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.
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.
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.