if […] they did something stupid, I’m not gonna say “wow, that person’s a developmentally disabled!”
Thank you for illustrating the point. Those terms were chosen for a reason - so society would stop using diagnoses as perjoratives.
In other words, the entire reason we say “developmentally disabled” (or whatever the nom du jour is), is because people like you insist on associating developmental disabilities with bad things.
Even if you only use the word “retarded” as an insult, then you are still equating the group of people with the insult.
Again.
If the word “retard” is fine as an insult for you, than you consider intellectual disabilities to be worthy of insult.
You’re not just calling them less intelligent. You’re labelling them as a member of a group of vulnerable people. By doing so, you imply that being a member of that group is insulting. You imply that members of that group are worthy of insult.
Enjoy being edgy, I guess. It’s sad to see so many people are so easily swayed by the idea that empathy is weakness. It costs absolutely nothing to be considerate.
It has nothing to do with empathy. This is upper-class college white girl shit, where people get offended on behalf of a class they don’t belong to and which the people who they are offended on behalf of don’t really give a shit.
You pretend to be offended so you can signal to others that you are virtuous.
The easy, pointless, thought-terminating cliche against empathy. Well done.
“It’s just ivory tower liberalism wahhh nobody actually cares!”
You pretend to be offended so you can signal to others that you are virtuous.
See, this is the part where I get to stop being nice. This is childish, rude, and stupid. You are falling back to wildly presumptive insults because you cannot defend your behavior. It costs you absolutely fucking nothing to be considerate.
If everyone had to be considerate of every persons views, nobody would write anything. Nobody would be allowed to have opinions.
The world isn’t all sunshine and flowers, buttercup. I’ll continue to be imperfect, and use the words to describe what I want. If you want to get your blood pressure up, and get huffy about it, that’s your prerogative.
I get it. Generally people don’t want to offend someone without due cause. And so we traipse around each other’s idiosyncrasies. For the most part that is fine.
The problem comes from making a policy of it. People will say what they will say. Does that cause reputational harm if they say certain words? Sure. No one can stop you from changing how you feel about someone based upon their actions. But you can’t stop them from saying it.
Let’s go straight to the source. Let’s talk about the N word. If you see someone in public use that word perjoratively - then you will probably consider them to be a bad person. You may even tell other people “That person said the N word and they are bad because of it.” And that would be perfectly fine.
But what you can’t do is tell them not to say it. Because it is their freedom to be a piece of shit and to say awful things and to demean and hurt others with their words. So if Joe Rogan wants to say stupid shit, let him. We all know he’s an idiot.
Oh yeah… idiot used to have a clinical meaning too, you know. But I guess according to you I can’t say that either.
This is why I prefer “willful ignoramus” when I want to insult a person like Rogan.
These people aren’t just stupid, they’re choosing to be ignorant.
The real problem is the stigma attached (throughout modern history) to people with intellectual disabilities. Every new term eventually became a slur, because the same bigots who use slurs are also bullies.
“Intellectual disabilities” has a slim chance of avoiding this because it’s too long to say and too hard to spell.
Btw, “lame” and “blind” are examples of how it’s similar for all kinds of disabilities.
In other words, the entire reason we say “developmentally disabled” (or whatever the nom du jour is), is because people like you insist on associating developmental disabilities with bad things.
who is saying that an intellectual disability is a bad thing? You’re the one arguing it’s a problematic discussion. A lot of people are intellectually challenged, is that also rude? Or is that one fine, is it ok to say uneducated, or is that questioning the socioeconomic status of a person, and therefore, also rude.
Just because something is defined in a rather terse/blunt way, doesn’t necessitate it being a negative thing, that was the problem with “retard” and “retardation” being used, it turned into an insult, and as a result, fell out of favor, because it fucked up the medical definition, which is now “intellectually disabled/disability”
Sometimes weird deformities happen, sometimes people get physically disabled, or are physically disabled, sometimes people are cognitively, or developmentally disabled, both are fair depending on the context, because neurology is fucking weird. I mean we call certain things “disfigurements” because it’s not normal. If they sound bad it’s because you’ve negatively associated these words to concepts that bother you.
Can you please use the word in a context that is not insulting?
lets say for example, you left your car outside, and it rained, and after the storm passed you realized you left the windows down. I would say that it would be a pretty “retarded situation” my response would probably be something along the lines of “well that was retarded” both literally, and on my end.
How would you describe someone or something as “retarded” without implying that there is something wrong with the person or thing?
If i’m using it to insult people, i’m referring to people who have a functional neurology, and aren’t actively using it, for whatever reason. As opposed to people who are intellectually/developmentally disabled/challenged whatever you want to use works, who cannot function on that level. There’s nothing inherently wrong with having a lowered level of neurological function. There is something inherently wrong with being so obtuse you obscure your own intelligence in stupidity, and be a retard in the process.
If i’m referring to something stupid i did and it’s not a person. Something like the previous car example. I might design or build something, and in the process i realize i’ve made a significant mistake, misplaced some key component, and done something irreversible that needs to be undone, that would be retarded.
I mean, if you literally google the definition of retard it says: “to stay back” “put off, post pone, or delay” Of course the perjorative version was historically used to insult people, specifically those of a lower intelligence. But just because it was once used that way, doesn’t necessarily mean i’m using it that way now.
whenever i say it, i’m almost exclusively not referencing people who are developmentally challenged, i’m referencing people who are fucking stupid. You could call them developmentally challenged, but then you’re just doing the retard thing that happened to make it a pejorative in the first place. And even then, that’s not necessarily true because it’s such a sterile definition.
Removed by mod
Thank you for illustrating the point. Those terms were chosen for a reason - so society would stop using diagnoses as perjoratives.
In other words, the entire reason we say “developmentally disabled” (or whatever the nom du jour is), is because people like you insist on associating developmental disabilities with bad things.
Even if you only use the word “retarded” as an insult, then you are still equating the group of people with the insult.
Again.
If the word “retard” is fine as an insult for you, than you consider intellectual disabilities to be worthy of insult.
I don’t know about you, but calling someone less intelligent IS an insult. Doesn’t matter what you name it.
That’s the point of insults you know.
Thank you for confirming your meaning.
You’re not just calling them less intelligent. You’re labelling them as a member of a group of vulnerable people. By doing so, you imply that being a member of that group is insulting. You imply that members of that group are worthy of insult.
Removed by mod
Enjoy being edgy, I guess. It’s sad to see so many people are so easily swayed by the idea that empathy is weakness. It costs absolutely nothing to be considerate.
It has nothing to do with empathy. This is upper-class college white girl shit, where people get offended on behalf of a class they don’t belong to and which the people who they are offended on behalf of don’t really give a shit.
You pretend to be offended so you can signal to others that you are virtuous.
The easy, pointless, thought-terminating cliche against empathy. Well done.
“It’s just ivory tower liberalism wahhh nobody actually cares!”
See, this is the part where I get to stop being nice. This is childish, rude, and stupid. You are falling back to wildly presumptive insults because you cannot defend your behavior. It costs you absolutely fucking nothing to be considerate.
Removed by mod
If everyone had to be considerate of every persons views, nobody would write anything. Nobody would be allowed to have opinions.
The world isn’t all sunshine and flowers, buttercup. I’ll continue to be imperfect, and use the words to describe what I want. If you want to get your blood pressure up, and get huffy about it, that’s your prerogative.
I get it. Generally people don’t want to offend someone without due cause. And so we traipse around each other’s idiosyncrasies. For the most part that is fine.
The problem comes from making a policy of it. People will say what they will say. Does that cause reputational harm if they say certain words? Sure. No one can stop you from changing how you feel about someone based upon their actions. But you can’t stop them from saying it.
Let’s go straight to the source. Let’s talk about the N word. If you see someone in public use that word perjoratively - then you will probably consider them to be a bad person. You may even tell other people “That person said the N word and they are bad because of it.” And that would be perfectly fine.
But what you can’t do is tell them not to say it. Because it is their freedom to be a piece of shit and to say awful things and to demean and hurt others with their words. So if Joe Rogan wants to say stupid shit, let him. We all know he’s an idiot.
Oh yeah… idiot used to have a clinical meaning too, you know. But I guess according to you I can’t say that either.
Can we still call people morons?
Yes.
That one stopped being used as a medical designation prior to people getting their panties in a twist about using medical designations as insults.
This is why I prefer “willful ignoramus” when I want to insult a person like Rogan. These people aren’t just stupid, they’re choosing to be ignorant.
The real problem is the stigma attached (throughout modern history) to people with intellectual disabilities. Every new term eventually became a slur, because the same bigots who use slurs are also bullies.
“Intellectual disabilities” has a slim chance of avoiding this because it’s too long to say and too hard to spell.
Btw, “lame” and “blind” are examples of how it’s similar for all kinds of disabilities.
who is saying that an intellectual disability is a bad thing? You’re the one arguing it’s a problematic discussion. A lot of people are intellectually challenged, is that also rude? Or is that one fine, is it ok to say uneducated, or is that questioning the socioeconomic status of a person, and therefore, also rude.
Just because something is defined in a rather terse/blunt way, doesn’t necessitate it being a negative thing, that was the problem with “retard” and “retardation” being used, it turned into an insult, and as a result, fell out of favor, because it fucked up the medical definition, which is now “intellectually disabled/disability”
Sometimes weird deformities happen, sometimes people get physically disabled, or are physically disabled, sometimes people are cognitively, or developmentally disabled, both are fair depending on the context, because neurology is fucking weird. I mean we call certain things “disfigurements” because it’s not normal. If they sound bad it’s because you’ve negatively associated these words to concepts that bother you.
The people who use an outdated perjorative for “intellectual disability” when they want to insult others.
yeah but who uses it like that? I don’t. I just use it because i think it’s a funny word and i think it has situational comedy potential.
I’m not going to seek out people with mental disorders and call them retarded, that’d be evil.
You’re basically arguing because one person is a terrible person, that we should change to accommodate against them.
Can you please use the word in a context that is not insulting?
How would you describe someone or something as “retarded” without implying that there is something wrong with the person or thing?
lets say for example, you left your car outside, and it rained, and after the storm passed you realized you left the windows down. I would say that it would be a pretty “retarded situation” my response would probably be something along the lines of “well that was retarded” both literally, and on my end.
If i’m using it to insult people, i’m referring to people who have a functional neurology, and aren’t actively using it, for whatever reason. As opposed to people who are intellectually/developmentally disabled/challenged whatever you want to use works, who cannot function on that level. There’s nothing inherently wrong with having a lowered level of neurological function. There is something inherently wrong with being so obtuse you obscure your own intelligence in stupidity, and be a retard in the process.
If i’m referring to something stupid i did and it’s not a person. Something like the previous car example. I might design or build something, and in the process i realize i’ve made a significant mistake, misplaced some key component, and done something irreversible that needs to be undone, that would be retarded.
I mean, if you literally google the definition of retard it says: “to stay back” “put off, post pone, or delay” Of course the perjorative version was historically used to insult people, specifically those of a lower intelligence. But just because it was once used that way, doesn’t necessarily mean i’m using it that way now.
whenever i say it, i’m almost exclusively not referencing people who are developmentally challenged, i’m referencing people who are fucking stupid. You could call them developmentally challenged, but then you’re just doing the retard thing that happened to make it a pejorative in the first place. And even then, that’s not necessarily true because it’s such a sterile definition.
Removed by mod
You are literally using intellectual disabilities as an insult. That is what you are doing.
Removed by mod
You are shootin’ the shit… by using intellectual disabilities as an insult. You can’t pretend that that’s not what you’re doing.
Removed by mod
You brought it into this thread to let the whole world know what your behavior is like. It’s not nosy to reply to your posts on a public forum.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
dude c’mon
Removed by mod