Why do you find the word "ret*d" offensive?

Post Reply New Topic

It was only in this thread that I learned the word 'moron' was ever used to denote mental disability at all. Just now, I refrained from using the word 'idiot' in a post (which I ended up cancelling) because I had this thread in mind.

We've seen that the words idiot, imbecile, and moron no longer carry the connotations they once had. Leave the word 'ret*d' for another 50 or 100 years, and it may end up the same way. I'm not sure that 'reclaiming' it is desirable.

They do not in one context, the social, carry the connotations they once had. In other contexts they may still carry the connotations and a reclaiming is so more a change of focus.

I only find it offensive if someone uses it to describe a person (esp. me for whatever reason people would have to call me that, regardless of the fact that I'm more intelligent than most people who use the word), but to say some thing is ret*d (usually meaning "stupid" in this context) is ok to me because you can't offend a thing since things have no intelligence or consciousness.

I find it very offensive, as it is used almost exclusively as a derogatory term for people with neurological differences/disabilities.

I know many other young people on the spectrum, but not a single one who hasn't been on the receiving end of such vile language. In fact, the only ones who don't experience it to some degree or another are those who attend special needs/Aspie-only schools. Most teachers in mainstream schools don't do enough to stop this behaviour, they just seem to have accepted it.

I find it "offensive" when people use it as an insult.

Finding insults insulting......wow. What a novel idea!

BTW, it's not the responsibility of the insultee to be "not insulted" by the insulter. The insulter should learn how to be less of an a***hole. No, I really don't care if his "feedum of exprsshion" is curtailed.

Insults are intended to be insulting. Using intellectual disabilities to insult other people is insulting to people with intellectual disabilities.

Is there really any polite way to insult someone? I don't think so.

"stupid", "idiot" and "moron" were the "original" words used to describe intellectual impairment. Then people started using them as insults. "ret*d" came to replace them. Then people started using "ret*d" as an insult.

And?

The OP was asking why we find the word "ret*d" offensive.

I answered that it's offensive when it is used as an insult. "Idiot" and "moron" are offensive when used as insults as well.

It's a no-brainer. Insults are insulting.

Exactly! And it's important that we be able to insult people! If the speech police deprive us of the lesser weapon of verbal hyperbole, then there's nothing to do about annoying people except shoot them.

Damn it, insulting people is an art form, and to denigrate the art of the insult is to contribute to the decline of Western culture. Consider this: Shakespeare was the master of the insult. So don't bother to argue with me, because I'm an easy target; go after the Bard of Avon if you dare. I've got a book here, 300 pages of insults from Shakespeare's plays. So go censor Shakespeare, you blocks, you stones, you worse than senseless things!

Here's the book link on Amazon: Shakespeare's Insults

So, in a nutshell, people tend to use "ret*d" as a synonym for "stupid person". Thus, it's insulting. However, as a technical term, it means something different. The thing is, most people that use it, mean "stupid person". And so, 90% of the time, it's insulting to... everyone really. At the end of the day, cursing, and using such insults pretty much indicates low intelligence. Maybe it's never wise in insult people... How to Win Friends and Influence people says to never criticize, condemn, or complain.

"Speech police." Who was it that made comments about posturing earlier in the thread? That phrase alone is so hysterical (not funny, but as in hysteria) as to be meaningless. No one is stopping anyone from using whatever words they want to use. However, this does not mean that everyone should be expected to like such usages or agree with them. If anything, the arguments you presented are more about controlling people because you seem to be against any critical perspective on the use of words that denigrate entire classes of people. Instead, you cast aspersions on the motives people have for making such criticism.

It's one thing to insult people. Depending on context it is often abusive and undesirable. Sometimes it is a way for people to bond. Often it's a way to establish social pecking orders - establish who is seen as inferior and who is not.

It is also a thing to insult people by using terms that are meant to insult entire groups of people. For example, "ret*d" in this thread, but there are also many homophobic, racist, and sexist slurs that are similar. If you're using a word that is used to denigrate an entire group of people you are going well beyond any kind of reasonable "insulting" behavior that you seem to think people should engage in (even though such behavior is typically a strongly social behavior as described above).

Anyway, calm down. No one is going to censor your Shakespeare or ban you from using whichever words you want to use. However, you really should understand and be prepared for the fact that the words you choose and how you deploy them will have a direct impact on how others react to you. If you are so committed to insulting people by using "ret*d" you should expect that a lot of people are going to react badly to that. Instead of trying to make them the problem because they're supposedly stifling your right to the unmitigated use of slurs and hate speech, perhaps it might help to understand that there is far more to the art of the insult than simply hurling words because they are deemed insulting.

You are also making a false analogy, as Shakespeare's insults are in his plays, and thus intended as entertainment. They are not genuine slurs hurled at real people, but clever repartee delivered by fictional characters and aimed at fictional characters.

You are also defending behavior that is widely considered to be "bullying."

I would also recommend actually doing some reading on "verbal abuse."

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/verbalabuse.html

http://compassionpower.com/emotional%20 ... 0abuse.php

http://www.loveisrespect.org/is-this-ab ... rbal-abuse

http://www.yoursocialworker.com/p-artic ... _abuse.htm

A significant part of verbal abuse is the use of insults.

Talk about being over-sensitive..........

I still think that it's all about diversity. It's obvious to people not to use words that discriminate based on other things like race, class or gender. But it seems not so obvious (or willful ignorance) to not use words that discriminate based on sexual orientation, disability or other differences. It's up to people to learn what's offensive and what isn't and to use words that don't offend or discriminate against whole groups of people. It takes a better person to speak their mind without using those words in an offending way despite what others around them are doing. Just because a word is commonly used doesn't mean that it isn't offensive.

There are times where offending some people is actually a moral and just thing to do - the unreasonable, the religiously or politically fanatical or simply overweening, obnoxious authority. I think it's actually healthy that some people are insulted from people from time to time. You never know, it might just burst open that massive bubble they're toting a little bit.

Yeah, though it's mean to offend minority groups. Words like "ret*d" are meant to insult minorities and not those in power.

The problem is that it is a diversity in itself when a given word is understood as an insult or not. The word ret*d can both be used to discriminate but also the absence of the word ret*d may be discriminating. In defining ret*d absolutely as an insult against disability one would risk to discriminate persons who do not share the same philosophical or political perspective that lay as foundation for the given understanding of the word ret*d. In other words would an absolute definition and allowed use of a word in a community end up in a communitarianism where some always will be excluded and discriminated because they believe in and value values which the communitarinistic society does not accept and value.