Eliminating the R word from daily speech

Post Reply New Topic

I get really offended when people use the r word (ret*d)

Anyone else here?

I get called it by members of my family sometimes. I hate it when people throw it out in daily speech. It's not a term of endearment, it's not cool, it's not funny, and it's quite offensive.

Asperger people are not ret*ds. We are extremely intelligent in some ways.

The whole "R-word" movement needs to die in a fire. "ret*d" is a legitimate medical term, and that's what mentally ret*d people are called. It's what they're diagnosed as.

Free speech does not mean having the right to not be offended. All this political correctness BS does is tell certain segments of the population that they are too weak to live with freedom. My ancestors didn't rebel against the British so we could tell people what they can and cannot say!

But we're (clearly) not mentally ret*d.

I find it offensive utterly.

John Franklin Stephens speaking out on this was probably one of the more moving attempts to get the word recognized as offensive. Any word that demeans or detracts from a person is itself intrinsically offensive and devoid of any good purpose.

The truth of the matter is, there are some NTs who would call me a ret*d, yet they may find it quite intimidating to know that Im probably much smarter than they give credit for, by using that disgusting and demeaning word.

Frankly, you're acting like an a***hole. 'ret*d' is a medical term that came into use in the 1950s to replace other terms that were then increasingly seen as offensive but by the 1990s, the term 'ret*d' was itself seen as offensive (as it was increasingly used as an insult) and is now (like 'spastic') never used in a medical context here in the UK, and people who fit that description are commonly said to have 'learning difficulties'. Now, it's mostly used either by lay people or as an insult, although the WHO still uses it.

I don't think people should be censored or face any sort of legal sanction for using it but it's still not a nice thing to say about someone. Having said that words like 'cretin', 'idiot' and 'moron' were originally descriptors to refer to people with learning difficulties. If you're going to get very politically correct, you'll end up finding that more of the English language than you'd probably expect has terms that have their roots in degrading, insulting or abusive actions or circumstances.

Last edited by Tequila on 02 Jan 2013, 9:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I some cases-just because we can say it doesnt mean we should say it-in certain contexts it is fine but to be used as a deliberate insult to be hurtful to someone-no it is not proper-I have had it used as an insult against me before-it is not nice to be called that.

Last edited by Radiofixr on 02 Jan 2013, 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

But you just used it when you said that asperger people are not ret*ds.

Free speech means that people can openly object to things that they do not like. For example, indiscriminate, insulting use of slurs such as "ret*d." Free speech is not a one-way street.

Objecting to the use of slurs is not a sign of weakness. It's a sign of understanding and compassion. What is weak is insisting that everyone tolerate the same hateful language you seem to love so much and insisting that those who do not agree with you are somehow deficient. Trying to hide behind "freedom of speech" as an excuse to defend verbal bullying and abuse is not a sign of strength.

"ret*d" was originally a euphemism, it replaced the older words "stupid", "idiot", "moron", "imbecile" and "cretin" which referred to people with intellectual disabilities.

I'm not especially offended by it personally. However, if somebody were to call my cousin who has Down's Syndrome or my aunt who has severe intellectual disability a ret*d in my presence they would get, at the very least, a severe talking to from me. When a word has come to epitomise hateful and thoughtless disregard for a particularly marginalised sub-section of people then I think it is right that its use ought to be discontinued. I am totally against "PC" BS - if somebody tells me I can't ask for a "black" coffee or that I must write on a "chalkboard" rather than a "blackboard" then they can duck right off, that is utterly ridiculous. This ret*d business is not at all the same thing though.

"n****r" used to be an acceptable term to use in polite discourse to describe black people. My great-grandmother had a black cat called "n****r". Feel free to "exercise your right to free speech" and say that word in front of a group of black people and see what happens. The difference is that a lot of the people who you might describe as a "ret*d" may be equally upset as the black people in my example BUT they can't do anything about it. They simply have to listen to people like you say deeply hurtful things which make them feel even less part of "normal" society than they already do. If you really think that it's ok to do that in order to satisfy your idea of your right to free speech then tbh I think you are a DEEPLY unpleasant person. To invoke a similar argument to your own: your ancestors didn't rebel against the British so that you could metaphorically spit on the weak and make their lives more difficult than they already are.

edit: Personally I'm not saying that anybody should be prohibited from saying anything. I would just hope that most people would have the common decency to avoid using a word - for which there are many acceptable alternatives - that is hurtful to so many people.

Last edited by invisiblesilent on 02 Jan 2013, 10:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I've heard people say that jokingly using the word "ret*d" doesn't have to have an offensive edge to it - after all, isn't it just a word with multiple meanings? I've also heard people say the same thing about the word "gay". On the face of it, this makes perfect sense.

On the other hand, in my experience, people who use words like "gay" and "ret*d" jokingly are not very nice people. And I don't think that's a coincidence.

So you can argue about whether it "should" be offensive all you like. The point is, when you know that many people do find it offensive, you really ought to try to stop doing it.

As an example, I used to say "what a gyp!" all the time, until I realised its origin. Now I don't say it anymore. It's really not that hard.

I also feel that the R-word should be eliminated. It reminds me of the ignorant kids that I had to deal with in school and my childhood neighbourhood.

It's not the word that matters. It's the CONTEXT! George Carlin said so.

Jitro: Ah, the euphemism treadmill. "Concentration camp" also started as a euphemism. It doesn't matter how much you infringe on free speech. People will express themselves. They will not be stopped.

Free speech means being free to say the things NOBODY wants to hear. Don't like it? Move to some barbaric un-free country like England, North Korea, Russia, China, or Turkey where they step on free speech. Just because we're ASD doesn't mean we're too weak to live in a free society. It doesn't mean we have to be babied and coddled. You uncivilized liberal trash who want to destroy freedom of speech are on the wrong side of history. Do the world a favor and either adopt libertarian values or be deported.

I have been trying to replace every time I would have said "r******d" with "ridiculous", because generally speaking the colloquial usage of the term and its clinical meaning have very little or no overlap.

I'm socially ret*d, and so are you if you have Asperger's.

Agreed, the developmental aspect of ASD sorta implies lagging behind the norm in some way. Whether or not it should be (or is) considered offensive is a different kind of discussion altogether.