To qualify myself: I’m from a very small, close family. My cousin is “mentally retarded” or whatever it is they call it these days. I have seen people be shitty and say shitty things to her about being “a retard”.
I recognize that the term is offensive to some. I recognize that her family (in particular, her mother) has been hurt by this word.
However, being offended by an obvious use of the word that is NOT referencing actual developmentally delayed people, IS hyper-sensitivity.
It reeks of insecurity.
Not that it’s not normal to be insecure about a situation like this… many people are, because not many of us are raised to expect to deal with things like this in our future. You can’t groom someone to be okay with the fact that their child is going to have abnormal challenges.
However, you need to adapt and realize that throughout history people have been born with challenges from mental difficulties to physical abnormalities. And you either learn to deal and cope…
I’m just surprised no one has noticed that a lot of these arguments could be used to make using the word “nigger” perfectly fine. Heck, my late great uncle was always proud to inform me that that word did not mean a black person, but someone you hated.
But I bet if he used that word in that way, every single person in this thread would be offended.
I have yet to see any reason why “retarded” doesn’t work the same way. And so I don’t blame people for assuming it means that people are still bigoted towards the mentally challenged, just like using “nigger” makes you assume the person is still bigoted towards black people.
That said, I fully acknowledge that, if I will go ahead and use it unless I know someone will be offended. There are less people who are likely to be offended by it.
But, then again, I would also use the word “gay” for the same reason. And y’all of pissed fits about that before.
Words can lose their “sting” as an epithet, over time and in different circumstances. “Nigger” is a good example, in that it is acceptable under certain circumstances (such as when the person using it is themselves Black, as a sort of appropriation/reversal - much in the same way as homosexuals have appropriated/reversed “queer”, originally very insulting). I can well imagine that, in (say) fifty years, the term may have lost its purely racist sting. Today, you can see even non-homosexuals using the word “queer” occasionally to refer to gays, though usually only as proper names: “I went to the Queer-as-Folk festival”.
Same with “gay”, used as a synonym for “lame”. When I was growing up, the connection between “gay” and “homosexual” was absolute - something was “lame” because it was “homosexual”; homophobia was simply the assumed background attitude. Both “nigger” and “gay-meaning-lame” still to this day carry racist and homophobic connotations respectively; but that may not always be the case. Language is not static, it is always evolving - for example, read stuff written at the turn of the 20th century when “gay” did not yet carry any meaning of “homosexual” (I remember giggling as a schoolkid over phrases like ‘“I feel so very gay today”, the hero ejaculated’ - a twofer, with “gay” meaning “happy” and “ejaculated” meaning “exclaimed”. Today, it would be impossible to seriously write a sentence like that, because the language has changed).
The point being that a word is not doomed to carry the same insulting meaning forever - and arguably “retarded” is simply further down the path of meaning evolution than “nigger” or “gay-as-lame”.
This is my feeling, too. I can’t help but get the impression that anybody who freaks out about the use of variations of the word retarded, when not being used to mock people who actually have disabilities, is actually ashamed of those disabilities.
Here’s the distinction, to me:
Gay: Using this as a slur posits homosexuality (or anything other than sterotypical heterosexuality) as a bad thing.
Nigger: Using this as a slur posits being Black as a bad thing.
Retarded: Using this as a slur posits having a mental disability as being a bad thing.
Being gay is not bad. Being Black is not bad. Having a mental disability is bad. It doesn’t made you a bad person, but it *is *a quality that none of us would seek to have, and I’m sure would all like to see cured completely. (I.e., if we were given the ability to make it so that every person with a mental disability immediately started functioning on a normal level, I’m sure we would do so.) So, again, the point remains that it isn’t the *person *that is being condemned, but the disability. The only way you’re going to be able to equate the word “retarded” with ones like “gay,” “fag,” “nigger,” etc., is if you try to argue that a mental disability is an admirable, or at least a neutral, quality.
I just think it’s funny that the US military has bombs with attachments that are designed to slow them down (so that the bombing plane can get clear of the blast zone when dropping at low altitude) which are commonly called retarded bombs for reasons completely unrelated to the reasons smart bombs got their name…but we still wind up with smart bombs and retarded bombs.
I agree that’s a sensible distinction, but I don’t think in this context (that is, use of words carrying insulting meanings) it is necessarily the significant distinction.
While a jeering circle of playground taunters chanting “Retard! Retard!” may certainly be less logically consistent than one chanting “Gay! Gay!” or “Nigger! Nigger!”, I doubt that difference is all that interesting to either the victims or the perps.
The issue here is whether the use of the word raises a reasonable concern that the person using it agrees with the playground taunters - whether someone muttering “fucking retard” to someone who cut them off is the sort of person who dislikes those with a mental disability as people. I think it arguably does not, because the language has evolved at least in some places - but that (say) when I was a kid, it would have.
In psychology, every textbook still uses the word “retarded” in terms of diagnosis of mental development.
It was amazing how many of my students were shocked to read this in a textbook!
They had no idea that the word was anything but a slur.
For many students, it was almost painful for them to say aloud - even when using the word as a reference in diagnosing mental ability.
What I would say is that of course it’s a neutral quality, with respect to whether or not a person deserves to be mocked for having it. The problem is that “retard” meant literally very definitely describes a certain class of people in most everyone’s mind. Like Malthus says, it’s not unreasonable for a member of that class to feel like they’re being commented on when the word is used. It isn’t something to be condemned, we agree. But identifying something as “retarded” as a way to demean it certainly seems like a condemnation of retardation - it seems like we agree on that, too. Otherwise the association is meaningless.
But the next step seems pretty obvious, to me. If the condition is worthy of being mocked, what about the people who all have that condition and who are commonly identified using the same language? It’s bad to be retarded, because that means you suck at thinking, and that’s why we make jokes about retards all the time. But don’t feel bad, retards. I’m not making fun of you. I just can’t see that being universally true. Take the phrase “don’t be a retard,” for instance. How could that possibly avoid remarking on retarded people?
I see it as very similar to calling something gay in that sense, especially because people often defend their use of gay or faggy or queer as general pejoratives by saying that they don’t think there’s anything wrong with being gay, they’re just saying their buddy’s shirt is gay looking. Seems similar in terms of what the message is about actually retarded people and actual gays. When people do something I don’t like, I call them this word. That word also describes you, but I’m not talking about you, and you can’t assume I am or be hurt by it, and you can’t assume that I’m mocking a person rather than a condition, even though I’ll often use a noun that describes the person rather than the condition (retard, fag).
I would say that being retarded is a negative quality. Someone who did not choose to have that disability shouldn’t be mocked for something they have no control over. But someone who *should *operate at average or better mental capacity can be mocked for acting as though they did not have that capacity.
It all comes down to choice. Someone who’s *actually *mentally disabled didn’t choose to be that way. Someone who’s only *acting *like they’re mentally disabled *did *make the choice. Same way I you can call the guy who cuts you off on the freeway “blind” without actual blind people getting angry–because he *could *have seen your car, he just *chose *not to look.
I think you missed my whole earlier argument. In the case you’re proposing, the person is using “gay” to mean something negative, while being gay is neutral. There is nothing *wrong *with being gay, so to use “gay” to mock something or someone means that you must view it as a negative thing. I.e., if you could make all the gay people in the world straight, you would do it, and you would expect them to thank you for it.
Contrast this with “retarded.” Nobody *wants *to be retarded. Being retarded is, objectively, a bad thing. You wouldn’t encourage a pregnant woman to drink heavily to ensure her baby is born with FAS. You wouldn’t tell someone with Alzheimer’s to be excited about the inevitable decline of their brain function. And if you asked every person who’s offended by the use of the word “retarded” if they would fix the brain of the person they love who has a mental disability, given the choice I am *certain *that they would all say yes.
I’ve put a lot of thought into it. Things like using “gay” to mean “lame” or “stupid” bug the hell out of me, so when someone took me to task for using “retarded,” I had to figure out why I felt there was a distinction. I believe my reasoning is pretty damned consistent–enough that I feel I’m not just fooling myself into making excuses so I don’t lose an insult I like using.
So, if I was to say the shirt looks like something a blind person would wear I’m not hating on the blind, but if I say the shirt looks gay (as in it’s something a gay guy would wear) I am hating on gays? Or am I hating on both? I can see the logic; if I say it looks like shit… I’m seeing shit as a negative… and I want to eradicate shit from the world… just a smidgen too analytical for my taste, especially for a simple similie, but I sort of get the idea. Why is it that I can say it’s something only a blind guy, or a retard would wear… but not gay? It’s almost like homophobia is assumed, when I’m thinking more about gay culture.
Okay, I think I see where the confusion is coming in.
1.) “That shirt looks like something a blind person would wear.” You’re not hating on the blind, but you’re hating on their ability to pick something out without being able to see it. Blind people cannot see; this is a fact. Without outside input, they’re unable to determine the color or pattern of a fabric, for example.
2.) “That shirt is gay.” Gay is being used as a synonym for stupid or lame.
3.) “That shirt makes you look gay.” Not necessarily a problem. Some gay men do dress in a stereotypical way (in fact, various groups of gay men dress in various stereotypically gay ways, while other gay men dress in various stereotypically “straight” ways). So it depends on the intention and attitude of the speaker, and I think it would be safe to give the person the benefit of the doubt. For instance, consider the episode of *Arrested Development *where Tobias asks for an outfit that will say “Daddy loves leather,” and ends up dressed as… a leather daddy. That outfit certainly *does *make him look gay, because it’s strongly associated with a certain subset of gay culture.
To my mind, the reason “gay = lame” bugs me but “retard = a person acting foolish and annoying me” does not, is simply that the meaning of the latter has shifted and that of the former hasn’t, yet. Though it might, someday.
While i know that “retarded” is still used in some texts as a descriptor for persons born with a mental disability, increasingly in common use that’s a secondary and sorta archaic usage - like “idiot”. No-one is bothered by calling an asshole who cuts you off an “idiot”, even though technically that used to mean more or less the same thing.
Gay people are not inherently stupid. Retarded people are inherently stupid. To me, that’s what it ultimately boils down to: it’s not polite and it’s not tactful, but it’s true.
And another thing wrong with “retarded” is that the term used to be used way too broadly. Autistic people would be called retarded. People who started out fully functional but got a brain injury would be called retarded. It’s not a catch-all term for “not fully functional” but it was often used as if it were. Which is misuse, which is another reason it’s fallen, or is falling, out of favor.
Shot From Guns, I take your point, sharp as it may be. But I am finally starting to at least see it better from the other side. I think they feel like the word is just so associated with the mentally challenged still, that it is hurtful to them and their loved ones.
This leaves me conflicted, because on the one hand, I feel that if one can avoid offending, why not avoid it. On the other hand, I have always felt that folks should develope a tougher skin when it comes to mere words, and this includes mentally challenged people and their loved ones. Toughen up, and try harder not to take offense when none is meant in your direction. It may sound harsh, but that attitude has saved me a lot of hurt feelings in my time.
Exactly. There *are certain people I try my hardest not to use the word “retarded” around, because I know it bothers them and I’m not in a position to argue the point. But I can’t be held responsible for people at large being offended at things where, IMO, there’s no logical reason to be offended.
*Yes, I know that emotions don’t respond to logic. But how we deal with our emotions does–and if I have no good reason to take offense at something, then I have no right to ask other people to stop doing it.
When somebody does something stupid, you call them retarded, and that’s an insult. Because doing something stupid deserves it. And retarded people are inherently stupid, so they do stupid things.
Yet there’s no logical reason for a retarded person to feel slighted when one regular person says to another “you’re such a fucking retard” when they do something stupid? Even though the word “retard” is being used to mean “person who does something stupid and I am mocking them for it”? I’ve understood from the beginning that we don’t agree about this, but I can’t figure why you think I’ve missed your point. I hear you saying that you don’t think actually retarded people should be mocked for being retarded, and instead only regular-intelligence people should be mocked by comparison to retards. What it comes down to is that we agree what’s happening, only you’re saying nobody could ever be offended by it. That’s the part I don’t get.
If it ever starts to be the case that in order to be mean to each other, people use as a slur some kind of characteristic that I possess, that’s going to be an insult to me. There is nothing illogical about that. Even if it’s something ridiculous - “don’t be such a beardy, you brown-eye fuck” - it’s going to be the case on some level that they’re using something about me as an insult. They’re making a judgment about my worth as a person (and yes, they are, indirectly, and there’s no escaping that), in order to slur somebody. If I’m offended by that, you can tell me to toughen up all you like, but what you cannot do is say that that makes no logical sense.
