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?
nobody is going to arrest you for using the word, and many people will celebrate you using it. The problem is those people are mostly assholes. The word you should be thinking about is "audience".
I've come to use this more as well. There's never a real need to insult someone's intelligence, but there is often a need to point out when someone is acting like a fool.
What is wrong with calling people unintelligent when they are doing unintelligent things that are directly causing me problems (for example, people on their phones blowing through red lights?) If someone tries to change lanes into me and I say "are you blind? You almost hit me!" is that similarly bad?
Well I guess that's where we disagree. It's clearly offensive to make fun of a blind person for being blind, no one should do that. But I do not see how it is offensive to actual blind people to call a sighted person "blind" for refusing to use their eyes. It is of course not polite to the person I'm speaking to, but that is the point, there are plenty of times it is ok to be rude to people, such as when they're harming you. Offending purposely harmful people like bigots, racists; and negligently harmful people like inattentive drivers, people who leave knives pointing up in the dishwasher, etc presents me with no moral quandary.
I'm not sure if you're saying it's offensive to disabled people to make the comparison, offensive to the abled person you are speaking to, or both.
I don't agree with OP that you should never be allowed to call someone names... But I do think the r word is potentially hurtful to actually mentally disabled people, so I wouldn't use it for that reason.
In general its better to use words that represent choices people make and not unchangable aspects. I wouldn't use terms "black", "retarded", or "gay" as insults, for example. Someone below suggested "foolish" as a good example since it's not an inherent trait but a behavior.
It's only an "established slur" to some people (mostly in online niche communities), to a lot of people it's just everyday speech. Words such as retarded, special needs, intellectually disabled, moron, imbecile and more are all terms used to describe a disability, just like "blind". I'm tired of this artificially accelerated pejoration sped along by people who just want to correct others to feel good about themselves, the euphemism treadmill for people with intellectual disabilities in particular spins faster than for any other topic. We haven't invented 15 different phrases for blind in the last 50 years, there's no reason to do it for disabled brains any more than for disabled eyeballs.
Instead that energy should be focused on ensuring people don't use someone's disability to put the disabled person down. Those people are the real problem, not normal folks criticizing people for their shitty behaviors they can control, not immutable characteristics about themselves.
The main issue that seems to be the disconnect is simply that you are using the word as an insult.
Calling someone unintelligent is fine (I feel at least) but specifically using words that are associated with disabled people as an insult towards abled people is blatantly putting one group on top of the other.
The insult in that case cuts both ways. The person you are directly talking to is insulted because they are acting like a "lower group" and you're also insulting the entire group by saying they are inherently lesser.
You can not use a group of people as an insult without inherently viewing that group as insult worthy.
This really focuses on the darkest possible aspects of people. I think I finally get why I'm not offended by the same things folks like you are.
I hear someone use a word like this, and I think "they are using an obvious example they saw, and applying it here in a deliberately facetious manner". You hear the same word, and you think "that person is deliberately denegrating an entire group of people."
You're not going to like my saying so, but neither approach is always right or wrong here. There are people that absolutely are doing what you think they are. What your stance doesn't seem to accept, however, is that others are not.
You can live your life any way you wish, but I think people who think this way may want to take a step back, and maybe put their swords down. White Knights don't always do well in a grey world.
Intent doesn't really matter if the entire butt of the joke is that this person is asking like a "lesser" group.
Even if intent did matter... How would a passive observer be able to tell if the person meant it or not? You really can't without knowing both parties involved, their history together, and if that person regularly does similar styles of joke.
It's easier to just pick a different word to insult someone's intelligence instead of one that's designed to hurt a specific group of people.
When someone uses this word in the pejorative out of an abundance of ignorance, and they are met with a response that is equal to that of someone saying it deliberately to denigrate all mentally challenged individuals, well, then we have a problem. I would argue that intent very much matters here in this situation, and I'll tell you why...
When any of us treats another human being as the sum of our own fears (collective or personal) for the words they have selected, then we project something far worse than reality on that individual. By doing so, we risk weaponizing political correctness into a tribal position. What I mean by this is that you radicalize someone, rather than educate them. They become offended, rather than enlightened.
In today's society, one's chastisement in this manner could literally push someone on the fence into voting for someone like Donald Trump. This is because there's a serious counter-culture push going on in response to campaigns like this one. You don't have to like what I'm saying, but I do implore everyone to understand this reality.
It's better to tolerate words like this one to a degree, and to do good where and when you can. It is a moderate approach to a society that is becoming ever-more polarized and radicalized. If we can't start here, then I'm not sure where we can start. We need to treat people with more compassion - we need to accept that intent is very important, and we need to a give people the benefit of the doubt (to a degree, of course).
By comparing people to these slurs, you enforce societal norms that indicate that the said group has less value in society.
Since humans are social creatures by nature, you are essentially dehumanizing an entire class/group of people because you can’t come up with something more clever to say.
To err is human, we all make mistakes, intelligence/sight/etc. has nothing to do with it.
It's not stating that group has less value, it is stating that that group has less ability to think which is just as true as blind people have less ability to see, or physically disabled people like me have less ability to walk than people with normal feet.
That doesn't inherently make someone less valuable, and my point when using such a term as blind or retarded directed towards a non-disabled person isn't to attack their value but instead to attack their behavior, specifically to point out that they aren't utilizing their abilities to their full extent. If you hear the word retarded and think that means the person is less valuable, maybe check your assumptions about disabled people's value.
fuck off, you don't get to hop on a high horse here. you don't get to turn it around when you're straight up refusing to reflect on your own behaviour. i'm sure you think you're being very clever, but i can guarantee what you're doing right now is such common bigot behaviour that the people in this thread see right through it.
you feel like you should be allowed to use a slur. extremely weird, but alright. the people around you will, however, react accordingly. you're not special.
We probably wont convince you in these comments, but using someone's condition as an insult to someone else can definitely hurt them. It can seem like an unimportant issue when it doesn't directly affect you. I remember as a kid, I had friends with family members who got really upset when others used the r-word. When it affects you directly it becomes a lot more clear.
Your submission in "lemmy user(ule)s: "this sign won't stop me because i can't read"" was removed - Using disability as an insult is not ok, end of story.
Your submission in "lemmy user(ule)s: "this sign won't stop me because i can't read"" was removed for Using disability as an insult is not ok, end of story.
I've been called dyslexic before as a slur a few times. I laughed every time and explained that I am dyslexic.
Zero times have I ever, EVER cared that someone used this word like this. Why? Because they are human beings that saw symptoms and thought it was funny.
Is dyslexia funny? Yeah, sometimes. In the same way, there are some hilarious characters that are blind. Our differences don't have to be something we're constantly defensive about. Humor is a very human reaction to coming to terms with such things.
Some people just need to take a step back and realize it's okay to inject these things into humor, IF you do it tactfully, and with a measure of compassion.
I could not agree more! I hope you re-read what you just wrote.
Edit: Wow... that was a really dishonest edit you just made. You literally edited your comment so it looks like I'm conceding my position, and you didn't even put "Edit" in there. I think we're done here... if you're doing things like this, then nobody on this platform should be conversing with you seriously.
I've reported you for that. No person on Lemmy should be permitted to edit their comment to make the person they are having a cordial exchange with seem like they agreed to something they didn't agree to.
I saw you block others in this thread purely because they disagreed with you, so this isn't too shocking... but still, shame on you.
what annoys me is that no one cared about this until Sarah Palin made a big deal out of someone calling her that and she pretended to get offended for her baby with down syndrome as if it was targeted on them.
but I'm also ok with never saying it again. not a big loss who cares. at least we got a legendary Linus clip out of it.
that's not what we're talking about. as the original commenter said, using the r word to refer to any mentally challenged person was already a no-no. that law changed official use of the word, not the r word itself used as an insult.
law reflects society. just providing a timeline for things, the word as an insult was a problem starting well into the 90s so it’s absolutely absurd to blame it on sarah palin in 2013.
Using a slur to insult someone, regardless of if they are a member of that group, shows that you view it as an inherently negative trait, and that people should be ashamed of being a part of, or associated with, the group.
I agree completely with this. This campaign to make this word just as bad as the "n word" is absolutely ridiculous. I've brought this up with a lot of people, and I've yet to meet someone in real life who genuinely thinks this word should be censored in this manner.
Look I usually only lurk because im too anxious but I have to say something.
Your logic is the exact logic my neo nazi family use. (not an exaggeration, I grew up around the klan)
"If they act like an N word, why cant I call them an N word, its not like im racist, i call stupid/criminal/bad whites N words too."
So i think anyone who uses this logic to justify a slurs usage should take a moment for self reflection.
(This is coming from someone who is queer and will use queer slurs only in certain company, in private, where everyone involved is aware and into it. (and even then I get uncomfy, especially when im in a new group and I don't know people and they start throwing words around.))
(Also to add I was one of those "slow" kids who has alot of history with the cruel things my family and others called me.
if you use the r-slur around me, even if its not directed at me, it hurts, and it makes me feel less safe with you, because of the way that word has been used to specifically target me for hatred based on my neurotype. plus there's the fact that you acknowledge it to be a mean word for disabled people, and if you're using it as a weapon against non-disabled people, you're really saying 'haha, you're like those disabled people, and that's terrible.' i hope you can see how this probably doesn't feel so good to a lot of us?
This is my take on it. Moron evolved to be a more general term associated with anyone acting foolish. It evolved to the point that nobody really associates it as a word targeted directly at intellectualy disabled folks. The r-word was always more commonly understood as "the word you would say to a disabled person if you wanted to hurt them the most". Because of this people who use it weren't/aren't given the benefit of the doubt that they're just being hyperbolic and not actually a bigot directly to disabled people. Why did one evolve to be more hurtful than the other? I'm not sure. There's probably a parallel universe out there where the reverse scenario exists.
Edit: nvm, disregard. just realized this post is 10d old and people already articulated what I intended much better than me.
"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.
They are entirely different words. No one is calling for an outright ban on those letters; that's a sentiment you made up.
Don't use it as a slur. If you are using the word in another, legitimate context where it's not a slur, I don’t give a fuck. But stop arguing that those two uses are somehow indistinguishable because that's just not true.
Edit:
Unlike the F-slur, N-word, and all the other colorful terms…
This is false. Examples: "cracker," the b-word, the f-slur (in UK contexts), "queer," "gay."
All of these have other legitimate meanings. So, please reconsider your defense of this specific term, because you’re not even arguing it based on facts.
I know so many people who adamantly stand by their use of it. I used to say it, too, but all it took was one person to point out to me that it was hurtful and I apologised and stopped no questions asked. I don't get why it's so hard to just have a little empathy.
it does tend to be a good litmus test for disempathy, sadly. obviously there are outliers, but if one can’t take a tiny correction to like 0.01% of their vocabulary, color me not surprised when that same person starts talking about the immigrant problem or women’s place in the home or something :(
Except that literally everyone who has empathy does selective empathy, even if not intentionally. You also can't really form an in-group and out-group mindset without empathy. Like if there was no empathy at all bigotry wouldn't be nearly as big.
i used to think it was okay for me to say as i'm disabled. what i noticed, though, is that my doing so 1) communicated to my abled peers that it's okay for them to say as well & 2) made me appear as a pick-me; i was perceived as "one of the good ones."
the r-slur has been causing a very visceral reaction in me for years & i will continue to report each & every instance of it.
I have a question about for you about this if you don’t mind. In certain mechanical situations the word is used to describe a delay added (for example in a car engine you may use this word to describe a certain timing adjustment).
Does the word in a context like that still cause that visceral reaction or does the context make it different - is it only when used to describe people that it hits that way?
I’m only asking this because it popped into my head the other day when I was reading my service book on my engine and ran across it.
It’s kinda similar to how people commonly used a shortened form of ‘transmission’ in the automotive industry but it became a slur for trans people - I feel like I haven’t heard that one in a while so I’m guessing it’s fallen out of use, but I was just always curious if the taint of people bullying with that word crossed over into other contexts.
That’s along the lines of what I expected. I’m always just curious how our brains work, so thank you.
I always try to find an alternative to the word regardless of the context because it’s not like it’s hard to do and I’d rather not cause that reaction in anyone if possible.
It sucks that we keep doing the same thing over and over as a society as this is not the first word ruined by being used in the exact same manner as a way to bully and harass and make fun of people.
You’d think some day we’d learn that we can actually teach people not to be shitty and we don’t have to accept this behavior from people at all.
That's the problem I have when people of that slur use it. And worse, they act like it's not a big deal. There's offensive words I can use because of my skin tone that would absolutely get any non-colored person choked out.
But you nailed it. If I brush it off like it doesnt offend/isn't a disgusting word, then I am giving permission to others that it's okay to say.
It's the same these days with the f-slur and cishet folks getting ostracised for using it, at least where I live. I agree, I'll happily call myself one but never the r-slur. It just gives people a free pass.
Here’s the way I see it: to most people, that word is not linked to a disability. It’s just a word to describe bewilderment or exasperation at someone, something, some situation. It’s not intended to be hurtful.
I have a disability as well. I see about twenty percent of what normal people see. I’m pretty much blind without my contacts or glasses. I don’t get offended when someone uses terms like ‘short-sighted’ or when someone says ‘are you blind?’ to someone else. We also use seeing metaphors quite a lot if you pay attention to them. I’m not offended by it, because I know the language is not intended to offend me.
I’ve also worked with people who had actual mental disabilities. And trust me, most of them know damn well when something’s intended as an insult or when it’s just metaphorical use.
I hope that most people can look past it in the same way but unfortunately intent doesn't change how hurtful some things can be. And it's still language that serves to otherise a group of people. Just like the N and F words which have both declined heavily in use (at least since I've been alive).
The way I look at it is that my want to use certain words does not outweigh other people's feelings. English is full of fun and interesting things to say, we can get a bit more creative than just using slurs.
I wish there was a category of words that conveyed the same strength as slurs, but weren't offensive. Swears are the closest. Unfortunately I think any word that can be freely used like that will be used in exaggeration so much that it will be watered down.
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.
I think saying it was acceptable is a stretch. I agree it was certainly more commonplace and more acceptable than now, but it was still criticized a good bit.
You're absolutely right. I meant it was "acceptable" -- I don't recall hearing people judged for saying it, but that was among an immature, high school crowd. It was definitely considered offensive to use as a label, rather than an insult (which was on the same level as f*g; not acceptable, but commonplace).
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.
The issue is, though you may make a distinction between "I'm using this slur as an insult and not against its targeted oppressed minority", bigots make no such distinction. Hearing others use the slur and normalize it emboldens these bigots to use it against vulnerable minorities, backing up to "I didn't mean it that way" when they get called out. The word's legacy also tangles with a fair bit of racism, as children of minority races were often labeled "mentally retarded" for poor English skills or just so they could be shuffled out of class after school segregation was ended. It's just a word, yes, but one with a lot of ugly history in the US at the very least.
Plus, the dislike of the word really isn't new, it just has more support these days. We have lots of other words to choose from, what's the harm in avoiding this one?
I think that's why I also don't have this understanding for it, I'm not a native English speaker and our language has a ton of curse words. Cursing with disease is frowned upon more than other words
Is it okay if I direct it towards myself even if I'm not the targeted oppressed minority. Like "damn I'm a retard", since that's basically the only way I use the word anyhow.
Me and my friends were all the 1980's definition of retarded. We all informed each other of this fact constantly. You know who was never ever called retarded??? The kids with learning disabilities. They never got that label because it was always used to refer to hyperactive dumbass sugar junkies causing needless mayhem while hurting themselves in the process. Those were the "retards" as per the common usage at the time.
How would you feel if something you couldn't change about yourself was used by your peers as an insult? You really don't see how using the word "retarded" as a stand-in for "stupid" is still an insult to people with mental disabilities? If someone was acting stupid and you said they were acting "like a Chinese person" that's still insulting to Chinese people even if the person you're targeting isn't Chinese.
Also I'm calling shenanigans on "the 1980s definition". I am the same age as you and I was taught it was cruel to use the word that way back then.
Fun fact: Abbott sells methylphenidate chlorohydrate with a retardant effect so that it lasts for approximately 16 hours instead of 4, and they called it Aradix Retard lmao. I know why they called it that but I can't help but laugh every time I see it.
Not your fault of course but it was always a stupid name. It isn't arrested or inhibited, during a stage of development, resulting in an underdeveloped outcome (retarded). Like a fire retardant door stops the fire developing, as it would usually on doors. In the case of this drug, the release is inhibited, as its, presumably, a pro-drug.
They could have called it "long lasting", "pro-drug", "pro", "inhib" or "slow release" and these would have all been accurate descriptions. However, retarded isn't accurate. They chose it anyway though.
I used it yesterday and feel kinda bad. Having said that, the guy I said it to was in an online lobby and I'd said one word on mic and he immediately asked if I was a baddie and told me to rate myself out of 10 for him.
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.
Blahaj.zone admin here. Let me make this simple and clear. I don't care what specific word you use, if you are using intellectual disability or neurodivergence as an insult, you're going to get moderated.
lemmy users will hear “i don’t care what word you use, don’t insult based on disability or neurodivergence” and say “sounds like silence to me, too bad the mods won’t answer my questions of if certain words are allowed”
If I call you "stupid," "moronic," or "intellectually bankrupt" you know what I'm saying. Getting offended by the specific wording of an ad hominem, while giving synonymous terms a pass, is truly some of the finest hair-splitting I have ever had the displeasure of seeing.
Imagine calling the difference between people who do stupid things and people who are born with diagnosed mental illnesses "splitting hairs".
It's very, very simple. In one case, you are attacking someone who is completely in control of their mental facilities. In the other, you are attacking people who are literally incapable of defending themselves, from birth. They are not synonymous. If you think that level of punching down is okay, then be as indignant and self-righteous about it as you want, but you deserve to be told.
So, we're just going to pretend that language doesn't evolve because it justifies your bias?
People didn't put their foot down when the meaning of those words began to shift, and now they mean something entirely different. In our more socially and culturally aware culture, we as a people understand nuance and are generally educated enough to see what's happening. We have by and large decided that it's a bad thing to continue normalizing attacking the mentally disabled.
Fuck off with your pseudo-intellectual defense of toxic, dehumanizing culture. Words mean things. The things they mean can change. Those ones, in a less educated and accepting time, did. The ones we have now have not. Your attempt to dismiss that is genuinely hateful.
The push to get people to stop saying it Streisand Effected the word into a slur. There's no reason it shouldn't have just gone the way of "moron," except people turning it into a bigger problem than it ever had any right being.
The entirety of your final paragraph reads like a guilt by association fallacy.
The push to get people to stop saying it Streisand Effected the word into a slur. There's no reason it shouldn't have just gone the way of "moron,
Sure. But it didn't. And now it is a slur. And no matter how much you'd like to defend your version of the word, that isn't what it means. Sitting in your own bubble and insisting on your own version of language history doesn't change the meaning of the word to the evolving world.
They probably chose the language for that call-out way before 2009. Airplanes can live for thirty years, and type designs can keep going several decades longer
The designers were also likely to be French, but they selected English call-outs. This seems to me like a case where they picked a word that's technically in the OED l, but is actually much more common in French.
I mean, if it’s a valid word for what they want to say, then I don’t really see a problem. It’s pronounced the same, but it’s a completely different word.
Just don't use it to refer to people and you're golden. There are many slurs that are also legitimate scientific terms, like how fag(g)ot is a bundle of sticks, or how in physics you have the Advanced and the Retarded Green's functions.
Its fa-'got, fyi. Similar to the slur, but the second syllable is stressed, like the word for good. That is in your native language to be clear, I don't know about the others.
no hate to you but i do hate that this is one of the default responses the internet has chosen when discussing this language (twice now in this thread)
one is a noun/adjective, the other is a verb. entirely different words that simply have the same Latin root. one is used in a professional context in an industry nearly none of us are familiar with, the other i come across as a derogatory on this site pretty much hourly. please let’s grow up a bit about this.
(again no hate to you specifically commenter, it was a funny joke and i just want to call out the broader trend)
It probably gets annoying as a bystander, but I don't have a lot of opportunities to bring aviation into the rest of my life. Especially in a way that's mildly funny.
You know what else I’m upset about? There's this insidious figure who has caused unimaginable grief and pain, hiding behind a facade of normalcy. He’s responsible for countless horrors, using his cunning and deceit to further his dark ambitions. His actions have shattered lives and spread fear like wildfire. Yeah, I’m talking about William Afton. If there's one person who truly deserves all the anger and outrage, it's definitely him.
