The Word "Retard"

[Dimitri Molotov]

What do you guys think of the word "Retard" if used in a phrase such as: "You even got that easy question wrong? You are so retarded.", or "Next time look both ways before crossing the street, you retard."

[Sam_b]

Obviously prejudiced. Did you not read the FAQ?

[PhoenixAsh]

Just to be sure....Is that very same word predjudiced if used in the following construction?

"We retarded to our previous position?"
"economic progress retarded."
"The music retarded during the fourth segment"

[Dimitri Molotov]

Obviously prejudiced. Did you not read the FAQ?

Where in the FAQ does it say about that word?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Just to be sure....Is that very same word predjudiced if used in the following construction?

"We retarded to our previous position?"
"economic progress retarded."
"The music retarded during the fourth segment"
No. It's the context in which you use a word that matters.

If there's some racist bigot who keeps saying and posting "nigger" all over the place, that's not okay.

To use it as I have, is.

[tm315]

Where in the FAQ does it say about that word?
It doesn't specify that word but it says:
Discriminatory Language

...any use of discriminatory or oppressive language is not permitted. This includes all obvious instances of derogatory slurs related to race, ethnicity, sex, orientation, or any other immutable characteristic

[Johnny Kerosene]

Just to be sure....Is that very same word predjudiced if used in the following construction?

"We retarded to our previous position?"
"economic progress retarded."
"The music retarded during the fourth segment"

That's using it with a different definition. In this case you're using as a verb. "Retardant" is also like the adjective equivalent e.g. Flame-Retardant.
It's when it's used as a noun that it's uncool. Or as an adjective variant "retarded," it is also unacceptable, whereas to use the same word "retarded" as a past-tense verb is OK.

[unfriendly]

Just to be sure....Is that very same word predjudiced if used in the following construction?

"We retarded to our previous position?"
"economic progress retarded."
"The music retarded during the fourth segment"

It's not. Never in all my years of being developmentally disabled have I heard it used in that way except by non-DD people trying to justify their use of a word that isn't ok.

[Dimitri Molotov]

It doesn't specify that word but it says:
Discriminatory Language

...any use of discriminatory or oppressive language is not permitted. This includes all obvious instances of derogatory slurs related to race, ethnicity, sex, orientation, or any other immutable characteristic

Thank you, I was just having a hard time finding it. But what I was looking for was everyone's opinion on the word while not being used as a derogatory slur for an immutable characteristic. When you look at my examples above, you don't need to have any kind of immutable characteristic in order to be dumb enough to walk into traffic or get an essay question wrong. What does everyone think of the word in that context? As a general insult used with a slightly different meaning?

[MattShizzle]

What about in the clinical sense where you are talking about someone who actually is classified as MR? IE "police shoot and kill unarmed mentally retarded man" or discussing how in the past (hopefully only in the past) where the MR and those with other disabilities were forcibly sterilized (and yes this has happened in the US in the last 50 years.)

[Johnny Kerosene]

What about in the clinical sense where you are talking about someone who actually is classified as MR? IE "police shoot and kill unarmed mentally retarded man" or discussing how in the past (hopefully only in the past) where the MR and those with other disabilities were forcibly sterilized (and yes this has happened in the US in the last 50 years.)

People usually say mentally handicapped or something nowadays.

[Dimitri Molotov]

What about in the clinical sense where you are talking about someone who actually is classified as MR? IE "police shoot and kill unarmed mentally retarded man" or discussing how in the past (hopefully only in the past) where the MR and those with other disabilities were forcibly sterilized (and yes this has happened in the US in the last 50 years.)

This happened? :0 Exactly how long ago was this? This doesn't still happen does it? I have never heard of this before.

[#FF0000]

What about in the clinical sense where you are talking about someone who actually is classified as MR? IE "police shoot and kill unarmed mentally retarded man" or discussing how in the past (hopefully only in the past) where the MR and those with other disabilities were forcibly sterilized (and yes this has happened in the US in the last 50 years.)

That's obviously different than saying 'that is retarded' or using it as an epithet.

[Dimitri Molotov]

That's obviously different than saying 'that is retarded' or using it as an epithet.

Thank you! that is the word I was looking for, epithet! I want to know what people think about the word turning into an epithet.

[#FF0000]

Thank you! that is the word I was looking for, epithet! I want to know what people think about the word turning into an epithet.

I always thought it was one of the uglier words people use on others. Doubly so now that I'm studying education which includes a special focus on special education.

[Ocean Seal]

No, the word "retard" should not be used as a pejorative as it carries with it the sentiment that one should insult the mentally challenged as some sort of sub-humans and that in order to denigrate someone we should compare them to the mentally challenged. Its the same thing as using the word "gay" to describe something as bad in nature. I cringe when people use the word "retard" on this forum (as a pejorative) especially, please stop.
Acceptable
I/he/she is gay (when I/he/she is actually gay)
Spiteful
That show was gay (when describing the show as bad)

Acceptable
How can one retard that progress
Spiteful
You're a complete retard for doing that

You can use the word, but you shouldn't in my opinion at the very least.

[MattShizzle]

This happened? :0 Exactly how long ago was this? This doesn't still happen does it? I have never heard of this before.

iirc as recently as the 1970s in some states. And the group "autism speaks" while pretending to advocate for those on the spectrum argues for a eugenics program of sterilizing those, such as myself on the spectrum.
According to wikipedia here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization
The last forced sterilization by a state happend in Oregon in 1981!

[Leftsolidarity]

My step-sister is mentally retarded/handicapped/etc. so I tend to not use the word now. My dad and brother still throw the word around all the time and even when they yell at her they use the word which bothers be like crazy. I view it in the same way of saying "that's gay". If I am insulting a friend or something I usually say "stupid" or "dumb".

[cogar66]

It's a bad habit.

[MattShizzle]

BTW if for some reason you find it hard to believe the US did something like this, google the "Tuskegee Experiment." By the description you would think it was something done by Dr Mengele. But it was done in the US - African American men infected with syphillis were purposely not treated and lied to in order to observe how the disease progressed. IIRC a few joined the army during WWII and the US Army treated them (apparently unaware of the experiment) but most of them suffered the effects from the 1930s through the 1970s. The US has indeed done horrible things in the past and continues to do horrible things today.

[Revy]

What do you guys think of the word "Retard" if used in a phrase such as: "You even got that easy question wrong? You are so retarded.", or "Next time look both ways before crossing the street, you retard."

It's obviously not appropriate.
Instead of using retarded/retard you can use any number of words like...

idiot/idiotic
dumbass/dumb
stupid
moron/moronic
brainless

[Dimitri Molotov]

BTW if for some reason you find it hard to believe the US did something like this, google the "Tuskegee Experiment." By the description you would think it was something done by Dr Mengele. But it was done in the US - African American men infected with syphillis were purposely not treated and lied to in order to observe how the disease progressed. IIRC a few joined the army during WWII and the US Army treated them (apparently unaware of the experiment) but most of them suffered the effects from the 1930s through the 1970s. The US has indeed done horrible things in the past and continues to do horrible things today.

That is crazy, do you know of anything else like this? Is there something I can search for to find it on my own?

[Dimitri Molotov]

Well I have to say I have changed my opinion on the use of this word since reading this thread and considering it's arguments, I now realize that it is pretty much the same as using "gay" as an equivalent to "bad" or "stupid", I can't believe I never thought of that myself before.

[cogar66]

It's obviously not appropriate.
Instead of using retarded/retard you can use any number of words like...

idiot/idiotic
dumbass/dumb
stupid
moron/moronic
brainless

"In 19th and early 20th century medicine and psychology, an "idiot" was a person with a very severe mental retardation." "Moron (psychology), disused term for a person with a mental age between 8 and 12," So aren't these just as bad as "retard"?

[Leftsolidarity]

Don't some of those words come from the same place as retard? Such as idiot and moron? Weren't they used to describe IQ ranges or something?

Sort of but at a certain point who really cares? Retard is a rather harsh word but idiot and moron I don't see too many people taking offense to and at some point it is just a competition of like "hey I'm more PC than you!" I say just refrain from using words like "gay" and "retard" but don't live and talk as if you need to be some saint or anything.

[Dumb]

Wrong thread.

[Leftsolidarity]

Wrong thread.

:confused:

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

slang, is a dangerous type of word.

[#FF0000]

"In 19th and early 20th century medicine and psychology, an "idiot" was a person with a very severe mental retardation." "Moron (psychology), disused term for a person with a mental age between 8 and 12," So aren't these just as bad as "retard"?

No, because this isn't the 19th or early 20th century. The word just isn't considered to be that bad anymore.

[unfriendly]

Thank you, I was just having a hard time finding it. But what I was looking for was everyone's opinion on the word while not being used as a derogatory slur for an immutable characteristic. When you look at my examples above, you don't need to have any kind of immutable characteristic in order to be dumb enough to walk into traffic or get an essay question wrong. What does everyone think of the word in that context? As a general insult used with a slightly different meaning?

That's harmful because it's comparing people to a marginalized group based on a negative quality. I don't think you'd like very much to be held as the standard of unwise behavior based on an immutable characteristic you have.

And since we're on the subject, "dumb" does the same thing.


What about in the clinical sense where you are talking about someone who actually is classified as MR? IE "police shoot and kill unarmed mentally retarded man" or discussing how in the past (hopefully only in the past) where the MR and those with other disabilities were forcibly sterilized (and yes this has happened in the US in the last 50 years.)

No need for it. Best policy is to go with something like "developmentally disabled." It's a slur. It's the same as how you wouldn't refer to a trans person as a "transvestite" even if you were talking about someone who genuinely falls under the definition; it's rude.



It's obviously not appropriate.
Instead of using retarded/retard you can use any number of words like...

idiot/idiotic
dumbass/dumb
stupid
moron/moronic
brainless



Idiot has the same etymology as retarded almost to the letter and is no less offensive. Dumb describes people disabled in that they can't formulate speech, moron describes a developmental disability, stupid describes someone "mentally slow", and all of these words re-enforce the ableist concept of intelligence (http://disabledfeminists.com/2009/10/23/ableist-word-profile-intelligence/).

If you insult a person based on perceived mental capacity you are insulting everyone with atypical mental capacity.

I enjoy describing actions as "unwise".


That is crazy, do you know of anything else like this? Is there something I can search for to find it on my own?


Same story with "crazy" by the way; crazy is an extremely powerful slur that can portray just about every negative quality about someone you don't understand at once. It's a slur for people whose decision making process is different than yours by comparing them to people whose processes are influenced by neuroatypicalities. I don't appreciate being held as the standard for poor decision making. I especially don't appreciate it when things like "don't date crazy people" are held as self-evident common sense. I've been kicked out of houses just for being crazy by people who did not know me and who I hadn't and would not wrong just based on rumors about my mental health.

Crazy is not an ok word.



Retard is a rather harsh word but idiot and moron I don't see too many people taking offense to

That is because you silence and dismiss us by saying things like "politically correct", which is a phrase rooted in right-wing ideology based on the idea that not being oppressive is snobby, elitist, and pretentious.

Sorry but that's not how it works. Oppressive words don't just change their meanings out of being oppressive anymore. To call someone an idiot re-enforces the ableist concept that the word was invented to describe and is still ableist.

[Leftsolidarity]

That is because you silence and dismiss us by saying things like "politically correct", which is a phrase rooted in right-wing ideology based on the idea that not being oppressive is snobby, elitist, and pretentious.

Sorry but that's not how it works. Oppressive words don't just change their meanings out of being oppressive anymore. To call someone an idiot re-enforces the ableist concept that the word was invented to describe and is still ableist.

I see where you're coming from and I'm usually not one to use "PC" to try to stop a discussion about something but that is really all I see it as. Those words were offensive long ago and by today's standards are no longer offensive. Maybe intellectuals find it offensive but from what I've seen common people usually do not think the same.

[Book O'Dead]

Stop making fun of retired people, okay?

[Fopeos]

I used to throw "the R word" around when I was younger out of ignorance. When used to define someone, it is derogatory. People with developemental disabilities are people first therefore, one should try to use "people-first" language. They aren't retarded people, they are people with mental retardation. The word "retard" should never be used as an epithet. In my opinion, it carries the same negative impact as the "n-word." As socialists, we should always take the moral high ground and fight to defend the most vulnerable in our society.

[unfriendly]

I see where you're coming from and I'm usually not one to use "PC" to try to stop a discussion about something but that is really all I see it as. Those words were offensive long ago and by today's standards are no longer offensive. Maybe intellectuals find it offensive but from what I've seen common people usually do not think the same.

What do you mean "by today's standards"? By yours maybe not but I am developmentally disabled and I find it offensive. I really don't think it's appropriate to explain to a developmentally disabled person what they should and should not find offensive.

[Leftsolidarity]

What do you mean "by today's standards"? By yours maybe not but I am developmentally disabled and I find it offensive. I really don't think it's appropriate to explain to a developmentally disabled person what they should and should not find offensive.


Maybe intellectuals find it offensive but from what I've seen common people usually do not think the same.

I was saying as a whole I do not see people offended by it. I have a developmentally disabled sister and she does not find it offensive. If I go out and find a black person that says they do not find the word "nigger" offensive does that mean it represents the view of the whole black population or entire population in general? No.

Of course one should never call a developmentally disabled person "stupid" or an "idiot" because that is rather rude but to most people the words have lost their power as being offensive and are merely adjectives to describe something as foolish or unwise.

[Pioneers_Violin]

I'm from a somewhat older generation... so here's a little painful history:

The word "Retarded" used on Humans in my school was a clinical use.
If you were very smart, you were often advanced a grade, and thus called an "Advanced" student.

If you did not make the grade for any reason other than a disability, you were retarded (held back) a grade and thus became a "Retarded" student. Tests were absolute. Fail too many and you got retarded.

Practically all schools had "Retards" in them... that is students through either laziness, indifference or whatever were held back a grade. Or two.
To be held back or "retarded" was a very big stigma. You could count on non-stop ridicule from your classmates. It was a large incentive to pass tests.

Students with actual disabilities such as Palsy or Mental Retardation were sent to the "Special Education" class and were separated from the "normal" "advanced" and "retarded" students. My first friend in school disappeared into that room forever.

This did not stop the cruel ones from calling people "Mental"(for MR), "Palsy" or "Spaz" in a derogatory fashion.

The year I graduated from this particular hard-nosed Grammar School, most of the old guard teachers retired and official terms such as "retarded" and "advanced" were probably dropped.
It was a frightening 8 years. I hated it.

[Agent Ducky]

Um. Here's how I see it. Yeah, that word is degrading, etc. But it's so culturally ingrained to some people. Everyone around me says that and I've let it slip a couple times on Revleft and edited it right after.... I'm trying to be more aware of what I'm saying but it's hard to always not say some stuff if everyone around you is saying it a lot. I'm just saying. I realize how offensive that word is, but I don't think people should necessarily be infracted for accidentally using it. It's kind of a cultural thing.

inb4 I get flamed.

[Leftsolidarity]

Um. Here's how I see it. Yeah, that word is degrading, etc. But it's so culturally ingrained to some people. Everyone around me says that and I've let it slip a couple times on Revleft and edited it right after.... I'm trying to be more aware of what I'm saying but it's hard to always not say some stuff if everyone around you is saying it a lot. I'm just saying. I realize how offensive that word is, but I don't think people should necessarily be infracted for accidentally using it. It's kind of a cultural thing.

inb4 I get flamed.

I'm usually good with typing but with speech, words I'd rather not say slip out sometimes. I've gotten much better with it throughout the past 2 years, with it hardly ever happening at all anymore but yeah it is a cultural thing. If people talk like that around you all the time you pick it up without knowing it.

[PhoenixAsh]

It is often harder for non native speakers to judge the social implication and connotation of words and the subtilty they have....especially when considering the, as Ducky mentioned, wide application of it in popular use.

Some words are logical and it is common sense they are derogatory or biased...with others it is slightly harder.

[#FF0000]

Um. Here's how I see it. Yeah, that word is degrading, etc. But it's so culturally ingrained to some people. Everyone around me says that and I've let it slip a couple times on Revleft and edited it right after.... I'm trying to be more aware of what I'm saying but it's hard to always not say some stuff if everyone around you is saying it a lot. I'm just saying. I realize how offensive that word is, but I don't think people should necessarily be infracted for accidentally using it. It's kind of a cultural thing.

inb4 I get flamed.

That doesn't mean it should be considered acceptable.

Like any flaming really.

[unfriendly]

Of course one should never call a developmentally disabled person "stupid" or an "idiot" because that is rather rude but to most people the words have lost their power as being offensive and are merely adjectives to describe something as foolish or unwise.

You're still ignoring my central point that moreso than the word itself, the concept of intelligence is oppressive. That's gone really unacknowledged in this thread.

[Agent Ducky]

That doesn't mean it should be considered acceptable.

Like any flaming really.

I never said it's acceptable. I'm saying that people shouldn't be judged/directly punished on revleft for accidentally saying something like that. It's not acceptable but if it's culturally ingrained enough one has to put effort into stopping use of said word.

[Leftsolidarity]

You're still ignoring my central point that moreso than the word itself, the concept of intelligence is oppressive. That's gone really unacknowledged in this thread.

How is the concept of intelligence oppressive? (real question because I've never heard that before)

[unfriendly]

I linked this earlier in the thread, but it was kind of subtle so it's totally acceptable that you wouldn't have seen it.

http://disabledfeminists.com/2009/10/23/ableist-word-profile-intelligence/


I hate this word. Hate the concept. With a hatred that is a pure and burning flame. True, part of this is because I get told all the time that I’m like wicked smart. When it’s some of the more toxic people in my family saying it, there’s more to it: You’re so intelligent so why are you poor? Other people use it as an opportunity to put themselves down: You’re so smart; I’m not; I could never do the things you do.

Does intelligence exist? At all?

Maybe it doesn’t.

There are tests that measure… something. They’re called Intelligence Quotient tests. The idea is that these tests actually measure some fundamental, real quality of human cognition — the people who believe in IQ believe that there’s a single quality that informs cognition as a whole and that people who have higher IQs have more of this and think better and perform better generally while people who have lower IQs have less of this quality and perform more poorly. Sorry; it’s a muddle of a definition, I know. Partly it’s a conceptual and linguistic problem — some things are not well defined and these things tend to be the things we consider to be fundamental. It’s much easier to define smaller things at the edges; it’s easy to define a fingernail. It’s harder to point to where blood stops flowing away from the heart and starts flowing back towards it.

The man who developed the first intelligence tests, Alfred Binet, wasn’t actually trying to measure intelligence. He’d done some work in neurology and psychology and education, and in 1899 he was asked to become a member of the Free Society for the Psychological Study of the Child. Primary education in France had become mandatory, so a lot of work on educational psychology was being done due to the large demand and the large available sample population. Binet, and others, were assigned to the Commission for the Retarded. (Again, please accept my apologies; I wouldn’t use the word if it were mine.)

The problem he was trying to solve was how to identify — consistently, without having to rely on the judgment of people who could be swayed by all sorts of personal biases (as we all are, including me) — those children who needed extra help. Maybe they had developmental disorders, maybe they had learning impairments along the lines of ADD/ADHD, dyscalculias, dyslexias, maybe malnutrition, injury, or childhood disease had caused neurological damage or limited development. The specific etiology wasn’t the point; the point was to be able to know who these children were and get them assistance. Which may be ascribing too-noble motives to him, but he doesn’t do so great later.

This is key here: When Binet and his colleague Theodore Simon were designing the test, Binet said it didn’t really matter what the questions were, just so there were plenty of them. They did try to put together sets of questions or tasks of different difficulties, but test design wasn’t as developed a hundred-some years ago as it is now. To Binet’s credit, he knew his test was flawed, that both ‘intelligence’ and ‘retardation’ were subjective concepts and given to wide variation, that cognitive development was not locked with chronological age, and that environmental factors — some of which could, given political will and funding, be changed — played a very large role in whatever the hell it was he was testing for. So far, so good.

Problem was, he still called it an intelligence test. People took him at his word, including one Lewis Terman, a professor of educational psychology at Stanford University.

Terman read the word ‘intelligence’ and found an opportunity: not to identify children who might not perform as well as others without extra help so they could get that help but to rank children, adults, everyone by intelligence. Innate, singular, congenital, immalleable. In 1916, he published the Stanford Revision of the Binet-Simon Scale, and intelligence testing in the United States was born.

Y’all know what’s coming, right? A ghastly mess of privilege piled on top of privilege, historical oppressions and inequalities used to justify further inequality, entire populations written off as defective and unfit? Yeah. And this is where Alfred Binet messed up, because he didn’t protest much about Terman’s misuse of his work. He could have at least gotten his name clear of it, even if he couldn’t have talked a bunch of really privileged American adademics out of abusing their privilege when the next big thing in intelligence testing happened.

Even as awful as the original Stanford-Binet test was, it might not have come to much except on 4 April, 1917 the United States declared war on Germany, entering what would eventually become known as the First World War. By the end of the war in November 1918, the Army grew from its pre-war size of about 200,000 soldiers (all men) to about 3,700,000. More than 2,700,000 men were drafted through the Selective Service. They all had to be processed as physically fit to serve; the Army knew how to do that. But what tasks were they going to be assigned? An army is a large and complicated endeavor, especially a modern army, equipped with the most advanced fighting machinery available. They had to know that the soldiers assigned to (say) tank tread maintenance were mentally capable of completing the tasks assigned.

Enter Lewis Terman and Robert Yerkes, head of the American Psychological Association, armed with their revised intelligence quotient test, simplified further into the Army Alpha test for recruits identified (by the Army) as literate and the Army Beta test, administered orally for recruits identified as illiterate.

For a thorough treatment of just how incredibly awful and othering and appalling this turned out, Stephen Jay Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man is highly recommended. I’ll skim over some lowlights.

We may never know how many recruits were misidentified as literate and forced to take the Alpha exam. Those who did poorly were supposed to then take the Beta exam which — supposedly — measured aptitude without requiring literacy in English, but test administration was not consistent across recruiting centers.

Measuring cultural and class assimilation: One task on the Beta exam showed a man in an awkward position, on one foot with a hand extended, with objects at the end of a path. The recruit was told to fill in the missing part of the picture. In the world Terman and Yerkes lived in, this was universal knowledge; the man was bowling, the path was a bowling lane, the objects at the far end were pins. It’s not universal everywhere. Another question related to yachting.

Fun Fact: One finding that came out of the aggregate data was that ringworm infection (it’s not a worm, it’s a fungal infection that presents as roughly circular lesions on the skin) correlated to a thirty point drop in IQ. The vector for ringworm is walking on spore-infested ground with bare feet. The conclusion? Stupid people get a whole lot of ringworm. Maybe because they don’t buy shoes?

Three hundred seventy thousand black men served in the first World War. Of those, one thousand four hundred were promoted to the rank of non-commissioned officer. Most black men were prohibited from serving in combat units and were assigned to Services of Supply units. Science had shown they were not smart enough to be issued weapons; they were regarded as nothing more than unskilled labor, at least officially. About forty thousand black soldiers acquired weapons and fought anyway; some seven hundred thousand black men registered for the draft on the first day. They had come to fight. (In further racism: It took seventy years for the Army and Congress to award the first Medals of Honor (the highest decoration awarded for military service in the U.S.) to black soldiers from that war. Which doesn’t have anything to do with intelligence, but it was in the source I was consulting and I wanted to share.)

Since then, intelligence testing hasn’t gotten a lot better. The tests have gotten less culturally biased and less dependent on language skills. But they depend ultimately on the same assumptions: Intelligence is something that can be measured and quantified. These tests accurately measure that something. People should be sorted according to how much or how little of it they have. People who write books like The Bell Curve would have you believe that we can test groups of people — their favorite way to group and rank people is by race, so they look at race. They do all kinds of nifty statistical analysis that I could probably dissect better if I’d bothered to take more than a couple classes in statistics and error analysis.

But I don’t really have to because their argument — that the midpoint of the distribution curves for IQ test results for white people is higher than the midpoint of the distribution curves for IQ test results for black people so white people are smarter and better — is blatantly racist bullshit (even if they hadn’t decided before they began how things were going to work out). As with everything else human, between-individual variation swamps the hell out of among-group variation. They have to believe that intelligence is real IQ tests measure it blah whatever. And they have to argue that whatever the effects might be of three hundred years of slavery followed by a century and more of apartheid, institutional racism, the systematic destruction of black communities and families, the theft of black land and black wealth, the nullification of black political power, the impoverishment of the American public school system after Brown v. Board of Education, and straight-up just telling black people forever that they are stupid and less than human, they don’t explain this small difference. This difference that is congenital and cannot be changed and means white people are more intelligent than black people on average — so it follows that any given white person is smarter than any given black person, right?

Yes, I’m angry. (I’m also white, for the record. I’m just very much an anti-racism activist.)

So if IQ testing doesn’t measure intelligence, what does it measure? Probably the ability to do well on IQ tests. And other standardized tests. Which is a skill that can be learned, as PSAT/SAT prep courses all over the country show. And if it can be learned, that calls into question its innateness and immobility — qualities intelligence is claimed to have by its proponents.

I’m going to get personal now, and go back to a point made at the beginning, with people telling me I’m really smart.

I don’t know. Maybe. What I do know is that whatever I am, it does not mean that anybody else is stupid. Or worth less. What I have is a brain that does some interesting tricks, like the aforementioned standardized tests and some classes (though the wrong teacher or a group of students making me miserable could get me to fail a class, as could untreated depression). I understand mathematics and logical systems fairly intuitively. I’ve got pretty good recall of memory. I don’t get lost (though that’s also an anxiety/fear issue — I worry about getting lost so I pay attention to where I’m going) much and can always get home.

There are things I’m bad at: social interaction is not at all intuitive for me. Sometimes I can’t stand being touched, even by the woman I’ve lived with for ten years. Non-textual information — facial expression and body language — doesn’t get processed quickly and is extremely distracting. I have a terrible time evaluating my own motives, never mind other people’s. I’ve practiced a lot and I can look people in the eye and shake hands and talk and there are people who don’t know I’m shy, never mind socially dysfunctional. But it is pretense. And these are the skills needed to ‘sell one’s self.’ I’ve never once gotten a regular non-temp job by applying and interviewing for it. Every job I’ve had — and I’ve had some that lasted a while — I’ve gotten by being a temp first and them keeping me when they found out I could do stuff. None of them pay enough to get me out of being poor.

Which answers one of the questions from way up above.

Getting to another one — why is intelligence in the Ableist Word Profile series? Because we can’t talk about intelligence without talking about stupidity, and stupidity is all tangled up in ableism. If some people are intelligent, some people are stupid. It just falls out that way when you start sorting people on a hierarchy of value. Some are capable of more — so we allocate more resources (money, education, employment, health care) to them — and others are capable of less, so they get less. Less money, less education, worse housing, more abuse. It doesn’t really work out that way though does it? People with ambition and skill and good ideas fail all the time for lack of connections, lack of familial wealth, having brown skin or believing in the wrong god or having been born on the wrong side of a river. (Occasionally someone gets really, really lucky and breaks through all that, lending a hint of truth to the lies that hard work and following the rules will be rewarding in the end.) People with connections and familial wealth and the right kinds of privilege succeed wildly despite a lifetime of bad decisions and appalling behavior.

And here’s where we really get into why intelligence is an ableist concept: Stupid is a perception, usually based on the perceived ability to communicate. A person with communication impairments is going to be perceived as stupid. The same word means ‘stupid’ and ‘unable to speak’ for a reason. (It’s one I’m trying to excise from my vocabulary. It’s a process.) Someone with cerebral palsy who requires that the rest of us slow down and wait for xer to communicate at xer speed is going to be perceived as unintelligent. Someone who can’t speak under stress (I stammer and eventually become dysphasic on bad days) is going to be perceived as unintelligent at those times. Deaf people are perceived as unintelligent. None of these conditions have a damn thing to do with cognition and everything to do with communication.

Except we don’t have to do any of this the way we’re doing it. We can talk about abilities like spatial reasoning, social adeptitude, and mathematical skills and needs like a school environment that accommodates one child’s ADHD variation, another child’s mathematical intuition and xer need for challenging material presented at xer pace. We can talk about good decisions and bad decisions, either of which can turn out well or badly. We can accommodate variations in cognitive ability — and consider it ability and not get stuck on what a person can’t do. We can learn (sometimes painfully for those of us privileged with the ability to communicate more or less as the majority of people do, but the examination of privilege is never guaranteed painless) to accommodate the needs of those who communicate differently. It’s not their responsibility to communicate in ways that don’t make us have to work.

It does mean we would have to jettison the hierarchy of intelligence. Nobody gets to be geniuses, nobody has to be idiots. We’d stop marking whole people as intelligent or stupid. On the plus side? People could stop thinking of themselves as stupid. Wouldn’t that be revolutionary?

And for fuck’s sake there wouldn’t be any cognitive tests anyone would have to pass to be considered human.

Credit Where It’s Due Department: Sources for this include The Wiki (of course), Stephen Jay Gould’s The Mismeasure of Man (revised edition), an outstanding chronology of African-American military service found at http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/integrate/CHRON3.html, and my wife, who studied education and psychology and made it her career for a long time. She’s been reading my fiction – which falls outside her preferred genres – for a long time. I’m pleased to be writing something that falls within her expertise and grateful for her assistance

[Leftsolidarity]

This is not my area of expertize but I know many pyschologists have adopted a theory of multiple Intelligences.

I think that there is no blank statement of "oh he/she is smart" or "oh he/she is dumb" but that it varies from thing to thing. I am great at music and interacting with people while I'm terrible at science and numbers.

[unfriendly]

This is not my area of expertize but I know many pyschologists have adopted a theory of multiple Intelligences.

I think that there is no blank statement of "oh he/she is smart" or "oh he/she is dumb" but that it varies from thing to thing. I am great at music and interacting with people while I'm terrible at science and numbers.

Even that is super reductive and problematic. For example your music example, I am told that I'm a pretty good dancer, but I'm useless at, say, the guitar. On the other hand, I could learn guitar same as anyone else and there are plenty of reasons completely unrelated to intelligence that someone might be a crappy dancer.

I'm deeply skeptical of the idea that any progressive ideas about neuroatypicality could come out of a field designed to dehumanize, classify, and "cure" us into non-existence. It's just straight up not going to happen.

[TheCuriousCommunist]

I honestly couldn't give a fuck. I use the word constantly.

[Fulanito de Tal]

First, I think that I wouldn't use the word in front of parents of retards to offend another person. That would be telling the parent that her child's condition is so unwanted, that it can be used to offend someone. And I know parents that love their retarded children much more than I've seen parents care for their normally developed children.

Then, I get into knowing the retarded person, and I think that it's a person with every right to be happy and enjoy life as much as me. That person did not choose that condition, so why insult it?

Lastly, if I'm calling someone else retarded, I should at least back up my superiority with something more original than an overused developmental condition.

[RGacky3]

Lame refers to people who for one reason or another cannot walk, its also used as a derogetory term that refers to someone who is seen as incompitant in some sense ... Is that also discriminatory?

[Viet Minh]

My mother and father both worked with the disabled (physical and mental disablities) and I still get very angry when I hear people use such terms. Some of the members had terrible lives, being given up for adoption because of their disabilities, unloved by their adoptive parents, abused and neglected, and unable to tell anyone (because of inability to communicate or explain or through fear or the fact nobody would listen) bullied at school, unable to ever be in a relationship, and having all sorts of day to day discomforts and difficulties. In some ways I see them now as being our most vulnerable group, and yet still its kewl to go around calling people retards even in films and tv! :thumbdown:


It's obviously not appropriate.
Instead of using retarded/retard you can use any number of words like...

idiot/idiotic
dumbass/dumb
stupid
moron/moronic
brainless

'Dumb' is also used for people who are unable to speak, how would you like it if you had that affliction and people used the word to describe stupidity, even though you could be more intelligent than the person using the term?


"In 19th and early 20th century medicine and psychology, an "idiot" was a person with a very severe mental retardation." "Moron (psychology), disused term for a person with a mental age between 8 and 12," So aren't these just as bad as "retard"?

Yes but they're not used anymore, so in my opinion as far as its acceptable to insult someone based on their intelligence, the words 'moron' and 'idiot' while offensive generally no longer hold any connotations of physical disability.


How is the concept of intelligence oppressive? (real question because I've never heard that before)

Because intelligence is very often a matter of privilege, ie a private education, being able to afford university fees, computers, books etc. Even regional accents are sometimes used as indicators of intelligence, the whole notion is prejudiced towards the 'elite'.


Lame refers to people who for one reason or another cannot walk, its also used as a derogetory term that refers to someone who is seen as incompitant in some sense ... Is that also discriminatory?

Yes imo it is. The intention might not be to offend people, but to use the word is to promote it or legitimise it to some extent. I have heard people use the term 'coloured' which they did not believe to be offensive, but it is (it implies white skin being the norm)

[tracher999]

i hate that word:thumbdown:

[RGacky3]

Yes imo it is. The intention might not be to offend people, but to use the word is to promote it or legitimise it to some extent. I have heard people use the term 'coloured' which they did not believe to be offensive, but it is (it implies white skin being the norm)

Well the implication when you call someone retarded is that they have limited mental capacity, being actually retarded is not nice, when used as an insult your saying that the person is doing or saying something so stupid it is as if they have a mental disibility. So really, I don't get why its offensive at all, I get why people who are related to or know people that have mental disabilities might get offended, but using the word retarded is not in anyway discriminatory against those people at all.

The same goes with the word lame.

[727Goon]

in 50 to 100 years retard and faggot will go the way of idiot and moron as inoffensive words that dont have any real connection to their original meaning

[Viet Minh]

Well the implication when you call someone retarded is that they have limited mental capacity, being actually retarded is not nice, when used as an insult your saying that the person is doing or saying something so stupid it is as if they have a mental disibility. So really, I don't get why its offensive at all, I get why people who are related to or know people that have mental disabilities might get offended, but using the word retarded is not in anyway discriminatory against those people at all.

The same goes with the word lame.

But intelligence is merely an accident of birth, compounded by social issues such as poverty, lack of education etc. So its not someone's fault if they've not got an IQ of 150, therefore calling someone stupid is offensive in the first place, but the real issue here is they are also needlessly stigmatising a very vulnerable group in society. Its like if I call someone a <insert racial expletive here> it doesn't matter what race they are its still an offensive word, and just because there's no other people around to hear it doesn't make it okay.

And it is offensive to disabled people. Firstly because many people who are called retards are capable of understanding the term, or at least its usage as an insult to them personally, and secondly because of the ignorance surrounding disabilities. For instance someone who is shot at and paralysed, who needs to use a wheelchair but is otherwise mentally capable, would be likely to be called a retard at some point.

TL;DR: don't call people retards :(

[Viet Minh]

in 50 to 100 years retard and faggot will go the way of idiot and moron as inoffensive words that dont have any real connection to their original meaning

And nigga will be an innoffensive term as well.. Owait..

[Leftsolidarity]

And nigga will be an innoffensive term as well.. Owait..

You find nigga offensive?

[RGacky3]

therefore calling someone stupid is offensive in the first place

Its MEANT to be offensive in the first place, no one calls anyone stupid to be nice.


but the real issue here is they are also needlessly stigmatising a very vulnerable group in society.

He's saying someone has low intelligence becuase they said something that someone with low intelligence would say, thats not stigmatizing.


And it is offensive to disabled people. Firstly because many people who are called retards are capable of understanding the term, or at least its usage as an insult to them personally, and secondly because of the ignorance surrounding disabilities. For instance someone who is shot at and paralysed, who needs to use a wheelchair but is otherwise mentally capable, would be likely to be called a retard at some point.


A: if your calling someone retarded the whole point is to offend him, or just personally attack him, thats the point.

B: Someone in a wheel chair most likely will not be called retarded (unless they do something or say something stupid).

[Che a chara]

I used to throw "the R word" around when I was younger out of ignorance. When used to define someone, it is derogatory. People with developemental disabilities are people first therefore, one should try to use "people-first" language. They aren't retarded people, they are people with mental retardation. The word "retard" should never be used as an epithet. In my opinion, it carries the same negative impact as the "n-word." As socialists, we should always take the moral high ground and fight to defend the most vulnerable in our society.

Yep. During my limited time when working within a charity that dealt with disabilities, it was legislated by the charity's commission that the only acceptable term when referring to a person with a disability is "person/people with a disability/disabilities", as if you just refer to that person as "disabled" then they feel undermined and demeaned and that they were being categorised just as that disability and not as a person. Same goes for saying "mental person", which through no fault of their own, they felt they were being classed as mental first and a person second.

As for casually saying the word retard, it is highly offensive and derogatory, though I am aware that many say it without really meaning to be derogatory to a person who would have such a disability. Awareness of the uses of the word should be taught at school and the home.

[#FF0000]

Archaic words aren't offensive. it doesn't matter what dumb/lame REALLY means because most people don't use the words like that anymore.

And the concept of intelligence is oppressive mostly because it's ranking people based on how well they can take a test.

[Viet Minh]

You find nigga offensive?

Me no, perhaps I've become de-sensitised through listening to gangsta rap since I was about 10. But some people do, and thats the point. If its some racist douche using the 'n' word then yes its very offensive.


Its MEANT to be offensive in the first place, no one calls anyone stupid to be nice.

There are other ways to offend people, trust me I manage it frequently without even trying! I kinda agree with the points you made in the 'people getting offended' thread, I'm not calling for the death penalty for people who use the word, I'm just saying people should be more aware of the impact the word can have.


He's saying someone has low intelligence becuase they said something that someone with low intelligence would say, thats not stigmatizing.

No that in itself isn't stigmatising, to call them stupid or foolish or idiotic. But 'retard' does have implications of physical disablity.



A: if your calling someone retarded the whole point is to offend him, or just personally attack him, thats the point.

B: Someone in a wheel chair most likely will not be called retarded (unless they do something or say something stupid).


A. And in the process potentially offend a lot of people that haven't done anything to you or anyone else.

B. I hope not but I have personally witnessed that and worse on a few occasions, I'm ashamed to say some of my ex-friends behaved horribly towards people who had disabilities.

[Leftsolidarity]

Me no, perhaps I've become de-sensitised through listening to gangsta rap since I was about 10. But some people do, and thats the point. If its some racist douche using the 'n' word then yes its very offensive.





Agreed. It is about who says it and in what context.

[Psy]

That's using it with a different definition. In this case you're using as a verb. "Retardant" is also like the adjective equivalent e.g. Flame-Retardant.
It's when it's used as a noun that it's uncool. Or as an adjective variant "retarded," it is also unacceptable, whereas to use the same word "retarded" as a past-tense verb is OK.

Bit of a problem with that is the word retard exists in engineering as a noun, they are devices to slow down a process. For example you can have a device that retards (slow) the RPMs engine thus called a retarder (this is common in mechanical engineering).

Personally I don't think we (society at large) should hinder people from speaking their mind, it would actually make it easier to come to terms with such issues like discrimination if we can get past such taboos yet that is just me.

[Tenka]

First, I think that I wouldn't use the word in front of parents of retards to offend another person. That would be telling the parent that her child's condition is so unwanted, that it can be used to offend someone. And I know parents that love their retarded children much more than I've seen parents care for their normally developed children.

Then, I get into knowing the retarded person, and I think that it's a person with every right to be happy and enjoy life as much as me. That person did not choose that condition, so why insult it?

Lastly, if I'm calling someone else retarded, I should at least back up my superiority with something more original than an overused developmental condition.

I have at least one developmental disorder, and I don't use the word "retard" to refer to anyone who does have one. Rather, I personally reserve "retard" for total neurotypicals whose behaviours and beliefs I find to have a retarding effect on human progress as a whole (e.g., conservatives). I think this literal definition severed from regressive psychiatric usages of the word would be good for everyone to adopt, but I know not many people would be willing to get behind that, and so try to keep my personal definition out of use in my forum posts lest I be restricted, or worse.

[RGacky3]

There are other ways to offend people, trust me I manage it frequently without even trying! I kinda agree with the points you made in the 'people getting offended' thread, I'm not calling for the death penalty for people who use the word, I'm just saying people should be more aware of the impact the word can have.


Sure, but my point was that retarded is not discriminatory in the sense that nigger is, or faggot is. Calling someone a nigger implies that black people are somehow less than white people, which is untrue, the same with faggot, calling someone retarded is implying that they are less intelligent, which implies that mentally challenged people are less intelligent ... which they are.


No that in itself isn't stigmatising, to call them stupid or foolish or idiotic. But 'retard' does have implications of physical disablity.


Your implying that like someone with a mental disability, they lack intelligence, the same way calling someone lame is implying something similar.


A. And in the process potentially offend a lot of people that haven't done anything to you or anyone else.


Who would you be offending?


B. I hope not but I have personally witnessed that and worse on a few occasions, I'm ashamed to say some of my ex-friends behaved horribly towards people who had disabilities.

In my opinion, making fun of someone with a disability for their disability is terrible and cruel, (its not bigoted perse, but just as bad really). But thats a different thing than using a word that refers to a disability.

[Viet Minh]

Sure, but my point was that retarded is not discriminatory in the sense that nigger is, or faggot is. Calling someone a nigger implies that black people are somehow less than white people, which is untrue, the same with faggot, calling someone retarded is implying that they are less intelligent, which implies that mentally challenged people are less intelligent ... which they are.

Not necessarily, for example Apsergers/ Autistic people are considered 'mentally challenged' in some way, and yet there are severely autistic people who are at the genius level of IQ. Einstein and Mozart for example are speculated to have been aspergers or autistic. Here are some cases of modern savants, technical geniuses who are at the same time socially inept, ie unable to feed and clothe themselves etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Peek
http://jezebel.com/5243027/twin-savants-fixated-on-dick-clark
iirc the nazis considered autism and aspergers to be mental handicaps, enough to send them to the gas chambers. Not to ad hitlerum the whole conversations, just saying that autism does count as a mental handicap.


Your implying that like someone with a mental disability, they lack intelligence, the same way calling someone lame is implying something similar.

With all due respect, I think you yourself are making assumptions about disabled people. Take for instance the idea of the homosexual male as effeminate, thats a form of stereotyping. There are many homosexual males who fit the (equally ludicrous) idea of masculinity, ie aggression, physical fitness or whatever. The famous London gangster Ronnie Kray was homosexual, that pretty much goes against the idea of the homosexual male as a 'wimp' or a 'fairy' (sorry for offensive language, I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make). Someone once asked me if I was gay because I was eating a packet of prawn cocktail crisps! :confused: :lol: Its not really funny it was just ridiculous at the time.


Who would you be offending?

Even some of the most severely mentally challenged people are capable of emotion, often more so because for various reasons they are unable to deal with their emotions in an adult way. Down syndrome is one common mental disability, and generally do have lower IQ's (on average Down syndrome children have an IQ of 50 compared to 100 in children without) but they are more than capable of emotion, arguably more so because they have the mental age of a child, and perhaps lack the capacity to reason that some people act like asshoels to other people because they themselves have issues.



In my opinion, making fun of someone with a disability for their disability is terrible and cruel, (its not bigoted perse, but just as bad really). But thats a different thing than using a word that refers to a disability.

But by that logic its wrong to insult a black person, but you could call someone else black as an insult?

[#FF0000]

Sure, but my point was that retarded is not discriminatory in the sense that nigger is, or faggot is. Calling someone a nigger implies that black people are somehow less than white people, which is untrue, the same with faggot, calling someone retarded is implying that they are less intelligent, which implies that mentally challenged people are less intelligent ... which they are.

How exactly does "nigger" or "faggot" imply that black or gay people are less than people? Does calling a gay person a "faggot" imply they're a bundle of sticks or something and therefore less than human? What about "nigger", then?

These words imply that gay or black people are inferior because that is how they are used, to demean, to degrade, to dehumanize, etc. The same goes for the word "retard".

Words aren't magical and their definitions and implications aren't set in stone. "Retard" might have been a medical term in the past, but recently it's taken on extremely negative, demeaning connotations. The same goes for "nigger", actually. That word was used freely waaay back then and unless I'm totally wrong wasn't even really seen as very offensive until recently, because of it's negative connotations because of it's association with racism in America.

[Viet Minh]

How exactly does "nigger" or "faggot" imply that black or gay people are less than people? Does calling a gay person a "faggot" imply they're a bundle of sticks or something and therefore less than human? What about "nigger", then?

These words imply that gay or black people are inferior because that is how they are used, to demean, to degrade, to dehumanize, etc. The same goes for the word "retard".

Words aren't magical and their definitions and implications aren't set in stone. "Retard" might have been a medical term in the past, but recently it's taken on extremely negative, demeaning connotations. The same goes for "nigger", actually. That word was used freely waaay back then and unless I'm totally wrong wasn't even really seen as very offensive until recently, because of it's negative connotations because of it's association with racism in America.

^This. Its not the word itself its how people respond to it, in particular the group it actually relates to.

[RGacky3]

Not necessarily, for example Apsergers/ Autistic people are considered 'mentally challenged' in some way, and yet there are severely autistic people who are at the genius level of IQ. Einstein and Mozart for example are speculated to have been aspergers or autistic. Here are some cases of modern savants, technical geniuses who are at the same time socially inept, ie unable to feed and clothe themselves etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Peek (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Peek)
http://jezebel.com/5243027/twin-sava...-on-dick-clark (http://www.anonym.to/?http://jezebel.com/5243027/twin-savants-fixated-on-dick-clark)
iirc the nazis considered autism and aspergers to be mental handicaps, enough to send them to the gas chambers. Not to ad hitlerum the whole conversations, just saying that autism does count as a mental handicap.

Ok ..... But my point stands.


With all due respect, I think you yourself are making assumptions about disabled people. Take for instance the idea of the homosexual male as effeminate, thats a form of stereotyping. There are many homosexual males who fit the (equally ludicrous) idea of masculinity, ie aggression, physical fitness or whatever. The famous London gangster Ronnie Kray was homosexual, that pretty much goes against the idea of the homosexual male as a 'wimp' or a 'fairy' (sorry for offensive language, I hope you understand the point I'm trying to make). Someone once asked me if I was gay because I was eating a packet of prawn cocktail crisps! :confused: :lol: Its not really funny it was just ridiculous at the time.


Yeah, but the definition of Retarded is mentally disabled somehow, its not a wrong assumption, its a definition.


Even some of the most severely mentally challenged people are capable of emotion, often more so because for various reasons they are unable to deal with their emotions in an adult way. Down syndrome is one common mental disability, and generally do have lower IQ's (on average Down syndrome children have an IQ of 50 compared to 100 in children without) but they are more than capable of emotion, arguably more so because they have the mental age of a child, and perhaps lack the capacity to reason that some people act like asshoels to other people because they themselves have issues.

Thats not what I mean, what I'm saying is your not calling someone who IS retarded, retarded.


But by that logic its wrong to insult a black person, but you could call someone else black as an insult?

Nope, because there is nothing offensive about being black .... unless your a racist and you consider them somehow lesser, retarded people are lesser when it comes to mental capacity, thats the definition.


How exactly does "nigger" or "faggot" imply that black or gay people are less than people? Does calling a gay person a "faggot" imply they're a bundle of sticks or something and therefore less than human? What about "nigger", then?

These words imply that gay or black people are inferior because that is how they are used, to demean, to degrade, to dehumanize, etc. The same goes for the word "retard".

Using faggot or nigger as an insult inplies that it would be insulting to be black or gay, which implies that there is something wrong with being black or gay, but if you are retarded something IS wrong with you, medically.

As a straight man, being called faggot or nigger means nothing to me, I don't consider it an insult, if I were black it might because it brings up racism, or gay because it brings up homophobia, but it does'nt, also I don't consider being gay or black being any less, so even if the implication was that I was gay, it would'nt matter because there is nothing wrong with that.

However I would consider being called retarded an insult, becuase there IS something wrong with being retarded, its a mental handicap.

I would'nt call someone who was retarded retarded (and for the most part anyone), because that brings up something personal and deeply hurtful for something which is a disability.

Its like the difference of saying "what are you blind?" to a guy that juts does'nt pay attention or saying it to a guy that IS blind.

[Viet Minh]

Ok ..... But my point stands.

Your point was that mentally handicap people are less intelligent, that is not always the case. Even depression could be classed as a mental handicap, and yet many of histories greatest thinkers were depressed.


Yeah, but the definition of Retarded is mentally disabled somehow, its not a wrong assumption, its a definition.

It implies more than that, it has many other connotations of being worthless, lesser, 'faulty', whatever. Its not a nice word, and nobody would define themselves by it.


Thats not what I mean, what I'm saying is your not calling someone who IS retarded, retarded.

It doesn't matter. Using social stereotypes to insult people is wrong period. Calling someone a jew for being tightfisted with money, or calling someone a faggot for being effeminate, do you see how these things are offensive, regardless of whether any jewish or queer person is involved?


Nope, because there is nothing offensive about being black .... unless your a racist and you consider them somehow lesser,

But you have pretty much implied you see 'retarded' people as lesser.


retarded people are lesser when it comes to mental capacity, thats the definition.

Thats not always the case, as I've pointed out with such cases as aspergers syndrome, even dyslexia is seen as a form of mental handicap. And the definition goes beyond that, it has all sorts of connotations. I don't see any major problems with saying someone is mentally challenged as an insult, beyond it being in bad taste, the word retard is another matter however.


Using faggot or nigger as an insult inplies that it would be insulting to be black or gay, which implies that there is something wrong with being black or gay, but if you are retarded something IS wrong with you, medically.

Cancer is having something wrong with you, what we are talking about are genetic conditions (such as down syndrome). Whose to say what is right and what is wrong?


As a straight man, being called faggot or nigger means nothing to me, I don't consider it an insult, if I were black it might because it brings up racism, or gay because it brings up homophobia, but it does'nt, also I don't consider being gay or black being any less, so even if the implication was that I was gay, it would'nt matter because there is nothing wrong with that.

Being white and straight I can't really understand what its like to be subjected to that sort of bigotry. However I have taken a fair amount of shit for being English in Scotland. Its not that I am ashamed or offended by the concept of being English (or a 'bastard') its offensive because its an attack on me personally in some way, for who I am. And its a lot easier as an adult male to deal with that kind of stuff than when I was younger in school. Now I have the physical and mental capacity to defend myself or remove myself from the situation to an extent, but not everyone has that opportunity.


However I would consider being called retarded an insult, becuase there IS something wrong with being retarded, its a mental handicap.

I would'nt call someone who was retarded retarded (and for the most part anyone), because that brings up something personal and deeply hurtful for something which is a disability.

If you accept that its hurtful that makes it arguably worse. Its like saying its okay to laugh about gay people or black people as long as they're not around to hear you.


Its like the difference of saying "what are you blind?" to a guy that juts does'nt pay attention or saying it to a guy that IS blind.

Blind as a word doesn't carry any further connotations, 'retard' does. Disabled people find the word offensive, nobody would describe themselves as retarded now.

[Olentzero]

For what it may be worth as a contribution, I prefer using the term fuckwit (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fuckwit). "You got that easy question wrong? What a fuckwit." or "Next time look both ways, fuckwit." An F-bomb and Old English in one convenient, equally effective package.

[RGacky3]

Your point was that mentally handicap people are less intelligent, that is not always the case. Even depression could be classed as a mental handicap, and yet many of histories greatest thinkers were depressed.

Ok, but retarded does not refer to those people, to retard, means to bring back, to slow down, so it is by definition someone who is less intelligent.


It implies more than that, it has many other connotations of being worthless, lesser, 'faulty', whatever. Its not a nice word, and nobody would define themselves by it.


Well, it implies worthless only in the sense that those with retardation are considered worthless (which is not the case), as for faulty, whatever, ANYWORD you use to define mental retardation will have negative connotations because its a negative condition.


It doesn't matter. Using social stereotypes to insult people is wrong period. Calling someone a jew for being tightfisted with money, or calling someone a faggot for being effeminate, do you see how these things are offensive, regardless of whether any jewish or queer person is involved?


All those examples are taking UNTRUE and destructive stereotypes and using them as insults. The fact that those who have mental retardation are less intelligent (generally) IS true. I get why they are offensive, but what makes them offensive is not the case with the word retarded.


But you have pretty much implied you see 'retarded' people as lesser.

They have less mental capacity, yes.


Thats not always the case, as I've pointed out with such cases as aspergers syndrome, even dyslexia is seen as a form of mental handicap. And the definition goes beyond that, it has all sorts of connotations. I don't see any major problems with saying someone is mentally challenged as an insult, beyond it being in bad taste, the word retard is another matter however.


Again, the definition of mental retardation. Dyslexia is'nt considered that.


Whose to say what is right and what is wrong?


Medical science.


If you accept that its hurtful that makes it arguably worse. Its like saying its okay to laugh about gay people or black people as long as they're not around to hear you.

Its ok to laugh at them, sure, but if your laughing at them FOR being gay or FOR being black, them somethings wrong with you, because them being gay or black does'nt make them any less capable or less intelligent, or less whatever than you.

When your calling someone retarded your saying they have a lesser mental capacity, like those who have a medical condiiton that mentally retards them, its not the same thing as what you described.

[#FF0000]

When your calling someone retarded your saying they have a lesser mental capacity, like those who have a medical condiiton that mentally retards them, its not the same thing as what you described.

So like if I said "man you have cerebral palsy or something" if someone fucked up a simple physical task, that wouldn't be profoundly offensive to almost everyone? You don't think that'd be a fucked up thing to say?

And, since you brought up medicine, you realize that people that work with people with mental disabilities and little groups you might've heard of like AP-motherfucking-A have officially ended use of the term "mental retardation", because of the negative connotations the word "retard" has nowadays.

Gacky, the point is, what makes a word demeaning or offensive or derogatory is not the literal definition of the word.

What makes a word demeaning or derogatory is whether or not it is used in a demeaning or derogatory manner.

[Viet Minh]

Ok, but retarded does not refer to those people, to retard, means to bring back, to slow down, so it is by definition someone who is less intelligent.

The 'n' word just means black (from the Latin Niger). Its not the word its the associations.


Well, it implies worthless only in the sense that those with retardation are considered worthless (which is not the case), as for faulty, whatever, ANYWORD you use to define mental retardation will have negative connotations because its a negative condition.

There is no one condition though, people use the term for everything from downs syndrome to severe autism. Downs syndrome you could consider a negative condition, but the word itself is not offensive, even used in a derogatory manner.


All those examples are taking UNTRUE and destructive stereotypes and using them as insults. The fact that those who have mental retardation are less intelligent (generally) IS true. I get why they are offensive, but what makes them offensive is not the case with the word retarded.

Its not what logically seems offensive to you, its what is offensive to the people who are labelled such.


They have less mental capacity, yes.

But enough to have feelings, and take offense when they hear that word on TV and in movies or on the street.


Again, the definition of mental retardation. Dyslexia is'nt considered that.

Dyslexia fits the definition of a mental handicap or impairment, in fact before dyslexia was widely understood dyslexic children were often just treated as stupid.


Medical science.

But medical science doesn't categorise people into 'retards'. It was a term in the past that has fallen out of favour because it is now considered offensive.


Its ok to laugh at them, sure, but if your laughing at them FOR being gay or FOR being black, them somethings wrong with you, because them being gay or black does'nt make them any less capable or less intelligent, or less whatever than you.

When your calling someone retarded your saying they have a lesser mental capacity, like those who have a medical condiiton that mentally retards them, its not the same thing as what you described.

But thats the point, laughing at someone for any reason belittles them, if someone already has the immense misfortune to be born handicapped, then why do we need to make their life that little bit worse by turning it into a joke, or further stigmatising their condition? There are many words you can use to describe stupidity; moronic, idiotic, foolish etc etc why do you specifically have to use that word, despite knowing (and admitting) it causes great offense to a lot of people.. ?

[ComradeMan]

@Gacky

You have no point and your argumentation does not hold.

Words like "retard" and "spastic" etc dehumanise people and somehow imply they are of less worth as human beings. Even if someone may have lower mental abilities (which is not necessarily the case) that does not make them have lower worth in society. As for that bullshit going back to the etymology of the word shit- well done, people on StormFront do that all the time probably.

What if someone was to look at your terrible spelling and decide arbitrarily that you were of lower intelligence and therefore worthless to society and everyone started using "Gacky" as a pejorative? How would you feel...?

[#FF0000]

Man you are FUCKING UP if you got me siding with ComradeMan these days.

[ComradeMan]

Man you are FUCKING UP if you got me siding with ComradeMan these days.

The feeling is mutual.

Touché

;):lol:

[RGacky3]

Gacky, the point is, what makes a word demeaning or offensive or derogatory is not the literal definition of the word.

What makes a word demeaning or derogatory is whether or not it is used in a demeaning or derogatory manner.

Demeaning to who? If it is to the person who you are calling a "retard" then yes, thats the point, if its to people with mental dissabilities, I don't know. Same with the word spastic, people that have twitches have a medical condition, if your teasing someone who does not, but is not nervous why not imply he has a medical condiiton? Doing that does not dehumanize people WITH the medical condition, I think the same goes for retard.


Words like "retard" and "spastic" etc dehumanise people and somehow imply they are of less worth as human beings.

Using that argument insulting or making fun of ANYONE, in ANYWAY is wrong because we all have worth as human beings. You can make that argument everywhere.


Dyslexia fits the definition of a mental handicap or impairment, in fact before dyslexia was widely understood dyslexic children were often just treated as stupid.


And homosexuality also used to be considered a mental sickness, so what?


The 'n' word just means black (from the Latin Niger). Its not the word its the associations.


The association is that blacks are subhuman and subservient to whites, the association retard has is that someone has limited mental capacity, which is the point.


its what is offensive to the people who are labelled such.


You mean people who I think are stupid (but not with the mental condition)? Or actually mentally challenged people? Because I would never call someone who IS mentally challenged retarded.


But thats the point, laughing at someone for any reason belittles them, if someone already has the immense misfortune to be born handicapped, then why do we need to make their life that little bit worse by turning it into a joke, or further stigmatising their condition? There are many words you can use to describe stupidity; moronic, idiotic, foolish etc etc why do you specifically have to use that word, despite knowing (and admitting) it causes great offense to a lot of people.. ?

If you call someone retarded your not laughing or beliteling people with mental disabilities, your laughing at and bellitling the person your calling someone retarded.

Theres 2 groups we are talking about here, 1, the group you call retarded, 2, people with actual mental handicaps, group 1 is the group we are trying to offend, group 2, why would they be offended?

[ComradeMan]

If you call someone retarded your not laughing or beliteling people with mental disabilities, your laughing at and bellitling the person your calling someone retarded.

If you call someone a "nigger/faggot/yid/terrone/wop/ xyz" your (sic) not laughing or beliteling (sic) those people..... etc etc

Come off it! That's ridiculous!

The secondary point, why the fuck do you want to go around laughing at and belittling people?

It's not comradely and quite frankly it just makes you into a mega-asshole.

Stopp beeing succh a gacky!
;)

[Viet Minh]

Well you're persistant, I gotta give you that! :lol:


And homosexuality also used to be considered a mental sickness, so what?

Dyslexia is obviously not a 'mental sickness' (neither is down syndrome or cerebral palsy) so for that reason alone (ie your reason) its wrong to stigmatise it.


The association is that blacks are subhuman and subservient to whites, the association retard has is that someone has limited mental capacity, which is the point.

There's more to it than that, its a word that has been used as an insult for five decades or more, and has long been out of favour within the medical community. And of course it has implications of superiority if you're using it to insult someone!

Basically what you're saying is its wrong to insult someone for their race, but its okay to insult someone who has a genetic or medical condition.


You mean people who I think are stupid (but not with the mental condition)? Or actually mentally challenged people? Because I would never call someone who IS mentally challenged retarded.

But it doesn't matter, you are perpetuating the use of the word. Just because I'm not black or gay doesn't mean I won't be offended when I hear offensive words said, or other sorts of defamatory remarks. Is it okay to use the 'n' word if there's no black people around?


If you call someone retarded your not laughing or beliteling people with mental disabilities, your laughing at and bellitling the person your calling someone retarded.


Theres 2 groups we are talking about here, 1, the group you call retarded, 2, people with actual mental handicaps, group 1 is the group we are trying to offend, group 2, why would they be offended?

Alright so basically my friend is being mean with money, so I call him a jew. Thats okay because he's not jewish? We've been through this.. And as I've already demonstrated people classified as 'retarded' are not necessarily lower IQ, its a stereotype based on ignorant preconceptions, most often by people who have no contact with or understanding of mental health issues. Those who do, and for that matter those who actually have them, will all tell you the same thing, that the word is offensive.

[RGacky3]

If you call someone a "nigger/faggot/yid/terrone/wop/ xyz" your (sic) not laughing or beliteling (sic) those people..... etc etc

Come off it! That's ridiculous!


I've explained over and over again how those words are different with different connotations. Nigger and faggot are based in homophobia and racism, which are based in unfactual assumptions, and are in the context of those people being discriminated against, not true with the word faggot.


The secondary point, why the fuck do you want to go around laughing at and belittling people?

It's not comradely and quite frankly it just makes you into a mega-asshole.

Stopp beeing succh a gacky!
;)

You would'nt and you should'nt, but saying using the word retarded is the same as using the word nigger or faggot, or is discriminatory is rediculous.


And of course it has implications of superiority if you're using it to insult someone!

Basically what you're saying is its wrong to insult someone for their race, but its okay to insult someone who has a genetic or medical condition.


No thats not what I'm saying, its almost NEVER that the word retarded is used to insult people who have a mental disability, its used to insinuate that someone is being stupid, or saying something or doing something that is so stupid its AS IF they had some sort mental disability.

Every insult implies superiority btw.


But it doesn't matter, you are perpetuating the use of the word. Just because I'm not black or gay doesn't mean I won't be offended when I hear offensive words said, or other sorts of defamatory remarks. Is it okay to use the 'n' word if there's no black people around?


IT does matter, because that word IS NOT USED to hurt or disciminate against people with mental disabilities, it is, I'll say it again, a way to call someone stupid, or saying that they said or did something so stupid it is AS IF they had a mental disability or were "retarded," THAT is the context of the word.

You have to take the context into this.


Alright so basically my friend is being mean with money, so I call him a jew. Thats okay because he's not jewish? We've been through this.. And as I've already demonstrated people classified as 'retarded' are not necessarily lower IQ, its a stereotype based on ignorant preconceptions, most often by people who have no contact with or understanding of mental health issues. Those who do, and for that matter those who actually have them, will all tell you the same thing, that the word is offensive.

Its not ok because its purpetuates the untrue stereotype that jewish people are somehow greedier than other people.

However the word retarded pupetuates the idea that people with mental disabilities HAVE MENTAL DISABILITIES .... THats not discrimination.

Look at the context.

[#FF0000]

No thats not what I'm saying, its almost NEVER that the word retarded is used to insult people who have a mental disability

everyone even tangentially related to special education is LAFFING FOREVER AT YOU NOW

[Principia Ethica]

@RGacky3,

I'm just curious. . .would it be appropriate/accurate/fair etc for some forum users to mark you are "retarded" because you have so many spelling errors or would it be more appropriate/accurate/fair for them to mark you are a "lazy retard" because you can't or won't figure out how to configure your browser to find and correct your spelling errors and misuse of hyphens in your contractions?

If someone with say an I.Q. of 60 can name the capital of every city but you can't. . .does that make you a quasi-retard?

If you (or anyone else for that matter) want to use in an argument for the legit use of the word "retard". . .(or any other derogatory term) antiquated definitions, word etymology, medical definitions, pull out latin root words etc and act like you live in a bubble where you can't see the damage, hurt, and detriment caused by casually throwing the said word around. . .would it be wrong for the rest of us to consider you a retard and feeling justified in calling you one since you would be one based on our interpretation of the word?

Pull out medical definitions, bust out some etymology. . .do all that. Justify it. Back it up. But if that is enough justification to use that term on someone you feel is a "retard". . .even when they make clear they find it offensive, hurtful, and demeaning. . .wouldn't that make you a assholifed-douche-tard?

P.S. I do not use the word. I do NOT consider you a retard. I was just throwing in the word to illustrate a point.

[ComradeMan]

No thats not what I'm saying, its almost NEVER that the word retarded is used to insult people who have a mental disability, its used to insinuate that someone is being stupid, or saying something or doing something that is so stupid its AS IF they had some sort mental disability.

You have to be joking....

Kids with difficulties are often insulted or bullied etc- anyway that's not the point here. People with difficulties often face a lot of prejudice and negativity just in the way they get stared at, patronised or encounter nasty people in society too. What planet are you on?

Let's take a different example- when people started using the word "gay" in a negative sense to mean stupid/rubbish etc, was that not homophobic? Even though it was not necessarily directed at LGBT people?

I wish you'd come out of your "absolute free-speech at all costs" bubble.

[Viet Minh]

I've explained over and over again how those words are different with different connotations. Nigger and faggot are based in homophobia and racism, which are based in unfactual assumptions, and are in the context of those people being discriminated against, not true with the word faggot.

I've stated my case that the word retard went beyond low IQ, and was (and is) used generally for all sorts of disabled people.


You would'nt and you should'nt, but saying using the word retarded is the same as using the word nigger or faggot, or is discriminatory is rediculous.

They are all different contexts, but as a word that offends a specific group of people (and those who are close to them) yes, it is very much in the same category. There are a lot of disabled groups who have spoken out against the use of the word.


No thats not what I'm saying, its almost NEVER that the word retarded is used to insult people who have a mental disability, its used to insinuate that someone is being stupid, or saying something or doing something that is so stupid its AS IF they had some sort mental disability

I beg to differ. As I said previously my father and mother both met through working with young adults with special needs. And to hear some of the members stories was heartbreaking at times, people who were horrendously bullied at school and at home, often abused and neglected, given up for adoption and living in care homes and foster care. Within the areas they lived in they were treated like pariahs. At the same time shunned from society as targetted by it as a figure of fun. And yes these people were more than capable of being hurt, physically and emotionally. I know appeal to emotion is a fallacy, but really you do have to understand the situation to know why its so hurtful.


Every insult implies superiority btw.

I know I was simply making the point in response to your point about the implied superiority of the n word etc.


IT does matter, because that word IS NOT USED to hurt or disciminate against people with mental disabilities, it is, I'll say it again, a way to call someone stupid, or saying that they said or did something so stupid it is AS IF they had a mental disability or were "retarded," THAT is the context of the word.

You have to take the context into this.

Again I have to disagree with that, but then personal experience, or worse secondhand informationj is worth shit on here so we'll just disagree on that one.


Its not ok because its purpetuates the untrue stereotype that jewish people are somehow greedier than other people.

Look at the context.

No it is taking any remotely stupid behaviour in any individual and comparing them to an entire social group. Thats demeaning to both parties. Its discriminatory if it applies to a particular set of people, and at least historically, 'retard' does. In modern context retard is only ever used as a slur and an insult, and despiute what you say very often against disabled people.


However the word retarded pupetuates the idea that people with mental disabilities HAVE MENTAL DISABILITIES .... THats not discrimination.

And black people are black, so the 'n' word is not discrimination.. ?

[RGacky3]

I wish you'd come out of your "absolute free-speech at all costs" bubble.

This is'nt an issue of free speach at all, of coarse people should be free to say whatever they want, people should be able to say nice things, mean things, tolerant things and bigoted or discriminatory things.

This discussion is whether or not the word retarded is discriminatory in the way nigger is.


I'm just curious. . .would it be appropriate/accurate/fair etc for some forum users to mark you are "retarded" because you have so many spelling errors or would it be more appropriate/accurate/fair for them to mark you are a "lazy retard" because you can't or won't figure out how to configure your browser to find and correct your spelling errors and misuse of hyphens in your contractions?


Absolutely, be my guest, it would be absolutely the same as calling me an idiot.


If someone with say an I.Q. of 60 can name the capital of every city but you can't. . .does that make you a quasi-retard?


I don't know and thats irrelivant.


would it be wrong for the rest of us to consider you a retard and feeling justified in calling you one since you would be one based on our interpretation of the word?


No it would'nt be, the same way, if you think I'm making a dumb point you can call me dumb.


But if that is enough justification to use that term on someone you feel is a "retard". . .even when they make clear they find it offensive, hurtful, and demeaning. . .wouldn't that make you a assholifed-douche-tard?


When Harry Reid called progressives retarded was he saying that they were ACTUALLY mentally disabled? Was he making an attack on mentally disabled people? If Sarah Palin had'nt made a fuss about it would ANYONE have cared?

Was he being an asshole? Yeah, to progressives, but that was his point, it would have been the same if he called them idiots.


Let's take a different example- when people started using the word "gay" in a negative sense to mean stupid/rubbish etc, was that not homophobic? Even though it was not necessarily directed at LGBT people?


The offense there comes from the WRONG CONNOTATION that gay people are stupid/rubbish, or wimpy or less manly or whatever, the connotation with retarded is the CORRECT CONNOTATION that people with mental disabilities have mental disabilities.


I've stated my case that the word retard went beyond low IQ, and was (and is) used generally for all sorts of disabled people.


Ok, but that has'nt been my experience.


They are all different contexts, but as a word that offends a specific group of people (and those who are close to them) yes, it is very much in the same category. There are a lot of disabled groups who have spoken out against the use of the word.


Sure, but the context matters, retarded is rarely used to offend mentally challenged people, nigger is always used to offend black people.


I beg to differ. As I said previously my father and mother both met through working with young adults with special needs. And to hear some of the members stories was heartbreaking at times, people who were horrendously bullied at school and at home, often abused and neglected, given up for adoption and living in care homes and foster care. Within the areas they lived in they were treated like pariahs. At the same time shunned from society as targetted by it as a figure of fun. And yes these people were more than capable of being hurt, physically and emotionally. I know appeal to emotion is a fallacy, but really you do have to understand the situation to know why its so hurtful.


I can't comment on that, I'm approaching this from an a priori stance. Let me ask you, would ANY of them have been offended at Harry Reid calling progressives "retarded" had it not been blown up by Sarah Palin?


I know I was simply making the point in response to your point about the implied superiority of the n word etc.


The difference is when you call someone retarded your saying "I'm smarter than you, based on what just happened or what you said" the N word implies "my race is better than yours."


No it is taking any remotely stupid behaviour in any individual and comparing them to an entire social group. Thats demeaning to both parties. Its discriminatory if it applies to a particular set of people, and at least historically, 'retard' does. In modern context retard is only ever used as a slur and an insult, and despiute what you say very often against disabled people.


Is the word lame also discriminatory?


And black people are black, so the 'n' word is not discrimination.. ?

People calling someone nigger are not just saying "your skin color is black", there is MUCH more than that.

[#FF0000]

I don't think anyone's saying that calling someone a "retard" is as bad as this or that racial slur though.

[AmericanCommie421]

If you use the word in a debate or trying to degrade some one on an intellectual level or for ideological differences you just look like and idiot.
Case in point:
PEOPLE WILL FIND A WAY!
BULLSHIT CENTRAL PLANNING DOESN'T WORK! RETARDED COMMUNISTS

[ComradeMan]

I don't think anyone's saying that calling someone a "retard" is as bad as this or that racial slur though.

Hmmm.... let's not forget that so-called "retards" were amongst the first victims of the Holocaust.

The fact of the matter is that by using the word "retard" as derogatory you are using it as a metaphor for something "horrible" that you know is going to insult people- otherwise it wouldn't be an insult. You are therefore saying that "retarded" people are horrible/repugnant/inferior/lower etc.

It's pretty damn repugnant when you do the analysis.

[RGacky3]

If you use the word in a debate or trying to degrade some one on an intellectual level or for ideological differences you just look like and idiot.
Case in point:
PEOPLE WILL FIND A WAY!
BULLSHIT CENTRAL PLANNING DOESN'T WORK! RETARDED COMMUNISTS


Yeah, in that sense you do look like kind of an idiot, but thats not the argument is it.


Hmmm.... let's not forget that so-called "retards" were amongst the first victims of the Holocaust.


Irrellivent to the discussion.


The fact of the matter is that by using the word "retard" as derogatory you are using it as a metaphor for something "horrible" that you know is going to insult people- otherwise it wouldn't be an insult. You are therefore saying that "retarded" people are horrible/repugnant/inferior/lower etc.


Being Mentally retarded IS a bad thing, its not nice to not have full mental capacity, thats why its an insult to claim that someone is acting as if he did'nt have full mental capacity, thats the point, the same with the word "lame" of coarse its not nice to not be able to walk.

[Rocky Rococo]

BTW if for some reason you find it hard to believe the US did something like this, google the "Tuskegee Experiment." By the description you would think it was something done by Dr Mengele. But it was done in the US - African American men infected with syphillis were purposely not treated and lied to in order to observe how the disease progressed. IIRC a few joined the army during WWII and the US Army treated them (apparently unaware of the experiment) but most of them suffered the effects from the 1930s through the 1970s. The US has indeed done horrible things in the past and continues to do horrible things today.

My uncle suffered brain damage as a child from a case of whooping cough, and he spent most of the rest of his life institutionalized in the medieval state "schools" of the era. People in those conditions had virtually no protections, and medical experimentation on the institutionalized was one of the routine run of abuses. All in the name of progress and science of course. In his case, we discovered years later that on at least one occasion he was administered a large quantity of pharmaceutical grade LSD, apparently as part of a study to see if LSD could "cure retardation".

[Comrade Crow]

Not only does this thread remind of this commercial but the commercial sums up my feelings on the subject:

T549VoLca_Q

[RGacky3]

No its not the same as any minority slur, because the negative connotation with the word IS a factual connotation.

[RGacky3]

Would any one call someone thats NOT black a nigger? For what reason? How about someone not hispanic a spic? For what reason?

[Comrade Crow]

No its not the same as any minority slur, because the negative connotation with the word IS a factual connotation.

No, I don't agree that the word "retard," is the same as a racial slur however the PSA also mentioned the slur "fag," so really, it's not just racial slurs or slurs against homosexuals but all slurs against all groups that are considered socially "unacceptable." I think that was the point.


Would any one call someone thats NOT black a nigger? For what reason? How about someone not hispanic a spic? For what reason?

Apparently you've never lived in the south. I've heard many people say the n-word in reference to someone or something that wasn't black. I've also heard the phrase "don't Jew me," or "you Jewed it." For what reason, I don't know, my guess would be that they feel said person or thing resembles the characteristic of the stereotype they have in their mind.

[ComradeMan]

No its not the same as any minority slur, because the negative connotation with the word IS a factual connotation.

And small pox is not the same as cholera but they are both nasty.

Why should ANY group of people be victimised and/or insulted because of physical/mental characteristics that they were born with through not their own fault?

You don't seem to get this do you? You are putting people down by using the word "retard" and so indirectly you are also saying that you have disdain for people who DO have physical/mental difficulties.

The only real "retards" are the bullies and cowards who use the word "retard".
:(

[Shropshire Socialist]

Personally I find it offensive, like any other word that denigrates another human being.

[RGacky3]

No, I don't agree that the word "retard," is the same as a racial slur however the PSA also mentioned the slur "fag," so really, it's not just racial slurs or slurs against homosexuals but all slurs against all groups that are considered socially "unacceptable." I think that was the point.


If you call someone a fag you are implying they are weak as IF they were gay, as IF gay people were weak, which is a bigoted lie.

If you call someone a "retard" you are implying they have less mental capacity as if they were mentally challenged, as if mentally challenged people had less mental capacity, which they DO.


Why should ANY group of people be victimised and/or insulted because of physical/mental characteristics that they were born with through not their own fault?

You don't seem to get this do you? You are putting people down by using the word "retard" and so indirectly you are also saying that you have disdain for people who DO have physical/mental difficulties.


I'm not saying I have disdain for them at all, see above.

[RGacky3]

Personally I find it offensive, like any other word that denigrates another human being.


Then I take it you find the word dummy offensive, or silly.

[#FF0000]

Gacky I don't think you understand how words work. It doesn't matter what the word means.

[Viet Minh]

This discussion is whether or not the word retarded is discriminatory in the way nigger is.

Of course not the situations are vastly different, polar opposites in many ways. However the fundamental fact is both words are offensive to a particular social group.


The offense there comes from the WRONG CONNOTATION that gay people are stupid/rubbish, or wimpy or less manly or whatever, the connotation with retarded is the CORRECT CONNOTATION that people with mental disabilities have mental disabilities.

Again I know you weren't replying to me but for what its worth the word implies more than mental disabilities.


Ok, but that has'nt been my experience.

It hasn't been my direct experience either (as i say I've only seen it maybe five times at the most) but trust me it does happen.


Sure, but the context matters, retarded is rarely used to offend mentally challenged people, nigger is always used to offend black people.

Again I disagree, but as an able-bodied lower middle intelligence [hopefully!] 'normal' person its not my place to say, just as a white person i can't say whether or not the 'n' word is offensive.


I can't comment on that, I'm approaching this from an a priori stance. Let me ask you, would ANY of them have been offended at Harry Reid calling progressives "retarded" had it not been blown up by Sarah Palin?

I live in the UK, and this right now is the first time I have heard of this debate. So no, to me it has no bearing on my opinion either way, like everything else Sarah Palin regurgitates. The r word has been seen as a taboo to some extent since about the late 60's.


The difference is when you call someone retarded your saying "I'm smarter than you, based on what just happened or what you said" the N word implies "my race is better than yours."

And one of the many myths surrounding racial profiling is of white people being smarter than black people, that in itself is hugely offensive wouldn't you agree? I take your point that the definition of 'retard' is of lower IQ, but regardless, being labelled as stupid, essentially for a genetic condition, is an offensive concept. I just don't think you have any personal experience to understand how offensive it is to someone who actually is 'retarded' and to their family members etc as well.


Is the word lame also discriminatory?

imo no, like the word idiot its become detached from its original usage, and is now seen as more of a metaphor than an epithet per se.


People calling someone nigger are not just saying "your skin color is black", there is MUCH more than that.

There are many connotations to the r word as well.


I don't think anyone's saying that calling someone a "retard" is as bad as this or that racial slur though.

No its not a competition, nobody wins. :( The situations are only comparable so far as offensive terms as concerned.


Irrellivent to the discussion.

Not entirely. The 'n' word is a largely term applied to a social group, as is the acronym 'WASP', in both cases it is sometimes used by those within the group but for the sake of argument lets just say they are both derogatory terms to some extent. However the former is massively more offensive than the latter, because of the historical and current social status of the respective groups. And in the case of 'retards' things like the holocaust can be taken into consideration, and far more recent aspects also: as previously mentioned; forced sterilisation, lobotomy, drug testing, institutionalisation (read incarceration with trial or representation) mainstream cultural stigma (even being used as a comic device in popular media) segregation (i'm not talking about separate classes, I mean separate schools) etc etc.


Being Mentally retarded IS a bad thing, its not nice to not have full mental capacity, thats why its an insult to claim that someone is acting as if he did'nt have full mental capacity, thats the point, the same with the word "lame" of coarse its not nice to not be able to walk.

Being black in the pre-emancipation US was a not nice thing either.. Sorry I realise I'm being pedantic my point is the word is used as an insult because of the stigma attached, and in turn it perpetuates that same stigma.


No its not the same as any minority slur, because the negative connotation with the word IS a factual connotation.

The term 'colored' is seen as at best outdated [except of course in its historical use by the NAACP], at worst bigoted (in the sense it implies whiteness as the norm and dark skin as a deviation form the norm). However the fact is black people ARE colored, in the same sense that white people, and for that matter all people that are not invisible are 'colored', in other words they reflect some wavelengths of light. So thats factual and yet still offensive, why? Because of the way in which people use the term. Basically the intent behind it. The intent may not even be to directly offend black people, but still it does offend them, or at least some.


Would any one call someone thats NOT black a nigger? For what reason? How about someone not hispanic a spic? For what reason?

Because they are bigoted against that group and see any association as demeaning to others. And yes I've heard people use one of those terms in that context.


If you call someone a fag you are implying they are weak as IF they were gay, as IF gay people were weak, which is a bigoted lie.

If you call someone a "retard" you are implying they have less mental capacity as if they were mentally challenged, as if mentally challenged people had less mental capacity, which they DO.

The word 'faggot' itself does not have that explicit meaning, thats a social stigma attached to being queer, and by extension to that word. Likewise the term 'retard' has such connotations, the special olympics is often used as a joke, but it has nothing to do with the mental abilities of the participants.


Then I take it you find the word dummy offensive, or silly.

Again you weren't talking to me I know, but me no I don't find it offensive. Then again i'm not 'dumb' per se, if I was I may well feel differently. I suspect you would too. Ability to communicate is not directly related to intelligence, as this person will attest..

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00441/news-graphics-2007-_441537a.jpg

[ComradeMan]

On a side note- most insults, whether they are connected to orientation, ability, race, religion etc are basically words for people "who aren't like me"- so what you are doing is saying "I'm better than you because I'm not a xyz".

Picking up FF's point- why not look in the urban dictionary to see how the word is used in "society"?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=retard

[RGacky3]

And one of the many myths surrounding racial profiling is of white people being smarter than black people, that in itself is hugely offensive wouldn't you agree? I take your point that the definition of 'retard' is of lower IQ, but regardless, being labelled as stupid, essentially for a genetic condition, is an offensive concept. I just don't think you have any personal experience to understand how offensive it is to someone who actually is 'retarded' and to their family members etc as well.


But that myth, that white people are smarter, is a myth.

Someone having a lower IQ DOES have alower IQ, the word retarded does'nt make that offensive, having a lower IQ is not a desirable thing, if you insinuate that people are acting as if they have a lower IQ, what makes it offensive is not hte word you use, but the connotation, which is the required one.

If I call someone retarded, what If I replace the word with mentally challenged? Like I say to someone (who's totally mentally fine) "That argument was mentally challenged" the desired affect IS EXACTLY THE SAME as if I used retarded, is that less offensive?


However the former is massively more offensive than the latter, because of the historical and current social status of the respective groups. And in the case of 'retards' things like the holocaust can be taken into consideration, and far more recent aspects also: as previously mentioned; forced sterilisation, lobotomy, drug testing, institutionalisation (read incarceration with trial or representation) mainstream cultural stigma (even being used as a comic device in popular media) segregation (i'm not talking about separate classes, I mean separate schools) etc etc.


If you call someone a retard, even if a mentally challenged person overhears it, what comes up into their head is not the holocaust or whatever autrocities, what comes up is the fact that they have a less IQ than other people due to a genetic contition.


imo no, like the word idiot its become detached from its original usage, and is now seen as more of a metaphor than an epithet per se.


I would say that retarded is basically going the same way.


Being black in the pre-emancipation US was a not nice thing either.. Sorry I realise I'm being pedantic my point is the word is used as an insult because of the stigma attached, and in turn it perpetuates that same stigma.


The stigma of retarded is that it means they have less intelligence, which is by definition true.


So thats factual and yet still offensive, why? Because of the way in which people use the term. Basically the intent behind it. The intent may not even be to directly offend black people, but still it does offend them, or at least some.


That has to be taken into account with the word retarded as well, I'd put it to you that NO metnally challenged people would have been insulted about Harry Reids comments had the media not blown up about it.


Then again i'm not 'dumb' per se, if I was I may well feel differently. I suspect you would too. Ability to communicate is not directly related to intelligence, as this person will attest..


I'm glad you posted a picture of Steven Hawkings, I'll put $10 on the dollar that he has NEVER gotten offended at the word "dumb."

[ComradeMan]

@Gacky-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_retardation#Society_and_culture

The other thing that you are missing (deliberately) is that the word "retard" or "tard", in Italian "ritardato" along with words like "mongoloide" (highly offensive), are not used anymore in a "medical sense". If we take your narrow definition of "retarded" intellectual development etc- then why are people who have Down's Syndrome referred to as "retards" despite the whole controversy around IQ testing for these individuals. Autistic children are often referred to as "retards" too, evidence suggests that there is not an issue of a low IQ here- rather the opposite in some cases. Sufferers of cerebral palsy, aka "spastics" do not have issues of low IQ- yet the term "spastic" in the UK is equivalent to "retard" in the US.

Now, taking 19th century terms such as "moron" and "idiot" and using these as an excuse as why you can still use the word "retard" overlooks the fact that those terms have probably not been used in there original context for at least 50 years whereas the issues of prejudice against people with mental/physical difficulties still exist and currently words such as "retard" and "spastic" etc are considered by THEM to be offensive.

I'm sorry Gacky- this is just one kite of yours that won't fly.

[RGacky3]

mongoloide

Of coarse mogoloid is highly offensive because it implies that asian people are less intelligent.


are not used anymore in a "medical sense".

Yeah so? Thats because the word is now used as an insult.


then why are people who have Down's Syndrome referred to as "retards" despite the whole controversy around IQ testing for these individuals. Autistic children are often referred to as "retards" too, evidence suggests that there is not an issue of a low IQ here- rather the opposite in some cases. Sufferers of cerebral palsy, aka "spastics" do not have issues of low IQ- yet the term "spastic" in the UK is equivalent to "retard" in the US

I don't know, but I don't see how any of that is relevant?

Again,

When you call someone retarded, you are implying, that they have said or done something SO STUPID, it is as if they have some brain damage, the insult is that they have done or said something so stupid that it is as if their brain is damaged, its the same as saying "What are you high?"

What part of that analysis is wrong?

[ComradeMan]

Of coarse mogoloid is highly offensive because it implies that asian people are less intelligent.

Well actually the term was originally due to people with Down's Syndrome being perceived to have "mongoloid" or "far eastern" physical features- not to do with intelligence, but it is no longer used (thank God) and is higly offensive.


Yeah so? Thats because the word is now used as an insult.

You really are a master of contextualisation, aren't you?


I don't know, but I don't see how any of that is relevant?

Err... read through your previous posts. :thumbup1:

When you call someone retarded, you are implying, that they have said or done something SO STUPID, it is as if they have some brain damage, the insult is that they have done or said something so stupid that it is as if their brain is damaged, its the same as saying "What are you high?" What part of that analysis is wrong?

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

But you aren't just doing that, are you? You are saying that they are like a person who no-one wants to be like and so, albeit indirectly, you are saying that people who have mental/physical difficulites are somehow of lesser worth in society.

Why is it so hard for you to grasp? FFS even FF0000 and I are agreeing unanimously on this... (:D) and that is something to note in your diary.

Anyway- let's cut all the crap. I don't think it's acceptable for anyone who calls themselves a leftist to go around using bigotted/racist/"abilit-ist"/sexist language or anything than is potentially and deliberately offensive to people.

Even if someone is not "intelligent" it doesn't mean that they have a lesser right to dignity and respect than an Einstein.

At this point I'd like to ask ADMIN/MOD TEAM to put "retard" and "spastic" on the blanked out list of words and to take the appropriate sanctions against the use of these words offensively- just like they do with sexist/racist words.

The other thing you are forgetting, Gacky, is that just because you might (sincerely) use the word in a certain way- a lot of people don't! I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I don't think you are being deliberately douchebaggish.

[RGacky3]

But you aren't just doing that, are you? You are saying that they are like a person who no-one wants to be like and so, albeit indirectly, you are saying that people who have mental/physical difficulites are somehow of lesser worth in society.


Who wants to be less intelligent? Also indirectly AND directly I am saying that they have mental disabilities, if you say that means of less worth than thats not me, but yeah, NO ONE WOULD RATHER HAVE MENTAL DISABILITIES.

WHo wants any disability?


The other thing you are forgetting, Gacky, is that just because you might (sincerely) use the word in a certain way- a lot of people don't! I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I don't think you are being deliberately douchebaggish.

This is'nt about me wanting to use it, I don't really care, its the principle of it.


You really are a master of contextualisation, aren't you?


I hope so.

[ComradeMan]

The word 'faggot' itself does not have that explicit meaning, thats a social stigma attached to being queer, and by extension to that word. Likewise the term 'retard' has such connotations, the special olympics is often used as a joke, but it has nothing to do with the mental abilities of the participants.

I don't know about "faggot" but in Italian the equivalent is finocchio, i.e. "fennel" a herb. Seemingly inocuous until one learns that fennel was usually thrown onto the bonfires burning "sodomites" to mask the smell....

http://saporidipachino.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74:il-finocchietto-selvatico&catid=39:prodotti-della-terra&Itemid=112

[ComradeMan]

Who wants to be less intelligent? Also indirectly AND directly I am saying that they have mental disabilities, if you say that means of less worth than thats not me, but yeah, NO ONE WOULD RATHER HAVE MENTAL DISABILITIES.

WHo wants any disability?

That's not an argument. Yeah, sure I suppose people who do have mental and physical challenges in life may well rather have been born and/or lived without them- that's not the point though. The point is that people ARE born with or develop certain difficulities and it's not their own fault and then mainstream society proceeds to ridicule and mock them.

FFS I thought you were a Christian, but even if you aren't- would you want to be treated that way? How would you feel if your brother or sister had a mental/physical difficulty or perhaps your child and then you go out in society and hear that "term" being used as a vulgar insult?

[RGacky3]

FFS I thought you were a Christian, but even if you aren't- would you want to be treated that way? How would you feel if your brother or sister had a mental/physical difficulty or perhaps your child and then you go out in society and hear that "term" being used as a vulgar insult?

I am a Christian, and I think using a term to insult someone with those disabilities is discusting and heartless.

But I don't know if somebody who was mentally challenged was out, and heard someone else call someone else that word, would be offended, I honestly don't think they would.

This is not a matter or personal morality, nor a matter of what is tasteful or what is not, or what is offensive or what is not, I'm arguing that retarded is not a discriminatory word, I'm not saying its a nice word.

[Viet Minh]

But that myth, that white people are smarter, is a myth.

Someone having a lower IQ DOES have alower IQ, the word retarded does'nt make that offensive, having a lower IQ is not a desirable thing, if you insinuate that people are acting as if they have a lower IQ, what makes it offensive is not hte word you use, but the connotation, which is the required one.

That seems like a classic non sequitur to me. 'Saying someone has a low IQ is offensive, all retards have a low IQ, therefore being called a retard is not offensive.'


If I call someone retarded, what If I replace the word with mentally challenged? Like I say to someone (who's totally mentally fine) "That argument was mentally challenged" the desired affect IS EXACTLY THE SAME as if I used retarded, is that less offensive?

The term mentally challenged does not have the stigma attached to it that 'retard' does, what with its half a century of use as a term of abuse. Its no doubt still offensive to a large number of people but its not as offensive as the term retard, no.


If you call someone a retard, even if a mentally challenged person overhears it, what comes up into their head is not the holocaust or whatever autrocities, what comes up is the fact that they have a less IQ than other people due to a genetic contition.

So you can offend someone by calling them a retard, but if a retard overhears it he's going to be fine with the whole thing? Seriously?


I would say that retarded is basically going the same way.

And in another 50 years 'nigga' will just mean a gangsta, and have no racial connotations left, so why change it now?


The stigma of retarded is that it means they have less intelligence, which is by definition true.

I disagree on this point, the 'n' word is by definition true (it literally means black) the dictionary definition or historical usage of a word is not the whole story.


That has to be taken into account with the word retarded as well, I'd put it to you that NO metnally challenged people would have been insulted about Harry Reids comments had the media not blown up about it.

I don't know much about that particular issue, but the word has been a term of abuse since around the 60's. The incident may have highlighted some of the issues surrounding the use of the term no doubt, but there were other cases too such as the film tropic thunder. Your argument there is equivalent to saying nobody cared about the n word until Michael Richards' racist rantings.


I'm glad you posted a picture of Steven Hawkings, I'll put $10 on the dollar that he has NEVER gotten offended at the word "dumb."

Perhaps not, but how many people with similar conditions have been treated as though they were stupid because of general ignorance surrounding disabilities?


I am a Christian, and I think using a term to insult someone with those disabilities is discusting and heartless.

But I don't know if somebody who was mentally challenged was out, and heard someone else call someone else that word, would be offended, I honestly don't think they would.

Well maybe you should ask some of them before speaking on their behalf.


This is not a matter or personal morality, nor a matter of what is tasteful or what is not, or what is offensive or what is not, I'm arguing that retarded is not a discriminatory word, I'm not saying its a nice word.

By your own arguments it is offensive purely on the basis it is used as an insult, it is discriminatory on the basis that it discriminates against a group based on their IQ.

[RGacky3]

That seems like a classic non sequitur to me. 'Saying someone has a low IQ is offensive, all retards have a low IQ, therefore being called a retard is not offensive.'


It IS offensive to call someone who is not mentally challenged mentally challenged, thats the point.


The term mentally challenged does not have the stigma attached to it that 'retard' does, what with its half a century of use as a term of abuse. Its no doubt still offensive to a large number of people but its not as offensive as the term retard, no.


The way 'retard' is used (in my experience) you could simply replace the word 'retard' with mentally challenged and you'd have the same effect.


So you can offend someone by calling them a retard, but if a retard overhears it he's going to be fine with the whole thing? Seriously?


I have no idea.


I disagree on this point, the 'n' word is by definition true (it literally means black) the dictionary definition or historical usage of a word is not the whole story.


The historical usage of "retard" is basically the same of the actual definition, unlike the word "negro" and its varient "nigger."


Your argument there is equivalent to saying nobody cared about the n word until Michael Richards' racist rantings.


No thats not true, people were Offended RIGHT THER IN THE CLUB, you did'nt need media hype.


By your own arguments it is offensive purely on the basis it is used as an insult, it is discriminatory on the basis that it discriminates against a group based on their IQ.

So is the word douche bag also discriminatory because it discriminates againts a group based on their social skills? Common, this is getting silly?

Is it wrong to say that people with lower IQs are less intelligent?

[Viet Minh]

It IS offensive to call someone who is not mentally challenged mentally challenged, thats the point.

But then how can you argue that its not offensive to the mentally challenged as well? I suppose in some extreme cases where someone is too mentally challenged to understand the concept they won't be offended, but thats not always the case by any means.


The way 'retard' is used (in my experience) you could simply replace the word 'retard' with mentally challenged and you'd have the same effect.

For your purposes perhaps, but to someone who has direct experience of mental handicap its a different, if similar effect.


I have no idea.

Well then take my word for it, as someone who has grown up around people with mental health issues of varying extremes.


The historical usage of "retard" is basically the same of the actual definition, unlike the word "negro" and its varient "nigger."

I'm not sure about the origins of the n word, but just because a word isn't specifically designed to cause offence does not mean it doesn't.


No thats not true, people were Offended RIGHT THER IN THE CLUB, you did'nt need media hype.

Yeah fair point. But still my personal thoughts on this have nothing to do with Sarah Palin and her opportunistic mock outrage.


So is the word douche bag also discriminatory because it discriminates againts a group based on their social skills? Common, this is getting silly?

Is it wrong to say that people with lower IQs are less intelligent?

I'm not 100% on what a douchebag even is, so I can't comment. :confused: But it seems to be a term in and of itself, not aimed at any one social group so no its not discriminatory.

No its not wrong to say people with lower IQ's are less intelligent, although some might argue such tests are culturally biased. However thats another discussion, in short no. However it is wrong to say that people with lower IQ's are less worthy, or have no basic rights, or to make them an object of ridicule.

[RGacky3]

For your purposes perhaps, but to someone who has direct experience of mental handicap its a different, if similar effect.


Ok, would the word idiot inplace of retarded have the same effect? I'm guessing it would.


But then how can you argue that its not offensive to the mentally challenged as well? I suppose in some extreme cases where someone is too mentally challenged to understand the concept they won't be offended, but thats not always the case by any means.


You did'nt answer the question, replace the word "retarded" with "mentally challenged" is it still offensive?


However it is wrong to say that people with lower IQ's are less worthy, or have no basic rights, or to make them an object of ridicule.

The word retarded does'nt do ANY OF THAT.

[Viet Minh]

Ok, would the word idiot inplace of retarded have the same effect? I'm guessing it would.

The same effect? Imo no, idiot to me does just mean low IQ it no longer has any connotations of actual mental disabiltiies as such.


You did'nt answer the question, replace the word "retarded" with "mentally challenged" is it still offensive?

Yes its still offensive, because you are directly referencing mental handicap rather than just low IQ/ lack of intelligence etc. It doesn't have the same stigma as the word retard does though. In fact its still used as an official term I think, although that doesn't mean its okay to use it as a term of abuse.

What if the word 'retard' was replaced with 'window licker' is that offensive? Same question with mongo, mong, spastic, spaz, spack, spacker, goony..


The word retarded does'nt do ANY OF THAT.

Thats a matter of personal opinion, or perspective. Words have different meanings to different people, and when they're used in a context of abuse its hard to argue they do not have a strongly negative impact.

[Distruzio]

It doesn't bother me in the slightest.

[Viet Minh]

It doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Thats very big of you, but not all mentally challenged people feel the same way. Wait, you ARE mentally challenged aren't you.. ? Because if not sorry but its irrelevant whether it bothers you.

Here is a study done of both disabled and non disabled people (note disabled, not necessarily mentally challenged) its interesting to note that the disabled group actually disliked condescending terms like 'special' more than they did obvious insults such as 'window licker', however the terms retard and spastic still rank highest. The poll is slightly misleading, its not that only 14% of people with disabilities find the word 'retard' offensive, its that 14% find it most offensive of all the words on the list.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/play/worst-words-vote.shtml

[Distruzio]

Thats very big of you, but not all mentally challenged people feel the same way. Wait, you ARE mentally challenged aren't you.. ? Because if not sorry but its irrelevant whether it bothers you.


Well, being a small framed racial and religious minority living in the protestant dominated South of the United States, I know something about being marginalized, ridiculed, and targeted for my differences.

I yet remain anti-egalitarian entirely. While I sympathize with those offended by such words as "retard," it - along with "nigger," "cultist," and any other degrading terms - doesn't bother me in the slightest to hear the words. For me, it's a matter of taste, not altruism. A matter of propriety. I do not respond to those physically or mentally inferior to myself in any way that would jeopardize my expression of poise and dignity. It would simply not do to treat anyone with anything less than the utmost respect and love my religion and my world-view demand of me.

I don't treat them with respect b/c it's the "right thing to do." I do it b/c I exposes me as the gentleman I strive to be.

[Viet Minh]

Well, being a small framed racial and religious minority living in the protestant dominated South of the United States, I know something about being marginalized, ridiculed, and targeted for my differences.

I yet remain anti-egalitarian entirely. While I sympathize with those offended by such words as "retard," it - along with "nigger," "cultist," and any other degrading terms - doesn't bother me in the slightest to hear the words. For me, it's a matter of taste, not altruism. A matter of propriety. I do not respond to those physically or mentally inferior to myself in any way that would jeopardize my expression of poise and dignity. It would simply not do to treat anyone with anything less than the utmost respect and love my religion and my world-view demand of me.

I don't treat them with respect b/c it's the "right thing to do." I do it b/c I exposes me as the gentleman I strive to be.

Fascinating, maybe one day everyone will be as enlightened as you are. However in the meantime not everyone strives to be such a 'gentleman' (or gentlewoman?) so the word should be discouraged by those who know better than to use it.