There’s a clear campaign against the mentally ill with the global rise of fascism. Lots of it shows up in anti homeless rhetoric, but you can see it in the MAHA and anti vaccination movements.
There’s no reason to use the word “r-tarded” to describe someone. As someone who’s worked with the intellectually challenged, it’s an insult to them to compare them with people who are willfully ignorant.
R-tard? Is that like something about Republicans?
Don’t be stupid, retard means to reduce the rate of flow
I didn’t realize the hyphen was meant for censorship instead of conjunction
I thought it was widely accepted that you shouldn’t use this word outside of, like, quoting old medical diagnosis from when the word was used in that context. It is not an okay insult.
Maybe I just hang out with nicer people.
OP, fuck these people.
Anyone who thinks that words mean nothing and that historical context is irrelevant are probably people who have never been on the receiving end of these words being used to dehumanize them.
And all of you people, would you also use:
- n igger
- f aggot
- sand n igger
- ching chong
Or did any of those make you feel wrong? Maybe you don’t actually think that slurs should be used but instead don’t realize the impact of r etard as opposed to whatever made you uncomfortable in that list.
Ironically, the term “mental retardation” was introduced by medical and educational professionals as a less derogatory and more objective replacement for older, highly stigmatizing terms like idiot, moron, and imbecile, which themselves were previous medical classifications.
I’ve stopped using it as people have pointed out it’s hurtful, but I’ve never fully understood why. To me it’s in the same group as idiot, fool, lunatic, imbecile and cretin. Words that aren’t used to describe conditions anymore, only used as insults. While they can be used with hatred, they can also be used in a teasing way with friends. To me it doesn’t reach the level of racist, sexist and homophobic slurs.
I think it’s more about the idea that it’s shameful to be less able than someone else. The core idea here is that there’s nothing wrong with being less intelligent than average, and calling out people’s choice of words is only one part of that.
It’s like when people make fun of Trump’s weight/diet or RFK Jr.'s voice. I dislike those two just as much as the next person, but there’s nothing immoral or shameful about having a vocal condition, being overweight, or having a monotonous diet. And any health concerns (e.g. weight) should be left between a person and their doctor.
If you choose to make those things a subject of your ridicule, all it does is mark you as a shallow person, and I’m probably going to tune you out as someone who doesn’t have anything of substance to say.
I think it’s more about the idea that it’s shameful to be less able than someone else. The core idea here is that there’s nothing wrong with being less intelligent than average, and calling out people’s choice of words is only one part of that.
That argument isn’t specific to any particular word though. You could say it about any word that insults intelligence, not just the one in question here.
That’s a great point, but I don’t see how that would justify using this specific word.
I don’t think intellectually challenged individuals deserve cruelty, nor do I believe anyone does. However, this is the first argument that popped into my head, and I want to genuinely discuss this. Again, I do NOT agree that the intellectually challenged are deserving of discrimination. This is for the purpose of discussion.
If being intellectually challenged isn’t worthy of discrimination, why feel insulted when called retarded?
+1
Maybe y’all haven’t experienced it as a slur. I grew up around jerks that did, and it leaves a nasty taste. I’ve caught myself using it, and felt awful afterwards.
Did we get less fascist than the 90s when people were using the word freely? What do we do with the words “moronic”, “idiotic”, “stupid”, “imbecilic”, etc?
I told someone I was autistic and they called me retarded. So I say it now as sort of a reclaiming act 🤷♀️
I have an autistic friend with the same opinion and I told him he was retar-wait…
What’s the next euphemism we should switch to?
For a while there in the 90’s, “differently abled” looked like it was next on the treadmill.
Words for stupid or crazy are always going to be used as insults.
My nieces introduced me to “short bus” as an insult instead of retarded.
Short bus has been a thing for a long while.
It was over 25 years ago.
So yeah, insults have already moved on and people complaining about using “retarded” sound like boomers.
Err, that’s no better, it’s possible worse …
“I’m not using the word that means the bad thing, I’m just saying you ride the same thing as them” 🙄
The fact that it’s still currently used as a euphemism for people with actual conditions like down syndrome is precisely why it’s problematic to use it as an insult. Previous words used in decades past are only insults now and no longer used as a euphemism for the condition.
‘trumped’ works for me
The *r slur is intentionally cruel in a way that stupid can’t match, since stupid is more generic and versatile.
Maybe the *r slur doesn’t need a replacement, we can just hold ourselves to a higher standard, and drag things without compating them to someone with a disability.
The “r” word used to be the correct medical term used to avoid words like stupid and idiot that were considered cruel slurs, now the “r” is considered a slur, and the cycle goes on and on.
Just because words have a lifecycle doesn’t excuse you from using harmful ones during the time of the life cycle when they’re harmful.
Accurate.
Except “stupid” was just a word, not medical terminology.
This page has great examples, including toilet and shit.
I agree with you. Like I told a family member who made all the same arguments the people in these comments are making: "I am not trying to tell you what you can and cannot say. I’m telling you that if I hear you use language like that, I will respect you less and I will talk to you less or not at all. " We don’t talk much anymore, and thats fine.
That’s really the main point. Getting around the “euphemism treadmill” and the idea of “policing speech” that have been the main points of most of the other comments - it’s not that I think it should be illegal to say it, but that I will think much less of you as a person. It takes so little effort to try to avoid words that people can be harmed by.
I think it reflects the way that the marginalization of disabled people is invisible in even “leftist” spaces. The severely cognitively delayed are usually shafted off into a “self contained” room, and so it’s really easy to have a warped picture of what someone with intellectual difficulties is like. I did a little program in college where I spent a lot of time with an adult day respite center - something like a “day care” for non-independent adults who lived with family. There were definitely a lot of things alien to me about the way they lived their lives but they were all human. They had stuff they liked - and it wasn’t “kid stuff.” They could express what they thought about the food they were eating, what they wanted to do, idk, the point is that they had the same basic right to agency that we all do. And this is something that not even the most “leftist” politicians or thinkers engage with at all. Conservatives ofc, seem to think we should just kill them or let them die.
It’s funny how this thread is full of, “But muh euphemism treadmill!” and “if you stop using that, you’d also have to stop using words like ‘idiot!’” Well then, maybe we should take it further then.
Most of the time, when I have a problem with someone, it’s not really about their intelligence, which isn’t really something they can control or change. More often, it’s because of things like chauvanism, arrogance, or willful ignorance and anti-intellectualism.
I’m certainly not perfect in that regard, but in principle, the language that we use shapes our thoughts more than we realize, and attributing problems to people’s lack of intelligence rather than accurately identifying what the problem is generally isn’t very constructive or productive. There are valid reasons to avoid such language.
The reasons for using it are much less valid, and generally boil down to “but I don’t wanna!” “But then it might be extended to other words, and I don’t wanna!”
The point of an insult is to insult someone. You’re not going to rile anyone up calling them a chauvinist, arrogant, willfully ignorant, or anti-intellectual. It’s the intention and emotion behind the words that matter, not necessarily the words themselves. If anything, it’s our thoughts that shape our language more so than the other way around.
That’s complete and utter nonsense. You clearly don’t know anything about either linguistics or psychology.
This mentality that everything is downstream from conscious thought is just based on vibes and bias, specifically, the conscious mind refusing to acknowledge its limitations, and is not actually supported by any kind of scientific evidence.
Actual rationality is about recognizing such limitations and actively trying to mitigate them. It’s no wonder, therefore, that people who are most averse to the idea that thought can be shaped by such subtle factors tend to the least rational.
Lecture me about knowing linguistics when you understand what “more so” means. I’m not averse to the idea that thought can be shaped by such subtle factors, I’m saying that it’s not as strongly shaped by it as you think it is.
Exactly how strongly do I think it is? Because you seem to know.
Btw, you seem offended, even though I didn’t insult your intelligence. Funny, that.
Exactly how strongly do I think it is? Because you seem to know.
You told me I don’t know anything about linguistics and psychology, yet now you’re offended because I read your post saying things like “the language that we use shapes our thoughts more than we realize” and “people who are most averse to the idea that thought can be shaped by such subtle factors tend to the least rational” and inferred that you think it’s a strong influence.
It’s very funny to me that you keep referring to things that have little to nothing to do with the study of linguistics to claim that I don’t understand linguistics. I’m not confident that you understand what linguistics even is at this point.
Both of the things you quoted me on are just true facts, supported by research and evidence. If you think that the degree that language can influence thoughts is less than most people are consciously aware of, or if you think that failing to identify and account for bias does not make a person less rational, then I return to my original point that you don’t know anything about what you’re talking about whatsoever.
You know you can just learn stuff, right? I have every confidence in your intellectual capacity, if you simply try to look into this stuff. But the reality is that you won’t, because you are willfully ignorant, deeply incurious, and are only interested in this topic insofar as it relates you being able to justify slinging around slurs.
Remember, you’re only allowed to be offended by anything I say if I insult your intelligence, otherwise you’re contradicting yourself. Personally, I think it’s a skill issue. I offend people all the time, sometimes, without even intending to or realizing I did. Maybe I’m just built different.
Lol the whiny bitch in here complaining about people using the term retard accuses others of being offended, you can’t make this shit up
Piss off.
I’m certainly not perfect in that regard, but in principle, the language that we use shapes our thoughts more than we realize
The support for that is weak: the influence is mild & easily overcome. An insult isn’t meant to be productive, it’s supposed to convey contempt & unflattering ideas about the recipient of the insult.
I think we have to say “neurospicy” now, right?
This is a good post with some interesting conversation and points that came up because of it. Good job.
These stupid wars on words IMHO is the reason why “liberals” were regarded as a joke prior to trump election
Like banning “master” in github as well as dumb, regex based words filters in chats. Oh you want to mention the “beta version”? Too bad, a social justice warrior decided that “beta” is now offensive, you have to change your language so that you wont affect the hypothetic easily offendable persons
Like banning “master” in github as well as dumb
Master wasn’t banned. The default name was changed from master to main. Literally nothing is stopping you from choosing to use master.
While this is technically correct, when you say “we’re switching the default branch name from master to main to be less culturally insensitive”, you kind of imply that people who continue using master are culturally insensitive. And nobody likes being called that (generally), so it still feels like a ban to people.
That implication is correct?
Look, if it’s pointed out that “x” makes some minorty uncomfortable, but you keep using “x”, you are culturally insensitive to that minority. You can choose to be, nobody would care if you’re not a person/company with milliona of followers.
That’s entirely assuming that there indeed is a sizeable minority that have reason to be offended and indeed are offended. In the cited example above, that wasn’t the case so there was significant controversy surrounding what was perceived as “performative activism” that benefitted noone.
“We’re switching from master to main” was controversial? My god, people must’ve been bored out of their fucking minds.
You know how a normal person would react to this? ‘k.’
That’s entirely assuming that there indeed is a sizeable minority that have reason to be offended and indeed are offended. In the cited example above, that wasn’t the case
A 1s websearch says this is false. BLM movement is definitely a “sizable minority” whatever that means.
You know how a normal person would react to this? ‘k.’
I reacted like this too. But you I don’t think the opponents had invalid arguments to be honest. It was mostly:
-
Lack of an actual outcry to change it.
-
‘Master’ in git did not have any connotations to slavery, so there was no reason to be offended by it (different from eg master/slave databases or something).
-
The change was hamfisted through without the community actually finding consensus and agreeing with the change.
-
It invalidates 15 years of git tutorials, which is confusing for newbies.
-
The defaults for git mismatched with the default in github, which as a very large player put undue corporate pressure on the git project to go along with the change.
-
Changing the branch name does have impact on users, which without a good reason to change it is unnecessary.
-
And the big one: the rename is just performative. If you want to address inequality in tech, make sure people of colour get the same access and opportunities that white people get. Github in particular was ridiculed because they pretended to be so socially conscious, but as it turns out despite having black employees, not one of them had managed to promote into a management function at the time. They put up a smokescreen but did not make any actually impactful changes that improved the position of people of colour, and in doing so abused the BLM movement for PR purposes.
A 1s websearch says this is false. BLM movement is definitely a “sizable minority” whatever that means.
BLM didn’t advocate for this though! Microsoft/Github sort of assumed they would, so decided to change it. But I can’t find any actual outcry that it should be changed from those who were supposedly offended by the term.
Fair points.
Weirdly, that BLM source in wikipedia led nowhere. My fault for not checking.
However performative it may have seen at the time, I’m glad the terms are gone. Master/slave was particularly uncomfortable to use for me personally (I mainly associate it with BDSM)
-
“Morally banning”. But you got my point
While they are incorrect about the specific term, their main paint is correct. “Slave” was removed from the terminology.
Also man in the middle changing to “on path”
Wtf?
New preferred term for MitM attacks is “on path” attacks, in pretty much every updated cert doctrine that discusses the concept.
Now that is dumb, way dumber than “blacklist/whitelist”, “master/slave controllers”. You could make it gender-neutral without even changing the acronym!
Man in the middle --> Monkey in the middle, Moron in the middle, Maggot in the middle, etc
If you want to be bureaucratic, you could just say “Attacker in the middle”.
The new term is more obscure and less specific, since it does not have the “middle” component.
“X in the middle” = there’s something between two points, in the middle of them.
WTF does “on path” mean? Something is on a path?
Wait, you’re not supposed to say blacklist and whitelist anymore? Shit.
Nope. Blocklist and Allowlist I believe. Because despite having no racist origins, “black” being the “bad” list and “white” being the “good” list made some people uncomfortable. It’s the perfect example of meaningless surface level changes imo
Yeah I mean if that’s the standard I’m fine with it. But as I mentioned in a reply to somebody else, to make something black you don’t add darkness, you subtract light. So inherently black is subtraction and white is addition. Saying that addition is good and subtraction is bad is like a weird byproduct of “positive” meaning good and “negative” meaning bad, when they are just numbers on either side of zero.
Colors are additive or subtractive depending on the medium, so you are entirely wrong here and just spouting nonsense, fyi. Paints are additive, light is subtractive. All colors of light makes white and all colors of paint makes black.
What does black paint do to light?
I used to have a word for how ridiculous this is but the op said I shouldn’t use it anymore
Now it’s CaucasianList and AfricanAmericanList.
Where is the AsianList? I thought we were supposed to be inclusive now!
Why do you automatically associate black with bad and white with good?
Remember that we also do things subliminally. So black = bad rubs off on people who can be called “black”.
I mean I get it, but I never thought of it that way. Like black is the absence light or color. You don’t add darkness to something to make it black, you subtract light, color, energy etc. So black is “negative”. White is the opposite of black. On a color slider, it’s all of everything all the way, it’s “positive”, and I don’t mean “positive = good” way, I mean like mathematically positive, like a “+” sign. Like do electricians need to stop using black cables for negative? It just seems like a reach unless it originally had some racist etymology. Like if the term" blacklist"was originally used by restaurant owners during segregation and they didn’t allow black people in, or anybody on the “blacklist” because anybody on that list should be treated as if they were black then I would be like “Oh yeah holy shit, we should definitely not use that term”. But I think saying black is negative and white is positive has both scientific and mathematical origins.
I’m fine with using blocklist and allowlist. I guess I just never got the memo that we weren’t supposed to use blacklist and whitelist.
You don’t add darkness to something to make it black, you subtract light, color, energy etc.
Except you do, when you’re using additive mixing (I.e paint)
I’m not saying it’s that it’s inherently racist. I’m saying that black people rightfully dislike that “black” is associated with “negative”
But I think saying black is negative and white is positive has both scientific and mathematical origins.
It has neither.
It’s almost like it’s a common theme that dark, dingy, places are associated with danger and bright warm areas are associated with safety, life, purity, truth, etc. and when you simplify that to a basic theme, you end up with black = bad and white = good. It’s a theme that springs up from nature itself.
Which further goes to my point: the words are just placeholders for feelings and emotions. So to change the words does nothing to change the feelings. If you remove all the hateful words, you won’t remove hate. You’ll just end up with “I hope you unalive yourself you bottom of the bell curve” instead.
Dark places aren’t inherently more dangerous. Light, bright areas aren’t inherently positive.
These are the subliminal ideas that were put into your head by literature, religion, popular culture, etc (that was often seeped in racism).
Just like numbers aren’t inherently good or bad, but certain numbers rise associations with “good” or “bad” 3, 7, 13, 666, 777, Etc.
“Nature itself” argument is completely BS, as many animals hunt and spring to life at night, while daytime and light means danger to them.
Dark cave vs open meadow.
Clear skies vs stormy clouds.
Clear still water vs murky turbulent water.
Death and decay vs life.
But nah, I’m just making up literary themes that have existed for centuries. For fucks sake, the vast majority of horror movies rely on darkness.
The fucking yin yang is literally the fusion of light and darkness, good and evil.
You’re just being intentionally obtuse or you’re really that dumb that you don’t get any of these themes.
