positive judgment is just as judgmental as a negative judgment.

but plenty of minors (and adults) do not know what a judgment even is.

a community college instructor told the security guard "you're a genius!", when he unlocked the door.

it's like, wtf?

that statement implied that she had the moral right to assess his intelligence.

"you're a genius" sounds like a compliment. but if the requirement to be a "genius" is so low, then what's so great about being a "genius"?

seriously

my precious lil "parents" used to compare me unfavorably to precious lil "people's " academic prodigy chinese daughters.

and ask why was i not like that.........

they did not tell me i was "stupid" or "ret*d".

but they made me memorize 10 to 20 SAT words in the school year, per week, third to seventh grade. and 10 to 20 SAT words per day, in the summer, third to seventh grade.

so........

wtf?

it's like a smack across the face.

besides, you could twiddle your thumbs and say that everyone is good at some things and bad at others.

theory of multiple intelligences

but what difference does it make?

you have to make do with the intelligence you have. it does not benefit anyone to dwell on how much or how little intelligence they have.

the other thing is, that some precious lil "people" had the nerve to tell me "you're smart", as if they wanted me to believe it. and say "thank you". totally condescending

but everyone is "smart".

Oddly, I find the use of "precious lil people" more offensive than "ret*d" because it is itself a blanket judgement.
Who exactly are "precious lil people"?
Neurotypicals?
Everyone else in the world?
And why are "people" and "parents" in inverted commas?

Raleigh

The reason why I put precious lil "people" , was because oftentimes, one person refers to himself or herself as "we", "people", or "most people".

And when he or she does that, it makes it sound like he overpowers me because he outnumbers me

And it makes it sound like I am not a person

For example "you make people uncomfortable with the way you dress!"

"People" literally means two or more, but it sounds like everyone in the world except me. And it sounds like I not a person. It sounds like I have no right to do anything that makes two or more people "uncomfortable"

But the solar system contains more convicted rapists, than Nobel Prize winners in Physics. It doesn't mean that the activity with more participants is morally superior.

Besides, maybe, at least two separate parties have found it "uncomfortable" when I continue living. Then what? Does that give them a moral right to exterminate me?



Usually when someone says "most people", the speaker is using the authority of "most people" to veto my actions, on the basis that my actions are abnormal, in a bad way