Eliminating the R word from daily speech

Post Reply New Topic

I don't dispute that; it is a completely accurate statement. I have AS and am not offended by you saying it at all. But I can speak up for myself and you're not using it in a deliberately insulting or bullying context. The problem I have with the use of the word ret*d is when it is used to marginalise and bully people who maybe can't speak up for themselves and already have a tough enough time integrating into "normal" life without being made to feel inferior. That might include some people with ASDs or any other number of conditions. I just don't see why people would insist on persisting to use a word, seemingly just because they can, which has such a powerful and degrading meaning toward such a large subset of people. That is incredibly, unbelievably self-centred and mean-spirited. For the record: I'm not accusing you of any of those things Dillogic; obviously your post did not include enough detail for me to pin any of that on you. I was speaking in a general sense.

I do not care so much what words a person says, I would rather care about the intent behind the person's words who is speaking to me. Words are only as powerful as you make them. No, they do not hurt me. I choose to be this way, so can you. Letting words be "nono words" is no help to society. As a matter of fact, I have seen these "bad words" negatively effect a potential occupation of a highly professional and reputable relative, when a "nono" word was said during an interview, in a playful, innocent manner. Now that's ret*d.

I don't know the context of this person's employment but using sensitive language can be very important if you're working with people. It looks bad if employees don't use sensitive language. It looks as if your business either doesn't know about why words offend people or doesn't care.

Case in point: today I was at a restaurant and I overheard the waiter address a table as "guys". One woman responded by using "us ladies..." pointing out how his use of language could be sexist. The waiter was obviously embarrassed and apologized. I think that he watched his language after that.

"Either support free speech by agreeing with my opinions, or leave the country!" Also, very illogical and self-contradictory. How you commanded all the "liberal trash" to adopt your political orientation or be deported does not sound like a defense of free speech at all. In fact, it seems you are only in favor of speech that you want to hear.

Free speech means saying things you don't want to hear. Don't like it? Not much you can do about it except rail against people for daring to hold opinions you don't like. However, you're not defending free speech. Be honest about it. You're defending the notion of political conformity, the idea that there are correct political ideas and incorrect political ideas. In short, you've defined having libertarian values as being the only politically correct option and said that those who refuse should expect to be deported. Congratulations, you have discovered and promoted precisely the kind of political correctness that you claim to decry.

Perhaps, if you hate that people hold opinions you do not like and want them to shut up, it is you who lives in the wrong place.

This may sound weird but... I find euphemisms to be more insulting than the actual words.

Being told I have "special needs" would offend me a lot more than being called a ret*d.

I don't like euphemisms because they simply don't say anything. They are convenient ways to avoid naming something that could make you feel awkward, therefore they indicate that the speaker doesn't care. And because they don't care, they'd rather evade the subject of conversation with empty words and preserve their precious inner peace.

Yeah, "ret*d" can hurt, but at least it doesn't wear a mask

It's important to use proper language in a position where you are working with people. The word that was said was "hell", which could offend some people, unfortunately, that is just how it is. The job that was applied for is a job, where they work with many people, so if they ever slipped up on their language with a customer, like what happened in this interview, it could give off a bad impression, as a result there could be a multitude of negative outcomes. I just think it is sad that people choose to get worked up over this, to me it is extremely silly. Business is business though, no matter how silly the rules are, they are rules... Wouldn't it be nice if they changed a bit? I think it would be great if people would get over themselves. Like the woman in your example you gave, she could have easily not gotten offended, opened her mouth and proceed to spat out what I believe is an equivalent of verbal diarreah, but she did, and this poor guy felt the need to apologize. Sounds like your typical self righteous customer, that a waiter must endure. Makes me think, perhaps I should tip my waiter a little extra next time. They probably deserve it, having to hold their tongue so often.

I didn't know the use of the word "guys" to address a group of people, either males, females or mix, could be offensive. I'm a foreigner and my textbook said you can use "guys" to address any group of people regardless of gender. I actually avoid using "gentleman" and "lady" because these words imply gender roles, though I know these are often used just to be polite.

Any way, regarding the "R" word, I think if freedom of speech is used to justify freedom of insulting, then life would be very confrontational, uncomfortable and stressful. We are civilized people and should be considerate of other people's feelings. Just because something is not illegal, it doesn't mean you should do it unnecessarily and hurt people's feelings, such as using the "R" word in an unkind way just to put people down. However, I think that in a medical context the "R" word is not offensive at all because there is no insulting intention there.

It's just a word that can be used in a derogatory manner that isn't anything like what it actually means, i.e., someone with mental retardation might never do something that people refer to as "ret*d", but someone who isn't might.

Focusing on the words isn't the problem, the problem is people who put down others.

To be fair, I dislike banning words. It's like burning books and ending the second amendment. Sure, there are remarkably few ways to use 'ret*d' in a non-offensive fashion, but it's not the word itself that you hate, it's the meaning associated with it.

The word "ret*d" originates from the latin word 'tardus' which means slow. It is perfectly acceptable to refer to something that, say, slows down a machine's process as something that ret*ds the machine's process.

You might associate the word "ret*d" with a stereotypical vision of a person with very severe autism who struggles with basic speech and motor skills because the word "ret*d" has been frequently used to describe that type of person.

My point is, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the word. There is also nothing fundamentally wrong with people with severe low functioning autism. It's understandable if you don't want to be viewed as being like someone with low functioning autism, but that's your problem, not anyone else's.

I think that people who have Down's Syndrome, who suffer from the fact that they CAN function in society, have reason to be offended when they're called ret*d. But that's mostly it. In that case, you can--to some greater or lesser degree--draw a parallel to the n-word or gay or another derisive function because in that case you are in fact dealing with prejudice.

But if you're being an idiot, I won't hesitate to tell you how slow you are.

Its a word.If your friend does something stupid you call him a F*****g ret*d.If you do something stupid your friend calls you a ret*d.Its a thing.
I feel like the only reason that the parents of kids with mental retardation dont like the word is because its connotation reminds them that their kids aren't as functional and they feel like saying the the words demeans them and dehumanizes them.To me its a campaign of good feelings versus a real conversation on how to deal with people with mental retardation.

to me the whole thing is a waste of time.Think about this: Does it matter if someone calls you "autistic" or calls you "an individual with an autism spectrum disorder"?It doesnt change the reality, just the feeling.

My two pennies worth.

The problem with the wore "ret*d" is that it is/was a medical term. We have group that helps folks with disabilites here called "Association for ret*d Citizens". (Arc)

It is a national organization in the states.

The kids at my school know screaming "hey ret*d" will get them in hot water. Now they say, "Your such a Ree Ree." Slang for ret*d. Or they say something else. The kids work around the loaded word, and still are hateful twits.

For me, you need to get at the behavior. Why does some feel they have right to call you a ret*d? Would hey half brained sub human be better? Or genetic mistake? (heard a kid scream that one)

It's the reasoning behind the behavior not the word. If the word ret*d vanished, humans would conjure up some other word to take it's place.

I just looked up Arc. They supposedly did a name change, but everyone I know, who works with them still uses Association for ret*d Citizens. Swing and a miss, Arc.

I think it all depends on how it's used. If someone is describing another person as "ret*d" because they truly believe the person to be mentally handicapped/developmentally delayed/whatever you want to call it, and they tell the listener because they feel that he needs to know this for some reason, then thats not a bad thing. Some people don't know all the different types of intellectual/developmental/delay/handicap what have you, and they just use the term they always heard it called by, which is "ret*d".

It's like the term "crippled" for people who can't walk. I don't know anybody under 75 who would use that term, but it's a valid term that used to be in use when they were younger. No malice was meant when it was said, just like with the word "ret*d".

Describing someone as a "ret*d" is insulting, because the term would be "ret*d boy/girl/lady/man". I've only heard the word "ret*d" used as an insult, never an actual description by somebody who wasn't trying to be mean.

I remember being little and my grandmother talking about somebody that had a "Mongoloid" baby. I had no idea what it was and then my mother explained it. Down's syndrome. That's what people called them because of the shape of the eyes. I don't know if it was ever a medical term, but it was definately a laymans term.

I think it all depends on intent and knowledge.

^^

Just because someone is offended by something doesn't mean it's illegal to say. People flip out at every word someone says if they're on tv and frankly I think it's the politically correct mindset that needs to die.

Wow, I... swear all the time (but not at work). My mom would get very worked up over curse words though so I'm used to people getting offended over it.



Yeah... Many people use "guys" in the colloquial sense and so most people don't get offended.

Exactly. The likes of Frankie Boyle have as much right to be offensive about people that are unable to defend themselves as people are to call them on their bigotry. In fact, when upset parents actually do call them on it, their response generally tends to be weak and defensive, because they know that they're in the wrong and can't back up their arguments with humour or wry wit. They can't apologise, because all they have is hate.

I certainly wouldn't prohibit the likes of Frankie Boyle, or indeed anyone else from saying nasty things. Words are just words at the end of the day, and unless they're specifically being used to intimidate or threaten people with violence (or other harm), I can see no real reason for their banning. That doesn't take away from the fact that it's often mightily unpleasant, and I think people that use that kind of language openly to demean people should be shunned and frozen out of polite society and treated as little more than a social disease. You know, how anti-Semites, racists, religious fanatics and other obnoxious bigots are.



I'm reminded of people like the BNP (and often neo-Nazis in general, come to think of it) who cry "free speech!" when they're trying to defend Holocaust denial or similarly racist or discriminatory statements. Yes, it technically is free speech and I'd support their right to it, but you know 100% that if these people ever had their way, free speech would vanish in a heartbeat so, in essence, these people want to use their free speech to get into a position where they can destroy everyone else's right to free speech, and especially the free speech of those who oppose them.



Indeed.



I'm thinking of the Frankie Boyle scenario, or a comedian that is being needlessly, humourlessly and pointlessly derogatory about a set of people that already have it hard enough already without some pompous two-bit prick making light of their situation. I wouldn't ever call for that comedian's banning, but what I would do is finish my drink and walk out.

For instance: in the context of UK politics, I support the United Kingdom Independence Party, an economically liberal and conservative party which supports terminating the UK's membership of the European Union. One of their candidates was a man named Geoffrey Clark, who was standing in a council election in the South East of England. Clark made comments suggesting that babies with Down's syndrome should be mandatorily aborted. After he made these comments, UKIP suspended his membership and stripped him of his party designation and was told that he'd never be able to stand again for the party. Now, even if UKIP hadn't have done that and had let him carry on standing (I'd certainly think a lot less of my party for allowing him to stay on), if I lived in his ward, I would have abstained on polling day due to not wanting to vote for any of the other three main candidates either.

My point is this - there should be a free market in opinions and I would hope that personal decency would guide most people towards rejecting (or even countering) those with hateful opinions.



As I said, it reminds me of the kind of argument proffered by neo-Nazis and other people on the same bigoted wavelength.

No-one has the right not to be offended, but everyone has the right to counter and argue against speech that they, personally, find offensive. That is free speech.



Same here.



I feel much the same way. They can say it if they want, but they should be prepared for the consequences of their actions by saying it.



I don't know about "discontinued" - perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't think it should be outlawed. I think that it should basically be argued against and discouraged out of existence, not necessarily banned if you see my meaning. Please do let me know if we agree here.



I made sure I wished all the Muslims I know a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year (and even Happy Easter and Merry Christmas too, for a laugh), and they were very happy with that. No-one was offended or insulted or marginalised or threatened to bomb by house. Similarly, no black people have ever knifed me to death for asking them - politely - for a black coffee.



No, it's not.



This depends on the context. I can think of some, specific circumstances where you might get away with it, like if you were very, very close friends with a black person and you shared a deep friendship and interest in hip-hop culture, or perhaps if you were playing with a sexual partner you had a deep connection with, or perhaps if you were in the Army and there was a banter going on, but in a general sense then, yes, it's a pretty repellent idea.

Just because I have the right to call people "kaffirs", "taigs", "vodka monkeys" and "chinky bastards" doesn't mean that it's a good idea, or that I should use it.



And that's why they call people with learning difficulties "ret*ds" and not a group heavily-built, 6'5", bald-headed muscle bound Nigerian guys. It's much like rape in a sense - they pick on the weak and the vulnerable, those who cannot fight back. In a sense it is about control.



Yeah - it reminds me of people like Frankie Boyle as I said. They're not helping disabled people or those with learning difficulties, or using their wit (what wit they do have) to make the lives of those less-fortunate better. Instead, they're using it to hurt those they see as inferior. Hitler and the T4 merchants would have liked him for more reasons than one, I think. (I read Boyle's autobiography once; I thought he was a very sick and disagreeable man.)



We do agree then! Hurrah!



Not even if the words are being used ironically to refer to something else?



I don't think any words should be eliminated. I don't agree with official prohibitions, but it would be rather nice if some of these words simply fell into disuse.

I personally think "chalkboard" is a better term than "blackboard", but not for any PC reason. It's because many chalkboards are actually green, rather than black.