There’s a clear campaign against the mentally ill with the global rise of fascism. Lots of it shows up in anti homeless rhetoric, but you can see it in the MAHA and anti vaccination movements.
There’s no reason to use the word “r-tarded” to describe someone. As someone who’s worked with the intellectually challenged, it’s an insult to them to compare them with people who are willfully ignorant.
These stupid wars on words IMHO is the reason why “liberals” were regarded as a joke prior to trump election
Like banning “master” in github as well as dumb, regex based words filters in chats. Oh you want to mention the “beta version”? Too bad, a social justice warrior decided that “beta” is now offensive, you have to change your language so that you wont affect the hypothetic easily offendable persons
Like banning “master” in github as well as dumb
Master wasn’t banned. The default name was changed from master to main. Literally nothing is stopping you from choosing to use master.
While this is technically correct, when you say “we’re switching the default branch name from master to main to be less culturally insensitive”, you kind of imply that people who continue using master are culturally insensitive. And nobody likes being called that (generally), so it still feels like a ban to people.
That implication is correct?
Look, if it’s pointed out that “x” makes some minorty uncomfortable, but you keep using “x”, you are culturally insensitive to that minority. You can choose to be, nobody would care if you’re not a person/company with milliona of followers.
That’s entirely assuming that there indeed is a sizeable minority that have reason to be offended and indeed are offended. In the cited example above, that wasn’t the case so there was significant controversy surrounding what was perceived as “performative activism” that benefitted noone.
“We’re switching from master to main” was controversial? My god, people must’ve been bored out of their fucking minds.
You know how a normal person would react to this? ‘k.’
That’s entirely assuming that there indeed is a sizeable minority that have reason to be offended and indeed are offended. In the cited example above, that wasn’t the case
A 1s websearch says this is false. BLM movement is definitely a “sizable minority” whatever that means.
You know how a normal person would react to this? ‘k.’
I reacted like this too. But you I don’t think the opponents had invalid arguments to be honest. It was mostly:
-
Lack of an actual outcry to change it.
-
‘Master’ in git did not have any connotations to slavery, so there was no reason to be offended by it (different from eg master/slave databases or something).
-
The change was hamfisted through without the community actually finding consensus and agreeing with the change.
-
It invalidates 15 years of git tutorials, which is confusing for newbies.
-
The defaults for git mismatched with the default in github, which as a very large player put undue corporate pressure on the git project to go along with the change.
-
Changing the branch name does have impact on users, which without a good reason to change it is unnecessary.
-
And the big one: the rename is just performative. If you want to address inequality in tech, make sure people of colour get the same access and opportunities that white people get. Github in particular was ridiculed because they pretended to be so socially conscious, but as it turns out despite having black employees, not one of them had managed to promote into a management function at the time. They put up a smokescreen but did not make any actually impactful changes that improved the position of people of colour, and in doing so abused the BLM movement for PR purposes.
A 1s websearch says this is false. BLM movement is definitely a “sizable minority” whatever that means.
BLM didn’t advocate for this though! Microsoft/Github sort of assumed they would, so decided to change it. But I can’t find any actual outcry that it should be changed from those who were supposedly offended by the term.
Fair points.
Weirdly, that BLM source in wikipedia led nowhere. My fault for not checking.
However performative it may have seen at the time, I’m glad the terms are gone. Master/slave was particularly uncomfortable to use for me personally (I mainly associate it with BDSM)
-
i’m austistic and love the word retard, really don’t understand peoples need to be offended for others. it’s not remotely close to the n-word, saying “r-word” just makes you seem like a tool imo
Look we can’t call each other retards because other people will get triggered for us…
Besides every sane person knows that in common speech this is just means “extremely stupid” with no derogatory intent.
“extremely stupid” with no derogatory intent.
I think you should look up the definition of derogatory. Calling someone stupid is derogatory.
You should look up context clues
It doesn’t take much literary analysis to understand that using that word to mean “extremely stupid” is ableist.
I meant derogatory towards disabled people.
Riiiiight, in the same way people used to pair it with motions mimicking cerebral palsy? Do you also believe that didn’t have derogatory intent towards people with disabilities and only meant “extremely stupid”? 🙄
motions mimicking cerebral palsy
I’ve no idea what that even is. Sounds like some pseudo science
You don’t remember when people used to imitate spasticity by curling their hands and whacking their chests while changing their voice? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spastic_cerebral_palsy It was extremely common to do when calling people that word.
You don’t remember when people used to imitate spasticity
I don’t. Never even heard about that disease.
BTW: People over internet don’t know who you are, what race you are, and what disabilities you have. If you get called a brain dead retard, it because some dumb shit you wrote. Nothing less, nothing more
How else would you refer to people with below average critical thinking skills who perform actions without understanding or considering the consequences.
Please keep your answer non-derogatory.
I never said it’s wrong to call people stupid.
The derogatory intent is directed at the insult target, not an uninvolved group of people, is what they meant.
But OP worked with “intellectually challenged” ???
Jfc can’t even call myself retarded without offending an unrelated neuro-typical “standing up” for us.
I don’t like the euphemism treadmill. Normalize all slurs. Get more creative with your language & learn how to reappropriate & reclaim.
The worst take I’ve seen on slurs is the online activism to make the noun female a slur. When I explain that their advocacy accepts a sexist premise that something is wrong with the name of an entire gender & thereby consents to the stigmatization of that gender, they erupt into an irrational rage.
The reason people have a problem with the noun female isn’t because “there’s something wrong with the name of an entire gender” it’s because it’s extremely often used in such a way that people (typically men) will refer to men as men and refer to women as females. It’s why you may see the phrase “men and females” thrown around as a response.
(For the record, I think referring to women as well as men as females or males is pointlessly degrading. The noun version of those is acceptable for non-human animals, e.g. the males in a flock of birds.)
it’s because it’s extremely often used in such a way that people (typically men) will refer to men as men and refer to women as females. It’s why you may see the phrase “men and females” thrown around as a response.
Right, so the premise is there’s something wrong with the word that names an entire gender. The campaign isn’t “don’t use ‘men and females’”, it’s “don’t use ‘females’”. They’ll write about Ferengis whenever a suspected non-female uses female: they’re not examining meanings & context to draw critical distinctions. ‘Men and females’ is merely a rationalization.
The effect: female is a slur, yet male isn’t, so female is stigmatized. That disparity raises the impression that femininity has such deficiencies even their name is a term of abuse unworthy of pride, and that females are too frail without society coming to defend them from the adversity of their name. In contrast, masculinity is sufficient for its name not to raise adversity, and even if it did, males have the fortitude for society not to come to their defense. That unequal treatment of words implicates females disfavorably thereby stigmatizing them.
Think who that serves: is opposition to the noun “female” unwittingly subscribing to stigmatization & sexist thinking of those who’d welcome the stigmatization? The language police are playing themselves here.
Treating the word female like male, however, wouldn’t raise such questions & impressions, and it wouldn’t ostensibly support a sexist premise and play into its consequences.
Right, so the premise is there’s something wrong with the word that names an entire gender.
How do you get that? The word “women” names an entire gender and isn’t viewed as a problem. Why do you think the problem people have with “females” is because it names an entire gender?
It was already explained, it’s the premise their activism supports by advocating the disparate treatment of female as a slur. From an external, impartial observer, claiming there’s a problem with the word female with little regard for context communicates the problem resides in whatever the word itself denotes rather than the contextual meaning.
Moreover, the position they advocate is counterfactual. The language community decides the meaning of words through observed usage, and in the preponderance of the community, neither female nor woman is offensive. That includes among females. Female is used self-referentially “in-group”: it shows up in feminist book titles, in dating communities (eg, “F4F/M”), classifieds (eg, “need a roommate […] females only”), etc. In conventional language, female is an acceptable word (as is woman).
Imagine online activists started condemning usage of the word dutch as a slur. It’s bizarre: there is nothing wrong with the dutch, yet they’re acting as though we should think so & resist that urge? Why are they propagating problematic presuppositions we don’t have about the dutch? Why are they trying to make this official? Are they some special breed of stupid?
Continuing this analogy, they drag you into fights by claiming you’re a racist for using the word when you’re not actually saying anything offensive about the dutch. You & the rest of society know the word dutch isn’t offensive, yet these activists insist it is by pointing to some fringe online community spewing vitriolic propaganda about dutch inferiority specifically using the word dutch. You repudiate their claim by asking why some fringe group irrelevant to wider society gets to decide the meaning of words, but they condemn your “hurtful” language and say you’re as bad as them or one of them. Don’t be an asshole & use another word like Dutchperson, Netherlander, or Hollander they say: it’s the right thing to do & shows socially conscientious, moral rectitude.
While our society includes both a minority of sexists & a vast majority of non-sexists who use the word female differently, these activists privilege the language & rhetoric of the sexist minority over the non-sexist majority. Why should the sexists get to decide the meaning of words for everyone & the unequal ideas to perpetuate in society? Who does that serve?
Older activists recognized that doesn’t serve them & took a different approach. Against higher odds, black activists reappropriated the word black as a word of pride. Non-heteronormative activists did likewise with the word queer. Instead of antagonizing non-sexists by treating them as sexists or fulfilling an inferiority complex to make sexist language official, online language police would be wise to learn from the older activists & follow their example.
people (typically men) will refer to men as men and refer to women as females
Where
Enough that people made a whole subreddit about it.
No I mean where in the wild? Because I only see women referred to as females in screengrabs from incel forums and incelposters on places like 4chan. Obviously if I went to reddit (which I don’t), to a subreddit specifically for aggregating this behavior, I would see it. So where in the wild are you seeing “men and females”?
I often hear men at the gym refer to women as “females” while referring to men as “guys,” so yes, it’s definitely something that exists in the wild. I never hear them call men “males.” I never hear women call men “males” either.
Ironically, the term “mental retardation” was introduced by medical and educational professionals as a less derogatory and more objective replacement for older, highly stigmatizing terms like idiot, moron, and imbecile, which themselves were previous medical classifications.
I think about this a lot. I feel like it essentially means the middle school bullies of today drive the slurs of tomorrow.
I think we should go back to learning the old adage “sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me”
Retarded is a word that is now used exclusively to talk about people who are not mentally ill acting like dumb fucking cunts. Like, its totally retarded to see people getting upset at Trump being called a retard… If you hear the word, and you think about actual disabled people. Thats a you thing. Cos I promise you, no one else is.
No one is looking at this, and thinking that anyone else, but Trump, is a fucking retard.
Well, no, Trump was specifically mimicking a specific reporter with a congenital joint condition in that image. So I don’t really get why you don’t think that’s Trump not being disparaging. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34930042
I think you need to read what I wrote again, Chief. Cos I never made that claim.
Retarded is a word that is now used exclusively to talk about people who are not mentally ill acting like dumb fucking cunts. Like, its totally retarded to see people getting upset at Trump being called a retard… If you hear the word, and you think about actual disabled people. Thats a you thing. Cos I promise you, no one else is.
No one is looking at this, and thinking that anyone else, but Trump, is a fucking retard.
Trump didn’t call anyone ”stupid” when he did that. Nor did he even use that word you said he did. He was imitating someone with a disability.
Now, the poor guy, you’ve got to see this guy: ‘Uhh, I don’t know what I said. Uhh, I don’t remember,’ he’s going like ‘I don’t remember. Maybe that’s what I said’
The reporter he’s talking about:
Again, you need to read what I wrote again. Because I didnt say what you are saying I said.
Again, Trump wasn’t even using the word this thread is about in that picture but he was mimicking someone with a disability so I don’t see what point you’re even trying to make.
One last time, read what I said again. I am not saying what you are saying I said.
What do you think I think you’re saying?
There’s no reason to use the word “r-tarded” to describe someone.
Seeing how upset it makes some people it’s very clear that it makes an excellent insult.
A lot of slurs make people upset.
If you have to resort to slurs to insult people it just shows a lack of imagination.
The point of insults is to be insulting, not being imaginative.
What would one call a person that is willfully uneducated, ignorant, bigoted, makes bad-faith arguments and acts foolishly, without using “ableist language”?
If my intention is to offend that person?
What would one call a person that is willfully uneducated, ignorant, bigoted, makes bad-faith arguments and acts foolishly
I’d probably point them to this thread and call them “@[email protected]”
No u
“Demons” is a derogatory term. You should use “Mortally Challenged”
- Doom Eternal
As a legal representative of an online platform and social media website 9GAG.com, I ask you to put this post down as it unmistakingly violates our intelectual property, there: our brand of humor. Failure to so would be followed with a formal DMCA request to your fediverse provider, and then court. I reached out to you in hopes it won’t get to that.
Sincerely, David Altkey
Please forward your complaint to Bethesda Software
It was a result of our licensing agreement with Bethesda Softworks (Zenimax) that allowed it’s limited usage on their platforms, incl. transformative works derivative of their media products.
As a directly attributed quote (hence non-transformative) hosted outside Zenimax social media accounts and products, by a third party - it deserves scrutiny.
It directly damages our thinning stream of revenue, as gamergate-adjacent jokes as assets aren’t as solid as they once were. So every penny matters.
By our conservative estimates, 9GAG.com loses $0.69 USD per upvote in it’s potential revenue. The lawsuit though would not be as forgiving after all fees are applied. Still, we don’t think it’s going to be necessary if our request is fullfilled in a timely manner.
Sincerely, David Altkey
When you stop being offended by letters on a page and direct that hate towards the individuals that use the word as a slur or out of context on purpose, you’ll be a lot happier.
People aren’t upset about the word. They’re upset with the people using the word. Telling people to not use the word like that is how they’re “directing that hate.” People are already doing the thing you’re saying they should do.
Do you also use the N word? Would you feel comfortable using that as an insult?
No, but then that word has very few uses beyond slurs. The word ‘retard’, however, has many uses in technical fields - for example in setting internal combustion engine timings, or throttle settings in aviation. As always, context matters.
The N word is based off negro which is just black. Calling someone black isn’t an insult so the only connotation would be to be racist. Retard is based on slow and I would want to call someone slow and imply what they’re saying is moronic, so it literally fits perfectly. That said it’s still used as a slur pretty often and it’s purely a negative word so I still don’t really use it.
I’m not offended by “faggot” because of its shape, I’m offended by it because it takes me back to when Meathead John crushed my throat in the playground calling me it until I would ask him to beat up the boy i liked instead.
Words represent, communicate and are something. Humans have for the entirety of their use of language, understood that the signifier and the signified are interchangeable.
I’m very sorry for your experience, but without knowing you and your history, I can’t possibly know all of that. So I’m left with two choices - sharply limit my vocabulary in the hopes of avoiding making some random person feel bad; or acknowledge that each adult is best qualified to carry and deal with their own traumas.
You don’t have to limit your vocabulary at all, you merely cannot escape the perception of others based on your behavior.
It’s not even limited to humans either - animals, insects will perceive and treat you differently depending on your behavior.
Nothing prevents you from kicking a dog, but the dog and anyone who knows about it will treat you accordingly.
Sure, but if you equate me with someone who kicks a dog just because I talk about master or slave database nodes, or the need to retard message rates - I’m also going to treat you accordingly.
And honestly that’s fair. If I’m sitting in a meeting and you’re trying to browbeat me into calling something a slave in front of some African American co-workers, or you’re talking about retarding something while someone explains they don’t like that term because their child has Downs Syndrome, you are welcome to think we’re foolish for caring - but I can’t imagine that Any Given Person would walk away thinking you’ve gotten the upper hand there
Oh look, somebody else is trying to cast me as a monster because I refuse to be politically correct in a technical context. You should probably also demonize me for the fact that I live my life in a wheelchair and will occasionally refer to myself as ‘gimpy’.
I’m not trying to cast you as anything, I’m extrapolating real world events from your theoretical responses.
The term “politically correct” is a thought terminating cliche. it’s meant to detach real world experience from hypothetical situations. “Political” here is meant to cast the discussion on what the government is doing, I am not talking about the government, therefore whether this is politically correct or not is irrelevant.
You use that many slurs that avoiding making some random person feel bad sharply limits your vocabulary?
I try not to use any slurs at all, but working in a technical field, I do occasionally use terms that have been picked up as slurs.
And that’s okay, the context matters a lot. But someone’s code will or won’t compile regardless of if they call the branch “main” or “master”
In the context of this thread though, it really really seems like you just want to defend saying slurs
Why would I? I have the intellect and vocabulary to be specific when I choose to be insulting. For example, and only an example, I read you as a weekend intellectual, the sort of person who absolutely must be the smartest person in the room. Your lack of grammar and consistent punctuation gives me the impression you’re Generation Y or Generation Z, part way through what will ultimately be an unfruitful and potentially very short career in tech; and you can’t absorb why you’re not moving up. The real reason, of course, is that you’re bikeshedding everyone’s language instead of learning the craft.
How many slurs did you count?
That’s a lot of words to call me a failure, buddy, seems like I touched a nerve. You’re not wrong, but of all the reasons I’m a failure, using kinder, more inclusive language isn’t one of them.
I’m smart enough to know I’m still pretty dumb, but I’m also still smart enough to know that not using potentially offensive language costs me nothing, but makes the world a slightly better place. You do you, though.
Honestly, it’s not a word in my vocabulary but I think this opinion is moronic, idiotic even.
The only reason it continues to be offense to those living with mental disabilities is because there are people like yourself who keep attributing the word to them.
I love the word retard. I care about people with intellectual disabilities. I don’t mean them when I say it.
Lol you fucking spastic - can’t say that, its offensive
Are you retarded - can’t say that, its offensive
Damn bro, you mentally disabled?
This will continue onward, to think otherwise is retarded.
I never really understood the difference between insults and slurs. Somebody said that slurs target groups of people and imply that just being in the group is bad. That explanation works for ethnic/racial slurs or the ones regarding gender/sexualities.
But to me “retarded” is not specifically tied to a group. It’s not mainly used for people who are disabled or neurodivergent for example. As far as I’m concerned it’s the same as calling someone a moron or incredibly stupid.
Quite the imaginary slippery slope you made up there.
There’s a historical cycle where the helping professions rotate the terminology out, as the wider culture overloads the old terms with insulting usage. Eventually the new vernacular leaks out into general parlance and the cycle cycles. “Retarded” was once acceptable clinical terminology because "idiot, “moron”, and “imbecile” had accumulated cultural baggage. The latter terms were, themselves, once politically correct alternatives to even older terms.
I think it’s naive to think that THIS time is special, and today’s politically correct terminology won’t ever leak out into common usage as a slur too.
Which gets to the larger problem - the dehumanization of people with intellectual and cognitive disabilities. Being such a person is considered such a bad thing that it can be used as an insult. Whatever terminology we use, people with cognitive delays are just as human, just as valuable as anyone else.
Being such a person is considered such a bad thing that it can be used as an insult.
I mean, yes? Ultimately that’s exactly what an insult is. Think of the other words we use as curses and insults. Asshole. Mother fucker. Bitch. Cunt. Dick. Shit(head). Dumbass. Pendejo. Cabron.
Do you want to be something stinky (asshole, cunt, dick, shit), or something disliked (bitch, mother fucker)? Do you want to be like the people who the terms moron, idiot, imbecile, retarded, handicapped, or disabled are describing? Hell, extend it to other things. If someone 6 feet tall was calling you, a 5’4" man, a midget, it’s not like your height suddenly will change if the term is accepted for you, it’s because you don’t want to be perceived as someone short enough to be termed appropriately as such.
And as much as we can all consider everyone human to be just as valuable as any other human, people aren’t suddenly going to want to be short, or have low intelligence / ability to learn/comprehend/adapt. This is why I ultimately have given up on policing the language in general. We are forever locked into the cycle of words becoming inappropriate, because the vast majority of folks genuinely abhor the idea of becoming something like those words are describing, whether its mental ability, height, likeability, worth, etc. You’re not going to change that, ever.
Right, so then we rotate words again. This isn’t hard. We’re not trying to find the One True Politically Correct Term; we’re arguing that one (1) specific word has a negative bias and we need to stop using it.
If a group of people are telling me this word was and continues to be used as a dehumanizing slur, that’s enough for me to look into a vocabulary change. More importantly, the very existence of a euphemism treadmill shows that you can’t stop at language change, and that disabled people need to be much more fully accepted in society.
Here’s the thing, the word doesn’t matter… It’s the intent. For example if I said “well aren’t you a fucking genius” and meant it sarcastically that’s just as insulting. I could also say “you gobflecker” in a aggressive tone that also bad.
An example is the old show red dwarf. The replaced every curse word with smeg. Smeg doesn’t mean anything. But in the show when one character calls another a “smeghead”. You know it’s not nice and meant to be an insult even though they never said or explained that in the show.
Banning a word won’t do anything. Ban the attitude and change people’s opinions and you can change the world. For example women, not saying they are treated well by everyone but compared to 200 years ago? Or even further back? For example there was a “treatment” for women who dared consider working. They were basically forced to bed and forced to stay there only hand few broth for 6 months. They literally just had to lay there, no talking no reading no such thing as a video. Today they are treated much better, it wasn’t by banning the world girl or bitch or vagina or anything it was by changing people’s perception.
“Smeg” does mean something. Its the white crap that forms under your foreskin if you never wash your dick.
Absolutely recommend you try this out with some slurs on people of various races and see if saying “the word doesn’t matter” stops them from beating the shit out you lol
What’s up my nigga got widely used without insulting anyone
The word doesn’t matter, it’s the intent.
Eh, maybe, but words communicate intent. By stigmatizing certain messaging - which can include both reserving certain words for only certain use cases and also shaming people who express bigotry regardless of what word they happen to choose - we communicate to third party observers that such views are not welcome in our society. Will it change the mind of the person using those words? Probably not, but avoiding hurtful words still has a great deal of positive social utility.
I don’t know, I don’t think the specific word is that meaningful. A new slur will likely be made for mentally disabled people, then it will get pushback and then another one will be made.
If I translated it to hindi or German or swahili it wouldn’t mean anything but if I walked up to you and yelled them at you you would probably be hurt. If I said them lovingly and softly you probably would be comforted.
The problem with having these conversations on the internet is there is no way to express that so… Maybe… I could see the point of banning potentially offensive words in text on the internet.
If I translated it to hindi or german or swahili it wouldn’t mean anything [to you]
Well, yeah. There may not be a word in those languages with the same connotations, and yeah, obviously I wouldn’t understand them if there were. But all language is contextual. We’re currently talking about english - and I’m specifically talking about United States English because that is what I speak.
Censorship wouldn’t be my choice - and in any case I believe what’s being advocated for here by the OP is social disapproval - but yeah, in the context of the internet I would refrain from using words that could hurt people when it was not my intention to hurt them.
Around strangers, coworkers, or really anyone you don’t know well a similar policy would tend to apply. Even with friends, I wouldn’t want to encourage a culture of being callous with the words I use.
There are so many other ways to express whatever sentiment you’re trying to express, why would you reach for a word that implies that some people are less than others? I’m referring to it in its use as an insult or derogatory word, of course, since technical language has its place and institutions will generally choose whatever language fits their needs. I can’t assess their situation because I’m not involved.
I think we are arguing the same thing. Don’t be mean or an asshole. Don’t look down on people. People regardless of ability should be treated as people.
Of course you shouldnt use it as an insult or derogatory word. I was totally not arguing for that. I was just saying that if you wanted to be insulting or derogatory the word itself doesn’t matter. The change to r-word doesn’t change anything. The question “are you r-worded?” should be just as offensive.
We have down this many times. Stupid, invalid, ibecil all had similar meanings and then were made offensive and a new word was made up, then that became offensive.
The word itself is meaningless, it’s the context and intent.
One thing I just thought of that I would agree with is changing it from an identifier to attribute. What I mean is a person should not “be r-word-Ed” but should be do you “have r-word-ism?” it shouldn’t define a person, but a description of an aspect is different. Like you may have the flu but your not a “fluer” or you might have epilepsy but you may also be a mechanic or pianist or physicist it’s a part but should not define you.
Of course you shouldnt use it as an insult or derogatory word. I was totally not arguing for that. I was just saying that if you wanted to be insulting or derogatory the word itself doesn’t matter. The change to r-word doesn’t change anything. The question “are you r-worded?” should be just as offensive.
[…]
The word itself is meaningless, it’s the context and intent.
This feels pointlessly pendantic. I don’t think anyone here has argued in favor of using a censored version of the word in place of an uncensored one in speech as an insult but has been talking about using it all versus not using it, so in that context, yes, the word very much matters. Choosing to use a censored version of the word is still choosing to use the word.
I’m unaware of an existent group of people for whom the term “smeg” is or historically was thier actual designation?
It isn’t about not insulting someone, it’s about using language that refers to actual people who haven’t done anything wrong.
It’s like if suddenly everyone decided to call a pedophile a Vrek. You maybe wouldn’t love that suddenly people are invoking YOU to talk about pedophiles.
That’s the kind of collateral damage people are trying to avoid.
I’ve for sure said things are retarded. I’m no saint. I’ve got mixed feelings… but I think your take on the subject is poorly informed. I think you’ve missed the entire premise of the argument against using the word.
My point with smeg was that it was a made up word. But you could figure out the intent purely by context.
Again it comes to context, if you intend to hurt a person the word is meaningless.
That dude’s a fucking Vrek, goddamn.
I find it difficult to imagine a future in which humans aren’t making fun of impaired cognition.
I think the context is what’s most important, if anyone actually directs such language (be it retarded, idiot, etc) towards people with genuine mental impairment, that constitutes a slur. But the word ‘retarded’ literally means ‘slow’, and is still regularly used (including by myself) in scientific and technical contexts (compared to racist or homophobic slurs, which are only ever really used in a ‘slur’ kind of way).
I wouldn’t really have a problem with calling people ‘slow’ in jest, and I don’t think many would. Imo if not ‘retarded’, it’ll be something else with the same meaning.
That doesn’t really work as an argument when slow is also used as a euphemism for people with mental disabilities. Saying “it literally means slow, I’m calling them slow” just makes it sound like you’re still being ableist. I don’t believe calling someone slow as an insult is ableist, I’m only saying that the train of thought feels goofy. Like, “oh? You weren’t trying to use the slur usage of the word and were using the technical usage? The technical usage that means slow? Another word people use as an insult and a euphemism for the exact same kinds of people and scenarios as the other one?”
