It was used and is used to cause harm to vulnerable people. It is the last and likely immortalized step of this particular euphemism treadmill.
The treadmill stopped here. There is no one-size-fits-all diagnosis to replace “mental retardation” because that was a terrible diagnosis to begin with. That’s why something is wrong with the word. The people whose lives were ground up beneath the turning of the wheels that powered that euphemism treadmill are still alive today.
Yes, if the treadmill had continued for one more step before we stopped using such horribly broad diagnosis criteria to lump together vulnerable people with wildly different needs, the word would lose its weight and implications.
Whatever diagnosis that might have replaced it would be regarded with the same moral repugnance as this word is today, and this word would be used as casually and apathetically as we use the word “idiot” - because we can be reasonably certain that nobody in the room has any memories of themselves or someone they love being excluded, humiliated, and diagnosed by the word “idiot”.
Will other diagnostic terms be weaponized? Certainly. Will they ever be as prevalent or as ignorant in their origin and usage? Unlikely. I certainly hope not. And each new vernacular replacement is more awkward and holds less power than the last. That’s why you’re not here defending any term that came after this one. They were never elevated to a shared identity and a humiliating slur. They were never promoted to the public consciousness the way “retard” once was.
Not by corporations. By children abandoned and abused by the system who survived to become adults, and by the people that witnessed this abuse and worked to change it. By doctors, and parents, and peers, some who used the word in good faith and watched helplessly as it became twisted, and others who used the word from a place of ignorance and later learned how much harm could be done by a simple word. By a diagnostic label that was never enough to even describe the people it hurt, let alone help them.
The treadmill stopped. It’s okay. You can join the rest of the world and step off of it now, knowing that we are better equipped to understand and protect our most vulnerable, while also knowing that there is still much more work to be done.
I appreciate your good faith response. I see and empathize with your perspective. To play devil’s advocate, you can’t control whether a group of people decide, out of the blue, to internalize hurtful language that isn’t aimed at them. The N-word had a very specific target and a very cruel purpose. The word “retard” did not. It basically has the same vernacular trajectory as “moron,” or “idiot.” From medical diagnosis to non-specific pejorative. Why aren’t those synonyms verboten? Because people like to make things about themselves.
I literally had an argument with @PugJesus@lemmy.world about this a while back where he declared retard as against sub rules but then continued to call the poster a moron. They’re the same fucking word from different time periods on the treadmill of what is politically correct.
Either both are slurs that shouldn’t be used or both are acceptable.
They’re the same fucking word from different time periods on the treadmill of what is politically correct.
Either both are slurs that shouldn’t be used or both are acceptable.
That’s not how language works, and unless you go around calling Black folk ‘colored’, you understand that in other contexts. What words are acceptable and what connotations they have change with time and usage.
So moron is acceptable now because all the people impacted by the discrimination are dead, so we just need to wait for the retards to die off before we can use the word again?
The same group of people and behaviours are/were described by both words.
But we’ve been over this and confirmed we do not and will not see eye to eye on this.
The parallels between the ableist slur and the racist one run deeper than your argument seems to acknowledge. The word “retard” actually does have a specific history and a specific target. It wasn’t just common vernacular - it was a medical diagnosis.
The reason medical practice has completely abandoned its use is the same reason society should abandon it - it has a history of exclusion, prejudice, and measurable social harm.
By using an outdated (and objectively terrible) diagnosis as an insult for people who we deem intellectually inferior, we continue to associate developmental and behavioral disabilities with being inferior, and perpetuate the systemic and systematic injustices that some of our most vulnerable population still face to this day.
The euphemism treadmill is a known issue. The reason this ableist slur is offensive is, yes, because it is the most recent turning of the wheel. It is the word used in living memory to both refer to patients with poorly understood medical conditions and as an insult to people deemed intellectually inferior.
There is no designer of words. What matters is how they are used. The word “retard” was used to cause harm. It was used by people to broadly and injustly categorize a group of vulnerable individuals by genetic and environmental conditions outside their control.
It was used as a vicious insult by peers and authority figures, it was used in schools and workplaces, it was used by doctors and parents. It was used - yes - to be cruel and humiliating. Of course it was.
Nobody designed the word to cause harm. But anyone who remembers the schoolyard knows that there are countless kids with very real conditions that were mistreated and misunderstood by professionals, parents, and peers. Some may have used the word in good faith. But many more used it in bad faith. They used it as a tool to be cruel and humiliating, and of course they used it on children and adult who could have been diagnosed with a wide variety of very real (and sometimes treatable/manageable!) mental and behavioral conditions that we are still barely scratching the surface of to this day.
It caused harm. It continues to cause harm. And the people who were and are harmed by it are still alive today. Those children grew up to be adults.
People don’t choose to be offended. People are offended by any number of things for any number of reasons. It’s usually not a conscious choice. It’s often a result of injustices experienced or injustices witnessed. In this case, it’s because many of us remember when people used the word “retard” specifically to be cruel and humiliating to vulnerable people.
There are people with high intelligence and those with low intelligence, bandying about with different words will never change that. Intelligence is crucial in social, economic and evolutionary terms. They are correct no one would ever want to be lacking in intelligence because it would only make life worse. There will always be a need for a word to describe someone of lower intellect, or describe an argument or position as being thoughtless, in order to dismiss the person or idea as quickly as possible with as little engagement possible. Preferably while using small words so they understand.
You can still say they have a room temperature IQ but they might not get the meaning…
We are someone that is not your kind.
I agree, and I would not want someone with an IQ of 70 to be in the military, or to be a teacher, or a doctor, as each of those scenarios would likely result in disaster not just for the 70 IQ individual but for everyone impacted by them.
Everyone has a gift
Yea no. This “everyone is special” bullshit just isn’t how the world works. The universe doesn’t care about you, the world is a harsh place where the unfit died early deaths until really intelligent people worked out how to increase food production, developed medicines, surgeries and hygiene.
Retard equates intellectual disability with being DUMB or STUPID
You only need to look up the etymology and history of clinical usage of both dumb and stupid to realise they were used to describe the same groups of people and behaviours during different time periods. More bullshit on the treadmill.
I refuse to censor the word retard while moron, stupid, dumb and idiot are considered fine. To censor a synonym of acceptable words, is to put it bluntly, fucking retarded.
Copying most of my response to a similar line of reasoning elsewhere in this thread -
The word was used as a humiliating slur against a vulnerable group of people. This is indisputable fact. It is a word specifically referring to a group of people, and it was used against that group of people to belittle, demean, and humiliate them.
It was also used as a diagnostic criteria. That history doesn’t change the context for the better - it makes the whole story worse. It was a bad diagnostic criteria. Psychology, psychiatry, and neurology are young fields of study that are going through some serious growing pains - in this case, the usage of overly broad umbrella categorizations of deeply nuanced and complex disorders.
People will always use words to cause harm. But have you noticed the thing that’s missing in everyone’s misguided defense of this word? How everyone complains about “what’s next?” when they refer to idiot, imbecile, and moron?
Nothing’s next. This particular euphemism treadmill appears to have stopped on the word “retard”. Why? Because the fields of psychology, psychiatry, and neurology are outgrowing their old habits, and taking society with them.
We understand these disorders better now. We’re trying to find ways to treat them. We’re diving deep into all the intricate little details about symptoms, and causes, and care, and prognosis.
We don’t have one broad catch-all term like “retard”. We have dozens if not hundreds of diagnoses to replace it. And each “new” vernacular replacement-of-the-week is more awkward than the last and doesn’t gain remotely the popularity or ubiquitousness of its predecessor.
The euphemism treadmill stopped. Other terms will be used, and weaponized, and cause harm. But they’ll never be used by everyone, everywhere the way the word “retard” once was, nor will they ever be used in quite the same way. They will never carry that same weight of shared, mistreated identity. And because of that it will be immortalized - because it was used as a diagnosis and as a humiliating slur by the generations that began to understand the truth. That society has treated our most vulnerable populations so unbelievably bad for so, so long, and we can do better.
The thing is, you’re not entirely wrong in your reasoning. It is just a word. If the treadmill had continued for another generation, and a new word had successfully replaced it, it probably wouldn’t be a slur. It might be forever used as casually and as apathetically as we use terms like “idiot” and “imbecile” and lose most of its weight and implications (words, by the way, that I’m not defending usage of - I’m just not elevating them to the morally repugnant status of slur).
But that didn’t happen. This word still holds a terrible number of memories for the living. And it doesn’t need to survive. Plenty of incredible insults have died out from everyday usage for literally no good reason - language just evolves constantly over time. What’s the harm in letting this one die for plenty of very good reasons?
You - any of you reading this, anyone who needs to hear this - you don’t need to die on this hill with this word. It continues to wither away, and there’s genuinely no personal or societal value in trying to keep it in use. No history needs to be preserved in your vernacular, and certainly not such a troubled history.
No one is trying to take away your speech. No one is coming for your words. But you will upset people with your words throughout your life. You’ll upset people with the truth, and you’ll upset people with lies. You’ll upset people with words carefully chosen, and you’ll upset people with off-the-cuff remarks.
But in this case, you will upset people by carelessly using words that carry painful memories. You are not being bold or rebellious. You are not standing proudly against some nebulous tide of societal overcorrection for past mistakes. This is not some last stand for sanity in a world gone mad. There are many places to make that stand, many worthy causes to fight for - this isn’t one of them.
You’re just using the last word that many people remember being used for cruelty and humiliation against a vulnerable group of people. What is that worth, to you? What makes the word hold such value, that you would use it even though it upsets people?
Do you use it because it upsets people? Why? What purpose does that serve? Do you honestly think that this word - of all words - will provide some personal or societal benefit? Will you change the future for the better by using it?
The word was used as a humiliating slur against a vulnerable group of people. This is indisputable fact. It is a word specifically referring to a group of people, and it was used against that group of people to belittle, demean, and humiliate them.
Not something I have disputed, in fact I have made this point repeatedly about the word moron.
The euphemism treadmill stopped.
There will always be a need in language to describe people who are less intellectually capable so I absolutely disagree with this claim. Retard is simply still the word of choice despite efforts to censor its usage.
No one is trying to take away your speech. No one is coming for your words.
Censoring speech is exactly what you’ve claimed isn’t happening, yet it is happening and you are making an argument for the censorship of a word.
Do you use it because it upsets people?
Yes. Because I clearly don’t want to have to waste my time on people who are, or are acting, retarded.
There will always be a need in language to describe people who are less intellectually capable so I absolutely disagree with this claim. Retard is simply still the word of choice despite efforts to censor its usage.
Still the word of choice? Published in the DSM-IV 30 years ago? Not the words that came after? The DSM-V, the ICD? These don’t quite fit in the vernacular? They don’t satisfy your language needs?
That’s the entire point. The treadmill stopped on that word. The diagnosis-turned-slurs have stopped churning out. You can call something idiotic. You can say that’s moronic. You can even argue, perhaps, that it’s imbecilic. And finally, lastly, immortally, you can say, “that’s retarded.”
I’m not saying you need to say any of these things, mind you. But I do understand that you want to find a word that’s just a bit more satisfying than saying “that’s stupid.” It sounds childish, I know. So you want to say “that’s retarded” because it really works, y’know? And people get upset when you say it.
But would you say “it’s disabled” to mean “it’s stupid”?
Would you say “that’s so handicapped”?
The catch-all term that said “you’re stupid” also said “these people are all the same” and has been pinned down and stuck in place in your mind and the minds of society, and words like “disabled” or “handicapped” just doesn’t quite cut it. Oh, people use them the way you know they’re going to be used. Mean and ignorant people will use the words the way mean and ignorant people will always use words.
But you’ll never use them that way.
But you, and your family, and your doctor, and your classmates, and your coworkers, and your friends, and your government… they’ll never say “that’s so disabled” when they want to say “that’s so stupid.”
And sometimes people will make mistakes, and other people will say inappropriate things like “what are you, handicapped?” And that won’t be okay. Not because of the word itself - even when it is outdated. but because of the association with a medical condition.
It isn’t okay to call your friends handicapped or disabled or whatever the next term will be because of the implication that the same word should be used to describe your niece who is nonverbal whose voice you wouldn’t even recognize and your brother who forgot to save your video game.
What comes next shouldn’t satisfy what you seem to want. We probably won’t settle on an easy answer, and the current “safe” terms will probably fall out of favor in their time. Because they become slurs, like “retard”? No. Because they become outdated? Probably.
If we as a society keep moving in the right direction, nobody will ever use the next “safe” terms the way you freely use the word “retard”. That’s the entire point.
There is no need to set an arbitrary line on some poorly designed IQ chart and say the people below this line are inferior and cost money and the people above this line are human and can have rights oh and then also use that line to call other people stupid.
There are synonyms that you can use for vernacular that absolutely fill the needs that you’re suggesting are crucial for the english language. There are plenty of words to call your friend when he left his keys in your car and his phone at his ex’s. If they don’t satisfy you, be the next shakespeare and write your own.
There are also plenty of words to describe a vulnerable group of people. There will always - of course - be a need to talk about them, and a need to have certain codified terms whose definitions we agree on for the purposes of professional care and legal protections. These don’t need to be the same words anymore, and if we do our jobs right they never will be again.
And yes, the word may and probably should be allowed to forever bear the stain of that history of linguistic injustice. The use cases for “That’s so stupid, dude” and “The results came back. I’m sorry to tell you this, but your son may never develop the ability to read.” don’t need to overlap ever again.
“Retard” was the last one, and therefore the worst one. No, being new is not somehow morally relevant. It is the worst one because it is the one that was still in living memory when we learned how to do better.
The treadmill stopped, and you’re still standing on it, upset that people are leaving you behind and blaming them for having the audacity to move on. You’re not pushing people away to save time. You’re just hurting yourself and others.
Honestly, that’s maybe worse. If you’re using it to say something bad about someone else, that means it’s a bad thing and should be condemned. The people who it is actually meant to apply to (in its original meaning) then see them, as a group, as a thing that is insulting to even be associated with.
It’s wild how hard critical thought is for some people while discussing a word about intelligence…
This post reminded me of that old Louis CK bit on not liking the term “N Word” because it transfer the burden of saying the actual word from the speaker to the listener’s brain
A fuckin CENSORED greentext? Really? Never thought I’d see the day 4chan got whitewashed lol
Assuming OOP said ‘retarded’, that doesn’t fit their message well does it?
it’s called context switching, within 4chan the r-word is an honorific rather than a slur.
There is nothing wrong with the word “retard”, don’t let corporations push their double speak.
Are the corporations in the room with us now?
It was used and is used to cause harm to vulnerable people. It is the last and likely immortalized step of this particular euphemism treadmill.
The treadmill stopped here. There is no one-size-fits-all diagnosis to replace “mental retardation” because that was a terrible diagnosis to begin with. That’s why something is wrong with the word. The people whose lives were ground up beneath the turning of the wheels that powered that euphemism treadmill are still alive today.
Yes, if the treadmill had continued for one more step before we stopped using such horribly broad diagnosis criteria to lump together vulnerable people with wildly different needs, the word would lose its weight and implications.
Whatever diagnosis that might have replaced it would be regarded with the same moral repugnance as this word is today, and this word would be used as casually and apathetically as we use the word “idiot” - because we can be reasonably certain that nobody in the room has any memories of themselves or someone they love being excluded, humiliated, and diagnosed by the word “idiot”.
Will other diagnostic terms be weaponized? Certainly. Will they ever be as prevalent or as ignorant in their origin and usage? Unlikely. I certainly hope not. And each new vernacular replacement is more awkward and holds less power than the last. That’s why you’re not here defending any term that came after this one. They were never elevated to a shared identity and a humiliating slur. They were never promoted to the public consciousness the way “retard” once was.
Not by corporations. By children abandoned and abused by the system who survived to become adults, and by the people that witnessed this abuse and worked to change it. By doctors, and parents, and peers, some who used the word in good faith and watched helplessly as it became twisted, and others who used the word from a place of ignorance and later learned how much harm could be done by a simple word. By a diagnostic label that was never enough to even describe the people it hurt, let alone help them.
The treadmill stopped. It’s okay. You can join the rest of the world and step off of it now, knowing that we are better equipped to understand and protect our most vulnerable, while also knowing that there is still much more work to be done.
I certainly did learn something out of this!
I’ll not use that word this way anymore, I understand more now.
I appreciate you!
deleted by creator
Americans and their hatred of random words. Lmao.
I’ve grappled with “retard” & “bitch” (made a thread about it a couple months ago too, trying to form/reform my opinion).
Clearly we have to be careful with any messages industry pushes. With that said -
What do you think about these statements from Special Olympians?
CC: @yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
I appreciate your good faith response. I see and empathize with your perspective. To play devil’s advocate, you can’t control whether a group of people decide, out of the blue, to internalize hurtful language that isn’t aimed at them. The N-word had a very specific target and a very cruel purpose. The word “retard” did not. It basically has the same vernacular trajectory as “moron,” or “idiot.” From medical diagnosis to non-specific pejorative. Why aren’t those synonyms verboten? Because people like to make things about themselves.
I literally had an argument with @PugJesus@lemmy.world about this a while back where he declared retard as against sub rules but then continued to call the poster a moron. They’re the same fucking word from different time periods on the treadmill of what is politically correct.
Either both are slurs that shouldn’t be used or both are acceptable.
That’s not how language works, and unless you go around calling Black folk ‘colored’, you understand that in other contexts. What words are acceptable and what connotations they have change with time and usage.
So moron is acceptable now because all the people impacted by the discrimination are dead, so we just need to wait for the retards to die off before we can use the word again?
The same group of people and behaviours are/were described by both words.
But we’ve been over this and confirmed we do not and will not see eye to eye on this.
The parallels between the ableist slur and the racist one run deeper than your argument seems to acknowledge. The word “retard” actually does have a specific history and a specific target. It wasn’t just common vernacular - it was a medical diagnosis.
The reason medical practice has completely abandoned its use is the same reason society should abandon it - it has a history of exclusion, prejudice, and measurable social harm.
By using an outdated (and objectively terrible) diagnosis as an insult for people who we deem intellectually inferior, we continue to associate developmental and behavioral disabilities with being inferior, and perpetuate the systemic and systematic injustices that some of our most vulnerable population still face to this day.
A “moron” was also a medical diagnosis. Historically, the n-word was designed to be cruel and humiliating. The word retard was not.
If you choose to be offended every time the word “moron” gets thrown around that’s your prerogative.
What do you mean by “designed”?
The euphemism treadmill is a known issue. The reason this ableist slur is offensive is, yes, because it is the most recent turning of the wheel. It is the word used in living memory to both refer to patients with poorly understood medical conditions and as an insult to people deemed intellectually inferior.
There is no designer of words. What matters is how they are used. The word “retard” was used to cause harm. It was used by people to broadly and injustly categorize a group of vulnerable individuals by genetic and environmental conditions outside their control.
It was used as a vicious insult by peers and authority figures, it was used in schools and workplaces, it was used by doctors and parents. It was used - yes - to be cruel and humiliating. Of course it was.
Nobody designed the word to cause harm. But anyone who remembers the schoolyard knows that there are countless kids with very real conditions that were mistreated and misunderstood by professionals, parents, and peers. Some may have used the word in good faith. But many more used it in bad faith. They used it as a tool to be cruel and humiliating, and of course they used it on children and adult who could have been diagnosed with a wide variety of very real (and sometimes treatable/manageable!) mental and behavioral conditions that we are still barely scratching the surface of to this day.
It caused harm. It continues to cause harm. And the people who were and are harmed by it are still alive today. Those children grew up to be adults.
People don’t choose to be offended. People are offended by any number of things for any number of reasons. It’s usually not a conscious choice. It’s often a result of injustices experienced or injustices witnessed. In this case, it’s because many of us remember when people used the word “retard” specifically to be cruel and humiliating to vulnerable people.
It comes from the medical diagnosis “mental retardation”. It was designed from the beginning to target disabled people.
To break down my response to this
There are people with high intelligence and those with low intelligence, bandying about with different words will never change that. Intelligence is crucial in social, economic and evolutionary terms. They are correct no one would ever want to be lacking in intelligence because it would only make life worse. There will always be a need for a word to describe someone of lower intellect, or describe an argument or position as being thoughtless, in order to dismiss the person or idea as quickly as possible with as little engagement possible. Preferably while using small words so they understand.
You can still say they have a room temperature IQ but they might not get the meaning…
I agree, and I would not want someone with an IQ of 70 to be in the military, or to be a teacher, or a doctor, as each of those scenarios would likely result in disaster not just for the 70 IQ individual but for everyone impacted by them.
Yea no. This “everyone is special” bullshit just isn’t how the world works. The universe doesn’t care about you, the world is a harsh place where the unfit died early deaths until really intelligent people worked out how to increase food production, developed medicines, surgeries and hygiene.
You only need to look up the etymology and history of clinical usage of both dumb and stupid to realise they were used to describe the same groups of people and behaviours during different time periods. More bullshit on the treadmill.
I refuse to censor the word retard while moron, stupid, dumb and idiot are considered fine. To censor a synonym of acceptable words, is to put it bluntly, fucking retarded.
Copying most of my response to a similar line of reasoning elsewhere in this thread - The word was used as a humiliating slur against a vulnerable group of people. This is indisputable fact. It is a word specifically referring to a group of people, and it was used against that group of people to belittle, demean, and humiliate them.
It was also used as a diagnostic criteria. That history doesn’t change the context for the better - it makes the whole story worse. It was a bad diagnostic criteria. Psychology, psychiatry, and neurology are young fields of study that are going through some serious growing pains - in this case, the usage of overly broad umbrella categorizations of deeply nuanced and complex disorders.
People will always use words to cause harm. But have you noticed the thing that’s missing in everyone’s misguided defense of this word? How everyone complains about “what’s next?” when they refer to idiot, imbecile, and moron?
Nothing’s next. This particular euphemism treadmill appears to have stopped on the word “retard”. Why? Because the fields of psychology, psychiatry, and neurology are outgrowing their old habits, and taking society with them.
We understand these disorders better now. We’re trying to find ways to treat them. We’re diving deep into all the intricate little details about symptoms, and causes, and care, and prognosis.
We don’t have one broad catch-all term like “retard”. We have dozens if not hundreds of diagnoses to replace it. And each “new” vernacular replacement-of-the-week is more awkward than the last and doesn’t gain remotely the popularity or ubiquitousness of its predecessor.
The euphemism treadmill stopped. Other terms will be used, and weaponized, and cause harm. But they’ll never be used by everyone, everywhere the way the word “retard” once was, nor will they ever be used in quite the same way. They will never carry that same weight of shared, mistreated identity. And because of that it will be immortalized - because it was used as a diagnosis and as a humiliating slur by the generations that began to understand the truth. That society has treated our most vulnerable populations so unbelievably bad for so, so long, and we can do better.
The thing is, you’re not entirely wrong in your reasoning. It is just a word. If the treadmill had continued for another generation, and a new word had successfully replaced it, it probably wouldn’t be a slur. It might be forever used as casually and as apathetically as we use terms like “idiot” and “imbecile” and lose most of its weight and implications (words, by the way, that I’m not defending usage of - I’m just not elevating them to the morally repugnant status of slur).
But that didn’t happen. This word still holds a terrible number of memories for the living. And it doesn’t need to survive. Plenty of incredible insults have died out from everyday usage for literally no good reason - language just evolves constantly over time. What’s the harm in letting this one die for plenty of very good reasons?
You - any of you reading this, anyone who needs to hear this - you don’t need to die on this hill with this word. It continues to wither away, and there’s genuinely no personal or societal value in trying to keep it in use. No history needs to be preserved in your vernacular, and certainly not such a troubled history.
No one is trying to take away your speech. No one is coming for your words. But you will upset people with your words throughout your life. You’ll upset people with the truth, and you’ll upset people with lies. You’ll upset people with words carefully chosen, and you’ll upset people with off-the-cuff remarks.
But in this case, you will upset people by carelessly using words that carry painful memories. You are not being bold or rebellious. You are not standing proudly against some nebulous tide of societal overcorrection for past mistakes. This is not some last stand for sanity in a world gone mad. There are many places to make that stand, many worthy causes to fight for - this isn’t one of them.
You’re just using the last word that many people remember being used for cruelty and humiliation against a vulnerable group of people. What is that worth, to you? What makes the word hold such value, that you would use it even though it upsets people?
Do you use it because it upsets people? Why? What purpose does that serve? Do you honestly think that this word - of all words - will provide some personal or societal benefit? Will you change the future for the better by using it?
Not something I have disputed, in fact I have made this point repeatedly about the word moron.
There will always be a need in language to describe people who are less intellectually capable so I absolutely disagree with this claim. Retard is simply still the word of choice despite efforts to censor its usage.
Censoring speech is exactly what you’ve claimed isn’t happening, yet it is happening and you are making an argument for the censorship of a word.
Yes. Because I clearly don’t want to have to waste my time on people who are, or are acting, retarded.
Still the word of choice? Published in the DSM-IV 30 years ago? Not the words that came after? The DSM-V, the ICD? These don’t quite fit in the vernacular? They don’t satisfy your language needs?
That’s the entire point. The treadmill stopped on that word. The diagnosis-turned-slurs have stopped churning out. You can call something idiotic. You can say that’s moronic. You can even argue, perhaps, that it’s imbecilic. And finally, lastly, immortally, you can say, “that’s retarded.”
I’m not saying you need to say any of these things, mind you. But I do understand that you want to find a word that’s just a bit more satisfying than saying “that’s stupid.” It sounds childish, I know. So you want to say “that’s retarded” because it really works, y’know? And people get upset when you say it.
But would you say “it’s disabled” to mean “it’s stupid”?
Would you say “that’s so handicapped”?
The catch-all term that said “you’re stupid” also said “these people are all the same” and has been pinned down and stuck in place in your mind and the minds of society, and words like “disabled” or “handicapped” just doesn’t quite cut it. Oh, people use them the way you know they’re going to be used. Mean and ignorant people will use the words the way mean and ignorant people will always use words.
But you’ll never use them that way.
But you, and your family, and your doctor, and your classmates, and your coworkers, and your friends, and your government… they’ll never say “that’s so disabled” when they want to say “that’s so stupid.”
And sometimes people will make mistakes, and other people will say inappropriate things like “what are you, handicapped?” And that won’t be okay. Not because of the word itself - even when it is outdated. but because of the association with a medical condition.
It isn’t okay to call your friends handicapped or disabled or whatever the next term will be because of the implication that the same word should be used to describe your niece who is nonverbal whose voice you wouldn’t even recognize and your brother who forgot to save your video game.
What comes next shouldn’t satisfy what you seem to want. We probably won’t settle on an easy answer, and the current “safe” terms will probably fall out of favor in their time. Because they become slurs, like “retard”? No. Because they become outdated? Probably.
If we as a society keep moving in the right direction, nobody will ever use the next “safe” terms the way you freely use the word “retard”. That’s the entire point.
There is no need to set an arbitrary line on some poorly designed IQ chart and say the people below this line are inferior and cost money and the people above this line are human and can have rights oh and then also use that line to call other people stupid.
There are synonyms that you can use for vernacular that absolutely fill the needs that you’re suggesting are crucial for the english language. There are plenty of words to call your friend when he left his keys in your car and his phone at his ex’s. If they don’t satisfy you, be the next shakespeare and write your own.
There are also plenty of words to describe a vulnerable group of people. There will always - of course - be a need to talk about them, and a need to have certain codified terms whose definitions we agree on for the purposes of professional care and legal protections. These don’t need to be the same words anymore, and if we do our jobs right they never will be again.
And yes, the word may and probably should be allowed to forever bear the stain of that history of linguistic injustice. The use cases for “That’s so stupid, dude” and “The results came back. I’m sorry to tell you this, but your son may never develop the ability to read.” don’t need to overlap ever again.
“Retard” was the last one, and therefore the worst one. No, being new is not somehow morally relevant. It is the worst one because it is the one that was still in living memory when we learned how to do better.
The treadmill stopped, and you’re still standing on it, upset that people are leaving you behind and blaming them for having the audacity to move on. You’re not pushing people away to save time. You’re just hurting yourself and others.
That is true, if you use it against disabled poeple. I only use it against moronic able poeple who should know better.
Honestly, that’s maybe worse. If you’re using it to say something bad about someone else, that means it’s a bad thing and should be condemned. The people who it is actually meant to apply to (in its original meaning) then see them, as a group, as a thing that is insulting to even be associated with.
It’s wild how hard critical thought is for some people while discussing a word about intelligence…
This post reminded me of that old Louis CK bit on not liking the term “N Word” because it transfer the burden of saying the actual word from the speaker to the listener’s brain
Louis CK’s bit on the word “retarded” is pretty damn good too.
Joke’s on him my brain is always saying it 😎
How about your heart?
Speaking sumerian.
#NotMy4chan
It’s so social media AI doesn’t block the image. Yeah, that’s our world now.
Wasn’t that just Reddit?