See, this is why I have switched to the term Palin-American.
You know, for a place that lauds itself on supposedly having all these smarter than average posters, it’s amazing that you can’t find better, already existing words to better convey your meaning over than stooping to the level of trying to make a humorous comparision to someone with mental challenges.
It’s asinine that you would go out of your way to be so obtuse.
Heard this on the radio yesterday: Mindy Kaling on the word “retarded”. Kaling plays Kelly on The Office.
I suppose I could, but in the instance I noted, the whole point is to try to communicate with someone not terribly bright. 
What of all the retards outside of America?
As has been pointed out, all of those words began as medical diagnoses for the mentally handicapped as well. Why is “retarded” so special that even though it has become a slang term for stupid (and the medical community has chosen a new phrase to describe the mentally handicapped), it still should not be used?
I just feel compelled to point out that “computer-retarded” is not an actual medical condition, so this particular outrage at least seems a bit of a tempest in a teacup.
The answer to the OP is simple.
The answer is NO.
Can it be gauche, depending on the company and context? Absolutely. Should we stop using it? Fuck no–that’s retarded.
Using retarded to mean stupid or slow or demonstrating a low level of comprehension or competence may not be polite, but it is accurate.
And because I know people love to wave these associations around like they mean something in these discussions: I have a cousin who is severely autistic (will never be able to care for himself) and have had known people with Down syndrome.
Exactly. How about blind, at the person who cut you off on the freeway, or deaf, at the person who doesn’t seem to be listening to your argument?
Now you’re mocking fat people.
Yet another example of the ever-moving euphemism treadmill.
http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/euphemism/the-euphemism-treadmill-.html
You skimmed through the forum list, saw the term “Computer-retarded” in a thread title, and started crying in “not just a figurative way?”
Seriously, I can only imagine what it is to cope with a child with the profound disabilities yours has, but that is not a healthy reaction in the slightest, regardless of whatever consensus is reached in this thread.
I’m sorry for anybody who has to care for a family member with developmental disabilities–it can’t be easy. But while they are absolutely worthwhile people, freaking out every time someone calls something “retarded” doesn’t make the person you love function any closer to the norm.
The word “Negro” has come up several times, which is interesting, since, of course, “Negro” started out as a word that just means “the color black” in Romance languages, same as, well, “black”. True, black people are not literally black in color, but it’s not like “negro” is etymologically more offensive than “black”.
“Acceptable” is a difficult thing to frame the conversation around. It’s just a matter of whether you’re being a dick or not. If the person using the word is aware that he/she is being offensive, then, you know, whatever. People do offensive things and are certainly entitled to it.
What I think is interesting is the case where, as in the other thread, the person using it says something like
as if there’s some kind of debate over whether saying retard as a near-general pejorative insults people. I’ve never understood the notion that a person can declare his use of retard to somehow transcend the kind of schoolyard contempt that we’ve all experienced and which is generally associated with calling somebody a retard. “Computer-retarded” is not a different usage from “you fucking retard;” it’s just a milder version.
So, sure, it’s acceptable. I can’t understand why anybody thinks they can use it and just declare that they’re not being offensive, though. Words come with attachments; disclaiming them isn’t 100% effective.
If the special needs community doesn’t want it used to apply to them, and I agree it shouldn’t, why isn’t up for grabs by the rest of us? I think it’s moved way past associating those it’s used against and actual special needs persons. I say yes it’s OK.
Interesting username/post.
Many offensive words were not originally offensive in meaning, but became so by implication. It is not that the word is, in and of itself, offensive (in most cases), but rather that the offensive implication gradually usurped the original, non-offensive meaning, crowding it out. See, for example, “idiot”.
The problem is of course that banning a particular word from polite discourse just means that the negative implication will bleed over to the new, non-offensive word chosen to replace it.
Thus, as in the post above, “special needs” replaces “retarded” to politely refer to a person of diminished mental abilities, only to gradually become itself a term of abuse. Banishing the word does not banish the problem - that some people look down on those with diminished mental abilities, making them figures of contempt and derision.
Similarly, banishing “negro” and replacing it with “Black” does not in and of itself banish the problem - that some people are racist and look down on those with darker skin. Gradually, one would assume, all of the negative connotations currently attributed to ‘negro’ will become associated with ‘Black’ and some other term will come into popular use.
No they don’t. There’s no intrinsic attachment to any word. It’s made up by the listener. And when one person says that a word means X and the majority disagree, then the speaker can rightly make a disclaimer. Otherwise, it wouldn’t make sense to say that anybody is hypersensitive to anything.
**
There’s a different between deriding *people with *mental disabilities and deriding the disabilities themselves. Calling a person with Down syndrome a fucking retard is the former. Calling someone who doesn’t know how to detach a file from an email (or whatever) computer-retarded is the latter.
And yes, there is something wrong with being developmentally disabled. You lose out on a certain amount of capacity that the average human being has. It doesn’t make you less human; it doesn’t make you less of a person; but it does make you, ultimately, less capable. And it’s that deficit that’s being used as a point of reference.
If you want to convince me otherwise, you’re going to have to claim to *want *to be developmentally disabled, or that parents should be *excited *when their children are diagnosed with these conditions.
Yes, I am aware of your position, Chessic Sense.
I suppose the issue is how far the euphemism treadmill has passed on. If someone from the special needs community got up in arms about the abusive use of the term “idiot” because it was once used as a neutral term for those of diminished mental abilities, that would seem, well, a bit idiotic. 
The question is I guess whether the term ‘retarded’ is so far removed now from its original meaning as to fail to reasonably be considered offensive when used abusively.