I Hate Overuse of "Retarded" on CS!

[DesignFox]

I think the word is only insulting if it's intentionally thrown out to be insulting.

I don't think the term retarded is a bad word in and of itself. I don't see the issue with using it to describe something someone thinks is stupid...or slow...or "off."

For one thing, I haven't heard the word retarded used to describe any one with a mental handicap in a long time. People aren't labelled as "mentally retarded" anymore... They have a mental disability...

I equate the word retard with someone who is acting stupid or being slow. I don't associate the word retard with someone who has a mental disability. I guess that's why it doesn't offend me.

I don't look at a child with Down's Syndrome and think they are retarded. I think they are a child with Down's Syndrome. I differentiate those things in my head...am I making sense?

I know I'm sort of babbling, but I can't figure out how to make my argument clearer...I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't agree that retarded is a bad word... I don't agree that people throw around the word retard and immediately that means they're comparing a stupid person to a person who has a genuine disability and thereby make having a mental disability make that person less human....

Anyway- I know it bothers Ree and Saydrah. So I try to check my words at the door. If I slip, please know the term is not meant as a derogatory term towards the mentally handicapped. Nor does it mean that I think of mentally challenged individuals as less than human.

I've said this before and I'll say it again...
I just have to wonder at all this arguing over words. I mean, pretty soon we aren't going to have any words left to describe each other....pretty much everything is insulting to someone nowadays. I think the big thing to remember with the use of a word is the intent. And in different areas, the words mean different things to different people.

[crazylegs]

In the UK the use of both 'Handicapped' and 'Retarted' are both frowned upon, and neither are in widespread use, in the Chemist I worked the disabled looshad 'Handicapped' written on them (is it was last decorated circa 1970) and we received complaints every day from members of the public, so not only are they not used officially but the general public don't use them either.

[Seshat]

I know I'm sort of babbling, but I can't figure out how to make my argument clearer...I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't agree that retarded is a bad word... I don't agree that people throw around the word retard and immediately that means they're comparing a stupid person to a person who has a genuine disability and thereby make having a mental disability make that person less human....

I haven't seen anyone saying it does. The argument Ree made, and the one Saydrah finished on, was 'it hurts some of the people who lived through the period when it was used with intent to offend'.

They're also saying that those who had the label 'retarded' applied to themselves or their families are hurt by the word's continued use as a pejorative.

They're not saying anything about the intent of current users. They know current users typically have no intent to offend. They're saying that regardless of intent, it hurts. Even keeping in mind the lack of intended offence, it hurts.

Anyway- I know it bothers Ree and Saydrah. So I try to check my words at the door.

That's all they ask.

I think the big thing to remember with the use of a word is the intent. And in different areas, the words mean different things to different people.

I think historic meanings are important too. Historic meanings, and the time span in which they had the meanings, let us know if we can expect there to be living people who remember hurtful meanings for the word. That lets us know which words can remind people of past pain - and in some cases, past trauma.

Communication does not end with the speaker/writer. Communication is incomplete until the listener/reader has interpreted the speaker/writer's words.

If you use words which are ambiguous or are loaded with emotional meaning, you can expect at least some of your listeners/readers to misinterpret the words and/or receive the emotional meanings - regardless of what you intended.

[blas87]

"Gay" bothers me more than retarded does. People referring to inatimate objects or bad situations as "gay" really irks me. So does "Jewish". I don't understand why people still call getting a parking ticket "Jewish" or calling someone who doesn't want to come to the bar with us a "Jew".

I will openly admit that I use "retarded" a little too loosely. In fact, I remember my threads about DipShit, I openly called him a retard. I called him a retard behind his back constantly. I feel regret a lot of the time for saying such things.

It's been my New Years Resolution for quite a few years to stop calling people "retarded".

[Lace Neil Singer]

No offence to anyone here, but I'm not about to watch what I say just on the offchance I might offend someone. If someone has a problem with a post, then there's always the back button. I guess I just don't see the point of making a song and dance over words, unless they're used in a hateful and unpleasent way. I do try to use descriptive words tho in my posts, as I find it annoying for people who use the same word for everything; it's like they need a whack over the head with a thesaurus.

I've listed the words and phrases I don't like already; one that comes to mind that someone I know doesn't like, is the c word. I know she doesn't like it, so I don't use it around her. However, if I slip and use it, she doesn't hysterically berate me for the slip as she knows I'm not trying to offend her. I think that people are too offended by stuff nowadays but *shrugs* that's just my opinion, man.

[Seshat]

I think that people are too offended by stuff nowadays but *shrugs* that's just my opinion, man.

I see it as people being more willing to tell others what hurts them.

[Lace Neil Singer]

There's got to be a happy medium between being more willing to tell, and making a song and dance over every single thing. :/

[Greenday]

There's got to be a happy medium between being more willing to tell, and making a song and dance over every single thing. :/

Amen.

One time, during an SAT verbal class in high school, I muttered "Oh God" about something. My teacher flipped out on me. Took me out in the hallway and started explaining to me how I cannot say God because that might offend some people. I told him that if people are going to be so offended over one word that they'll flip out, they might as well stop leaving their house in the morning.

[Sylvia727]

Amen.

One time, during an SAT verbal class in high school, I muttered "Oh God" about something. My teacher flipped out on me. Took me out in the hallway and started explaining to me how I cannot say God because that might offend some people. I told him that if people are going to be so offended over one word that they'll flip out, they might as well stop leaving their house in the morning.

If it was during a test, you should have told him that it was a prayer.

[Saydrah]

I see it as people being more willing to tell others what hurts them.

This is how I see it too.

http://davehingsburger.blogspot.com/.../feelings.html

Dave Hingsburger's blog talks about this often, this being the most recent. An excerpt:

"'Is everything alright?' I asked, concerned. I like her. She is a woman with a disability who works at the front desk, who answers phones, does photocopying and jokes with Joe every single time she sees him. I've never said it, but I like the fact that the office has people with disabilities working as full time employees. It seems odd that agencies that serve people with disabilities often don't employ them. Anyways, as I said, she looked like something had upset her....


...The Journal's name, Psychiatric Aspects of Mental Retardation was blazed across the top of the paper.

"This word is wrong, it hurts people. I don't think it should be used."

OK, she's right. I explained to her that the article was nearly 20 years old. That the journal had changed it's name so that it no longer uses the word. That it comes from a time when that word was more commonly used.

'It doesn't matter,' she said, resolute, 'it hurt people then and it hurts people now.'"

[DesignFox]

'It doesn't matter,' she said, resolute, 'it hurt people then and it hurts people now.'"

Ok, so we should go back and change history? I understand being upset seeing a word that bothers someone...but that's just the way it was. The paper was over 20 years old. No one nowadays is going to title their paper something like that.

There's just a point where you have to accept it and move on...or just not look at it if it bothers you.

I mean, another example that REALLY bothered me was at the Hoover Dam.

In the museum, they have an article about a dog. How beloved this dog was at the work site. How the men took care of it, set up a bank account so they could pay for all the dog's needs. And how, when the dog was killed in an accident at the site, they lovingly buried him at the base of the damn.

Something struck me as very odd about this article. Not once do they mention the dog's name. If the guys loved this dog so much...it had to have a name!

So I asked. It was a black dog. The workers named it "Nig."

Since we can't offend people, the name was deleted from the article.

Make it even better, they removed the name from his graveside placard.

Because ONE person complained about it.

It's a dead dog's name for crying out loud. It should not be deleted from history because someone is offended by it now. It was acceptable back then. Accept it as a part of history, maybe not a NICE part of history...but accept it. Be happy our world is evolving and people don't use that word now!

So, I can understand being hurt when seeing a word we now consider unacceptable. If someone asks that I not use that word in their presence, I certainly won't use it! But goddamn...if I see an article that's particularly insulting in some way or other, I try to take into account when it was written, and the attitudes of people at the time it was written...If it really hurts my feelings...I have the power to NOT read it.

I can't go back 20 years and yell at that person not to use a word I find offensive!

I can't change the men's attitudes back when the Hoover Dam was built and convince them that Nig isn't really a nice name and maybe they should call their dog something else. I just have to accept it. And move on!

[Saydrah]

The point of that post is not that the 20 year old journal should be burned- its contents were valuable enough to photocopy for the author's office. The point is that there was a time when it was unacceptable for someone with a cognitive disability to speak up and tell people what hurt them, and as the author says if you read the entire post, he could never have imagined when he first began working in the field of disability that he would one day be working alongside an intellectually disabled woman who was willing to speak up for herself in such a strong way. It was at one point unimaginable that people with disabilities would be taught to use the word "NO!" when they did not want something done to them. Now, things are far from perfect, but more people with disabilities are taught that they are valuable people and deserve protection from abuse, just as able-bodied children are taught about "no-zones" and "stranger danger." That has led to the willingness to speak out about hurtful and discriminatory language, as Seshat pointed out.

[DesignFox]

I agree with you Saydrah.

But someone at the bottom of the blog states that the cover page needs to be edited. I disagree.

I think the man asking her to do the copying is thoughtful not to have her photocopy the same article again. He recognizes that some of the terminology it uses is hurtful to his office assistant, and he is not forcing her to look at it.

I think his reaction is a balanced one.

[Seshat]

Earlier in this thread, I mentioned that I believe people should know the history of some types of words.

Editing away the title of a journal isn't going to contribute to people knowing the history.
The fact that many people younger than me have never heard of Disney's "Song of the South" film or "blackface" musical comedy isn't going to contribute to their understanding of the casual racism of former times.

Eh. I could go on, but I don't think it's necessary. I think you all understand my basic point.

[Saydrah]

I agree with that, DesignFox and Seshat. I don't think you should edit away historical uses, because the exact problem with this word is a LACK of knowledge of its power to hurt, not too much knowledge of its original use. I don't think most people who use it in an insulting way are evil disphobic people who want to make sure they get a chance to hurt the feelings of any disabled people around; I think they just don't understand the power to hurt that is carried by this particular descriptor. I didn't actually read the comments on that blog post- this particular blogger gets a lot of spam comments and doesn't tend to moderate out any except the most obvious ones, so I rarely even click through to comments unless I want to leave one myself.