I appreciate your good faith response. I see and empathize with your perspective. To play devilās advocate, you canāt control whether a group of people decide, out of the blue, to internalize hurtful language that isnāt aimed at them. The N-word had a very specific target and a very cruel purpose. The word āretardā did not. It basically has the same vernacular trajectory as āmoron,ā or āidiot.ā From medical diagnosis to non-specific pejorative. Why arenāt 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. Theyāre the same fucking word from different time periods on the treadmill of what is politically correct.
Either both are slurs that shouldnāt be used or both are acceptable.
Theyāre the same fucking word from different time periods on the treadmill of what is politically correct.
Either both are slurs that shouldnāt be used or both are acceptable.
Thatās not how language works, and unless you go around calling Black folk ācoloredā, 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 weāve been over this and confirmed we do not and will not see eye to eye on this.
Dude, itās the euphemism treadmill. You exercise your mind while making other people more comfortable to be around you. Your complaint has existed for hundreds of years, and will only lead to poorer social connectivity. Just hop on and put on some tunes
The parallels between the ableist slur and the racist one run deeper than your argument seems to acknowledge. The word āretardā actually does have a specific history and a specific target. It wasnāt 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By using an outdated (and objectively terrible) diagnosis as an insult for people who we deem intellectually inferior, we continue to associate developmental and behavioral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 āretardā 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 donāt choose to be offended. People are offended by any number of things for any number of reasons. Itās usually not a conscious choice. Itās often a result of injustices experienced or injustices witnessed. In this case, itās because many of us remember when people used the word āretardā specifically to be cruel and humiliating to vulnerable people.
People who use words do so for a particular purpose. Thatās what I mean by design. The n-word had one and only one purpose: a humiliating slur against a group of people.
Since this is obviously not the case with the word āretardā or āmoron,ā etc., I find the comparison obtuse at best and bad faith at worst.
Ultimately, people will use terms to call each other stupid. This is inevitable since people are, in fact, stupid.
I listed so many ways in which the word "retard " was used as a humiliating slur against a group of people. How is this not obviously the case? Because it had other purposes?
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 yes - humiliate them.
It was also used as a diagnostic criteria. That history doesnāt 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 thatās missing in everyoneās misguided defense of this word? How everyone complains about āwhatās next?ā when they refer to idiot, imbecile, and moron?
Nothingās next. This particular euphemism treadmill appears to have stopped on the word āretardā. 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. Weāre trying to find ways to treat them. Weāre diving deep into all the intricate little details about symptoms, and causes, and care, and prognosis.
We donāt have one broad catch-all term like āretardā. We have dozens if not hundreds of diagnoses to replace it. And each ānewā vernacular replacement-of-the-week is more awkward than the last and doesnāt gain remotely the popularity or ubiquitousness of its predecessor.
The euphemism treadmill stopped. Other terms will be used, and weaponized, and cause harm. But theyāll never be used by everyone, everywhere the way the word āretardā 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, youāre 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 wouldnāt be a slur. It might be forever used as casually and as apathetically as we use terms like āidiotā and āimbecileā and lose most of its weight and implications (words, by the way, that Iām not defending usage of - Iām just not elevating them to the morally repugnant status of slur)
But that didnāt happen. This word still holds a terrible number of memories for the living. The word āretardā has - as you defined and continue to fail to dispute - a specific history of targetting a specific group of people. A specific group of people who are mostly still alive today and have fresh memories of this harm, unlike anyone who was ever diagnosed as an āimbecileā. And it was used with the particular purpose of cruelty and humiliation of that specific group of people. It satisfies all of your stated conditions of a slur.
The problem with playing devilās advocate, as you suggested you were? Itās a philosophical device in which you defend a position that you wouldnāt normally commit to, for the sake of challenging your beliefs or the beliefs of others.
But you seem very commited to this position. Why? Because people donāt like the words you use? Have you ever, truly, played devilās advocate against your own belief here? Have you ever genuinely challenged yourself on this the way other people have challenged you, and thought āwhat if itās not their fault that theyāre offended by this word? What if that offense - those feelings of pain, and anger - what if that was something forced upon them? What if itās easier - in literally every sense of the word - for me to avoid using this word, than it is for them to avoid hearing it?ā
The word doesnāt need to survive. Plenty of incredible insults have died out from everyday usage for literally no good reason - language just evolves constantly over time. Whatās 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 donāt need to die on this hill with this word. It continues to wither away, and thereās 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. Youāll upset people with the truth, and youāll upset people with lies. Youāll upset people with words carefully chosen, and youāll 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 isnāt one of them.
Youāre just using the last word that many people remember being used for cruelty and humiliation against a specific, vulnerable group of people. That will upset people. Please try not to blame them for that.
I am not fully committed to this position. That said, I just think we disagree on the extent to which intention and context matters when measuring blameworthiness for language acts. For instance, the n-word as repeated by black people might be harmless, whereas its utterance by anyone else is unacceptable. Similarly, using the word āidiotā against a neurodivergent person is very bad. If used against me, though, thatās fair game.
I also donāt know the extent to which people are entitled to control what others say because theyāre offended. Christians are constantly offended, Muslims are offended, apparently some folks in the special Olympics are offended.
Look, unless a word is linked to a hateful ideology, I see no reason to be scared of it quite so categorically.
You are committed to this position, because you continue to hold it despite the core premises of your argument being disputed without reconsideration. You didnāt change your position when challenged, nor did you hold your position against that challenge - you just changed the terms of the argument.
The N-word had a very specific target and a very cruel purpose. The word āretardā did not. It basically has the same vernacular trajectory as āmoron,ā or āidiot.ā From medical diagnosis to non-specific pejorative. Why arenāt those synonyms verboten? Because people like to make things about themselves.
We have established countless reasons why the word āretardā had a specific target and a very cruel purpose. It wasnāt designed that way, but it was used that way. We have also established that it doesnāt seem to have the same vernacular trajectory as moron or imbecile, because the treadmill stopped, and āthatās so intellectually disabledā has not and will not be used colloquially to mean āthatās so stupidā.
I have also provided numerous reasons why this isnāt something as simple as āpeople making things about themselvesā.
You donāt seem to dispute any of these things. It had a specific target and a cruel purpose, and was therefore a slur according to your own definition.
Was it ādesignedā that way? No. But did it come to be used that way, with the prevalence, apathy, and ignorance of a shared misplaced identity? An identity that was far too broad for a diverse group of people? An identity that was forced upon that group?
An identity that held them back at every turn by a society that believed them all to be lesser, unworthy of consideration or employment? Unworthy of respect?
āItās for their own goodā, society said, as they broadly and injustly labelled these people, and then used that label to strip them of their rights, abandon them without treatment or help, and abuse them for being different.
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 meaningā¦
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 āeveryone is specialā bullshit just isnāt how the world works. The universe doesnāt 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 doesnāt 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 thatās missing in everyoneās misguided defense of this word? How everyone complains about āwhatās next?ā when they refer to idiot, imbecile, and moron?
Nothingās next. This particular euphemism treadmill appears to have stopped on the word āretardā. 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. Weāre trying to find ways to treat them. Weāre diving deep into all the intricate little details about symptoms, and causes, and care, and prognosis.
We donāt have one broad catch-all term like āretardā. We have dozens if not hundreds of diagnoses to replace it. And each ānewā vernacular replacement-of-the-week is more awkward than the last and doesnāt gain remotely the popularity or ubiquitousness of its predecessor.
The euphemism treadmill stopped. Other terms will be used, and weaponized, and cause harm. But theyāll never be used by everyone, everywhere the way the word āretardā 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, youāre 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 wouldnāt be a slur. It might be forever used as casually and as apathetically as we use terms like āidiotā and āimbecileā and lose most of its weight and implications (words, by the way, that Iām not defending usage of - Iām just not elevating them to the morally repugnant status of slur).
But that didnāt happen. This word still holds a terrible number of memories for the living. And it doesnāt need to survive. Plenty of incredible insults have died out from everyday usage for literally no good reason - language just evolves constantly over time. Whatās 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 donāt need to die on this hill with this word. It continues to wither away, and thereās 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. Youāll upset people with the truth, and youāll upset people with lies. Youāll upset people with words carefully chosen, and youāll 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 isnāt one of them.
Youāre 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 youāve claimed isnāt 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 donāt 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 donāt quite fit in the vernacular? They donāt satisfy your language needs?
Thatās 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 thatās moronic. You can even argue, perhaps, that itās imbecilic. And finally, lastly, immortally, you can say, āthatās retarded.ā
Iām not saying you need to say any of these things, mind you. But I do understand that you want to find a word thatās just a bit more satisfying than saying āthatās stupid.ā It sounds childish, I know. So you want to say āthatās retardedā because it really works, yāknow? And people get upset when you say it.
But would you say āitās disabledā to mean āitās stupidā?
Would you say āthatās so handicappedā?
The catch-all term that said āyouāre stupidā also said āthese people are all the sameā and has been pinned down and stuck in place in your mind and the minds of society, and words like ādisabledā or āhandicappedā just doesnāt quite cut it. Oh, people use them the way you know theyāre going to be used. Mean and ignorant people will use the words the way mean and ignorant people will always use words.
But youāll never use them that way.
But you, and your family, and your doctor, and your classmates, and your coworkers, and your friends, and your governmentā¦ theyāll never say āthatās so disabledā when they want to say āthatās so stupid.ā
And sometimes people will make mistakes, and other people will say inappropriate things like āwhat are you, handicapped?ā And that wonāt be okay. Not because of the word itself - even when it is outdated. but because of the association with a medical condition.
It isnāt 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 wouldnāt even recognize and your brother who forgot to save your video game.
What comes next shouldnāt satisfy what you seem to want. We probably wonāt settle on an easy answer, and the current āsafeā terms will probably fall out of favor in their time. Because they become slurs, like āretardā? No. Because they become outdated? Probably.
If we as a society keep moving in the right direction, nobody will ever use the next āsafeā terms the way you freely use the word āretardā. Thatās 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 youāre 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 exās. If they donāt 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 donāt 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 āThatās so stupid, dudeā and āThe results came back. Iām sorry to tell you this, but your son may never develop the ability to read.ā donāt need to overlap ever again.
āRetardā 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 youāre still standing on it, upset that people are leaving you behind and blaming them for having the audacity to move on. Youāre not pushing people away to save time. Youāre just hurting yourself and others.
Honestly, thatās maybe worse. If youāre using it to say something bad about someone else, that means itās 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.
Itās wild how hard critical thought is for some people while discussing a word about intelligenceā¦
Iāve grappled with āretardā & ābitchā (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 devilās advocate, you canāt control whether a group of people decide, out of the blue, to internalize hurtful language that isnāt aimed at them. The N-word had a very specific target and a very cruel purpose. The word āretardā did not. It basically has the same vernacular trajectory as āmoron,ā or āidiot.ā From medical diagnosis to non-specific pejorative. Why arenāt 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. Theyāre the same fucking word from different time periods on the treadmill of what is politically correct.
Either both are slurs that shouldnāt be used or both are acceptable.
Thatās not how language works, and unless you go around calling Black folk ācoloredā, 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 weāve been over this and confirmed we do not and will not see eye to eye on this.
Dude, itās the euphemism treadmill. You exercise your mind while making other people more comfortable to be around you. Your complaint has existed for hundreds of years, and will only lead to poorer social connectivity. Just hop on and put on some tunes
The parallels between the ableist slur and the racist one run deeper than your argument seems to acknowledge. The word āretardā actually does have a specific history and a specific target. It wasnāt 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 āmoronā 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 āmoronā gets thrown around thatās your prerogative.
What do you mean by ādesignedā?
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 āretardā 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 donāt choose to be offended. People are offended by any number of things for any number of reasons. Itās usually not a conscious choice. Itās often a result of injustices experienced or injustices witnessed. In this case, itās because many of us remember when people used the word āretardā specifically to be cruel and humiliating to vulnerable people.
People who use words do so for a particular purpose. Thatās what I mean by design. The n-word had one and only one purpose: a humiliating slur against a group of people.
Since this is obviously not the case with the word āretardā or āmoron,ā etc., I find the comparison obtuse at best and bad faith at worst.
Ultimately, people will use terms to call each other stupid. This is inevitable since people are, in fact, stupid.
I listed so many ways in which the word "retard " was used as a humiliating slur against a group of people. How is this not obviously the case? Because it had other purposes?
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 yes - humiliate them.
It was also used as a diagnostic criteria. That history doesnāt 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 thatās missing in everyoneās misguided defense of this word? How everyone complains about āwhatās next?ā when they refer to idiot, imbecile, and moron?
Nothingās next. This particular euphemism treadmill appears to have stopped on the word āretardā. 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. Weāre trying to find ways to treat them. Weāre diving deep into all the intricate little details about symptoms, and causes, and care, and prognosis.
We donāt have one broad catch-all term like āretardā. We have dozens if not hundreds of diagnoses to replace it. And each ānewā vernacular replacement-of-the-week is more awkward than the last and doesnāt gain remotely the popularity or ubiquitousness of its predecessor.
The euphemism treadmill stopped. Other terms will be used, and weaponized, and cause harm. But theyāll never be used by everyone, everywhere the way the word āretardā 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, youāre 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 wouldnāt be a slur. It might be forever used as casually and as apathetically as we use terms like āidiotā and āimbecileā and lose most of its weight and implications (words, by the way, that Iām not defending usage of - Iām just not elevating them to the morally repugnant status of slur)
But that didnāt happen. This word still holds a terrible number of memories for the living. The word āretardā has - as you defined and continue to fail to dispute - a specific history of targetting a specific group of people. A specific group of people who are mostly still alive today and have fresh memories of this harm, unlike anyone who was ever diagnosed as an āimbecileā. And it was used with the particular purpose of cruelty and humiliation of that specific group of people. It satisfies all of your stated conditions of a slur.
The problem with playing devilās advocate, as you suggested you were? Itās a philosophical device in which you defend a position that you wouldnāt normally commit to, for the sake of challenging your beliefs or the beliefs of others.
But you seem very commited to this position. Why? Because people donāt like the words you use? Have you ever, truly, played devilās advocate against your own belief here? Have you ever genuinely challenged yourself on this the way other people have challenged you, and thought āwhat if itās not their fault that theyāre offended by this word? What if that offense - those feelings of pain, and anger - what if that was something forced upon them? What if itās easier - in literally every sense of the word - for me to avoid using this word, than it is for them to avoid hearing it?ā
The word doesnāt need to survive. Plenty of incredible insults have died out from everyday usage for literally no good reason - language just evolves constantly over time. Whatās 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 donāt need to die on this hill with this word. It continues to wither away, and thereās 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. Youāll upset people with the truth, and youāll upset people with lies. Youāll upset people with words carefully chosen, and youāll 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 isnāt one of them.
Youāre just using the last word that many people remember being used for cruelty and humiliation against a specific, vulnerable group of people. That will upset people. Please try not to blame them for that.
I am not fully committed to this position. That said, I just think we disagree on the extent to which intention and context matters when measuring blameworthiness for language acts. For instance, the n-word as repeated by black people might be harmless, whereas its utterance by anyone else is unacceptable. Similarly, using the word āidiotā against a neurodivergent person is very bad. If used against me, though, thatās fair game.
I also donāt know the extent to which people are entitled to control what others say because theyāre offended. Christians are constantly offended, Muslims are offended, apparently some folks in the special Olympics are offended.
Look, unless a word is linked to a hateful ideology, I see no reason to be scared of it quite so categorically.
You are committed to this position, because you continue to hold it despite the core premises of your argument being disputed without reconsideration. You didnāt change your position when challenged, nor did you hold your position against that challenge - you just changed the terms of the argument.
We have established countless reasons why the word āretardā had a specific target and a very cruel purpose. It wasnāt designed that way, but it was used that way. We have also established that it doesnāt seem to have the same vernacular trajectory as moron or imbecile, because the treadmill stopped, and āthatās so intellectually disabledā has not and will not be used colloquially to mean āthatās so stupidā.
I have also provided numerous reasons why this isnāt something as simple as āpeople making things about themselvesā.
You donāt seem to dispute any of these things. It had a specific target and a cruel purpose, and was therefore a slur according to your own definition.
Was it ādesignedā that way? No. But did it come to be used that way, with the prevalence, apathy, and ignorance of a shared misplaced identity? An identity that was far too broad for a diverse group of people? An identity that was forced upon that group?
An identity that held them back at every turn by a society that believed them all to be lesser, unworthy of consideration or employment? Unworthy of respect?
āItās for their own goodā, society said, as they broadly and injustly labelled these people, and then used that label to strip them of their rights, abandon them without treatment or help, and abuse them for being different.
So what is a slur?
It comes from the medical diagnosis āmental retardationā. 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 meaningā¦
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 āeveryone is specialā bullshit just isnāt how the world works. The universe doesnāt 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 doesnāt 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 thatās missing in everyoneās misguided defense of this word? How everyone complains about āwhatās next?ā when they refer to idiot, imbecile, and moron?
Nothingās next. This particular euphemism treadmill appears to have stopped on the word āretardā. 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. Weāre trying to find ways to treat them. Weāre diving deep into all the intricate little details about symptoms, and causes, and care, and prognosis.
We donāt have one broad catch-all term like āretardā. We have dozens if not hundreds of diagnoses to replace it. And each ānewā vernacular replacement-of-the-week is more awkward than the last and doesnāt gain remotely the popularity or ubiquitousness of its predecessor.
The euphemism treadmill stopped. Other terms will be used, and weaponized, and cause harm. But theyāll never be used by everyone, everywhere the way the word āretardā 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, youāre 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 wouldnāt be a slur. It might be forever used as casually and as apathetically as we use terms like āidiotā and āimbecileā and lose most of its weight and implications (words, by the way, that Iām not defending usage of - Iām just not elevating them to the morally repugnant status of slur).
But that didnāt happen. This word still holds a terrible number of memories for the living. And it doesnāt need to survive. Plenty of incredible insults have died out from everyday usage for literally no good reason - language just evolves constantly over time. Whatās 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 donāt need to die on this hill with this word. It continues to wither away, and thereās 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. Youāll upset people with the truth, and youāll upset people with lies. Youāll upset people with words carefully chosen, and youāll 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 isnāt one of them.
Youāre 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 youāve claimed isnāt happening, yet it is happening and you are making an argument for the censorship of a word.
Yes. Because I clearly donāt 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 donāt quite fit in the vernacular? They donāt satisfy your language needs?
Thatās 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 thatās moronic. You can even argue, perhaps, that itās imbecilic. And finally, lastly, immortally, you can say, āthatās retarded.ā
Iām not saying you need to say any of these things, mind you. But I do understand that you want to find a word thatās just a bit more satisfying than saying āthatās stupid.ā It sounds childish, I know. So you want to say āthatās retardedā because it really works, yāknow? And people get upset when you say it.
But would you say āitās disabledā to mean āitās stupidā?
Would you say āthatās so handicappedā?
The catch-all term that said āyouāre stupidā also said āthese people are all the sameā and has been pinned down and stuck in place in your mind and the minds of society, and words like ādisabledā or āhandicappedā just doesnāt quite cut it. Oh, people use them the way you know theyāre going to be used. Mean and ignorant people will use the words the way mean and ignorant people will always use words.
But youāll never use them that way.
But you, and your family, and your doctor, and your classmates, and your coworkers, and your friends, and your governmentā¦ theyāll never say āthatās so disabledā when they want to say āthatās so stupid.ā
And sometimes people will make mistakes, and other people will say inappropriate things like āwhat are you, handicapped?ā And that wonāt be okay. Not because of the word itself - even when it is outdated. but because of the association with a medical condition.
It isnāt 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 wouldnāt even recognize and your brother who forgot to save your video game.
What comes next shouldnāt satisfy what you seem to want. We probably wonāt settle on an easy answer, and the current āsafeā terms will probably fall out of favor in their time. Because they become slurs, like āretardā? No. Because they become outdated? Probably.
If we as a society keep moving in the right direction, nobody will ever use the next āsafeā terms the way you freely use the word āretardā. Thatās 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 youāre 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 exās. If they donāt 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 donāt 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 āThatās so stupid, dudeā and āThe results came back. Iām sorry to tell you this, but your son may never develop the ability to read.ā donāt need to overlap ever again.
āRetardā 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 youāre still standing on it, upset that people are leaving you behind and blaming them for having the audacity to move on. Youāre not pushing people away to save time. Youāre 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, thatās maybe worse. If youāre using it to say something bad about someone else, that means itās 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.
Itās wild how hard critical thought is for some people while discussing a word about intelligenceā¦