Many gay men are fucking assholes, in both verb and adjective form. Hate to break it to you, but we’re human, and our jerk quotient (in which I’m sure you include me) is just as high as in the rest of the human race. What, did you expect me to be a plaster saint just because I suck cock?
I hope not. You’d make the cock all chalky.
From your site.
From my post.
Enjoy,
Steven
I, too, work with people who have developmental disabilities - some who are mentally retarded and some who are not - and I really, really don’t like the use of ‘retarded’ as a pejorative term.
It doesn’t even make logical sense to use the term that way; it’s generally aimed at someone who is being willfully, stubbornly ignorant in holding an opinion despite facts that have been presented. Certainly the mentally retarded themselves are not ignorant through any fault of their own.
It’s just plain bad manners to call a mentally retarded person a ‘retard’; it’s inaccurate to do the same to a person of normal intelligence.
I find it hilarious that in an attack of the use of “retarded” as a pejorative term, you employ vocabulary that stigmatizes the mentally ill. I’m lucky not to be, but I work at an agency that strongly frowns on calling people “nuts” or “nutty” as insults.
Should we ban terminology that uses mental illness as a negative?
What a sad little hypocrite:
Oftentimes, yes. But this is through no fault of their own and to have the same word used to describe their state, which is involuntary, and to describe the state of someone else who is acting out of a conscious choice to be a dumbass is what offends me. If you want to call someone out for being a dipstick, then call them out for their behavior. We’ve got plenty of words for normal people acting out. No need to use a word which also applies to people who did not choose to have it apply to them. You’re hitting with too broad a brush. The person you’re meaning to chastize, who is acting out of their norm, deserves chastisement, the person the term applies to involuntarially deserves no such chastisement.
Enjoy,
Steven
That’s pretty funny 
Anyway, it was just a quick Google search. My question remains:
If these terms are used by the medical community to describe and diagnose individuals (you haven’t proven that they aren’t used), will you change your mind about using them?
In any case, let’s take the terms idiot and stupid. Some people, because of genetics or whatever, are actually stupid and idiots (if we define these terms to mean “of lower intelligence, but not mentally retarded”), and I’m sure they are aware that they are not that bright.
So, should we stop using ‘idiot’ and ‘stupid’ because people who are, by no fault of their own, stupid, will read about it and feel bad about themselves?
And I’m sure some of us may have friends or relatives who are in fact not very intelligent. Should we stop using ‘idiot’ and ‘stupid’ because people who know idiots will get offended?
What about ‘crazy’. Should we stop using that term (as in “are you crazy?”) since some people are in fact crazy, and they might know it and get offended or feel bad about themselves?
Eh, I dislike being called a fag, as in Hey, fag!", but OTIOH, I use the word myself soemtimes teasingly to friends self-deprecatingly, as in “wow, he’s hot” Oh, I’m being way too faggy." Is it consistent? No, but I still haven’t sorted out my own feelings on those terms. Good thing I’m not running for president.
And how cool is it to have my own cyber-stalker? I have arrived, honey!
[hijack]
Can you educate me a little, then? What does it mean?
It’s offensive to all of the NA people I know. And this is what www.m-w.com has to say:
Main Entry: squaw
Pronunciation: 'skwo
Function: noun
Etymology: Massachuset squa, ussqua woman
1 often offensive : an American Indian woman
2 usually disparaging : WOMAN, WIFE
So, if we’re all being offended for no reason, please point me in the right direction. It’d be great to have one less thing to be offended by.
[/hijack]
Those who drew a bad hand from the genetic dealer are one thing. You chose your cards.
They may not have been diagnosed as mentally ill, but let me assure you, they were not mentally healthy. I think that we have all encountered people that we know are not mentally stable, even if we don’t have an official medical diagnosis on them. I’m not just talking about “unpleasant” people, I’m talking about people who had “issues” that were definitely problematic.
And you know, I consider my previous comment to not be exactly an “attack” (I said I didn’t like the term but I realized it was said out of ignorance). I don’t want it banned and I don’t think I’m attacking anyone who uses it (unless you consider my confession that a slight loss of my good opinion—and an assumption that the use of the term is used in ignorance—to be an “attack.”)
I also told of a patient that we had that could read (actually, we had more than one patient who could read). That sort of invalidates your “yuk yuk it’s just a joke” comment about how the retarded can’t read, doesn’t it? But, oh well, let’s just ignore that little detail, shan’t we?
Gobear, you are a cool guy and I admire you—truly I do—but I think your credibility is shaky on this issue.
Trying to get “retard” banned is lame.
Again, it was humor, not fact. Mind, I was saving that one up for the Amish, but this came up first. You might as well lambaste Jon Stewart for not covering hard news.
[quote]
Should you call retarded people “retarded”? No. But OTOH I really dislike the idea that there must be no hard edges or any possibility of offense in language used here. I don’t want to have to pussyfoot and post like an 18th century fop to avoide accidentally wounding the delicate sensibilities of the thin-skinned. It’s the Pit, so grow a pair.
Should we campaign for an end to the use of “sinister” tp salve the feelings of the left-handed? That’s the direction this thread is heading.
That is what it means. It has picked up offensiveness to some people because of the argument of the word’s detractors, usually in connection with a place name, that it is a synonym for cunt.
Everyone’s definition of “thinned skinned” is going to be different. As you well know. To some people, “thin skinned” is “someone who gets offended at anything I say,” whereas “offensive” is “anything that anyone else says that offends me.”
If you know that using a specific term really makes a fair number of people cringe, and you still use that term, realize that their opinion of you will be diminished. You cannot change that. And that’s what I (and others here) are talking about. We are just honestly saying that we think less of people who say it. Not that they shouldn’t say it. You cannot stop us from thinking less of you.
I’ll repeat: you cannot stop someone from thinking less of you when you say certain things that they feel are offensive or hurtful.
No amount of protesting or “explaining” why it was a joke, or telling someone to “grow a pair,” or telling them that they are being “too thin-skinned” will change that.
And you know, I’ll warrant that more than a few people will be taking note of your words here, and your attitude here. Next time you complain about feeling offended about some slur or slang term, they can tell you: “This is the Pit, grow a pair.”
I don’t see the wide brush, there. Certainly, calling someone who is actually retarded a “retard” would be cruel, because it’s not something they can help. But pointing out that someone is acting like a retard when they can help it isn’t a chastizement of people who are actually retarded, so far as I can see.
And I don’t really see how using this particular term to point out the mental difficencies of a person is unjust, but using another term (such as, say, “mentally deficient”) is a-okay. Or why this word is bad, but “crazy” or “psycho” aren’t. They are all, after all, used to denigrate someone by infering that they have a physiological/psychological defect which they do not, in fact, possess.
[QUOTE=yosemite]
If you know that using a specific term really makes a fair number of people cringe, and you still use that term, realize that their opinion of you will be diminished. You cannot change that. And that’s what I (and others here) are talking about. We are just honestly saying that we think less of people who say it. Not that they shouldn’t say it. You cannot stop us from thinking less of you.
I’ll repeat: you cannot stop someone from thinking less of you when you say certain things that they feel are offensive or hurtful.
[QUOTE]
So? I don’t spend time with you, I don’t love you, I don’t live with you, I don’t know you except in this forum. Your good opinion or bad means very little to me.
You might notice that I don’t use “retard” as an epithet as a rule for the reasons you mention–it *is declasse to call people “retards.” My point, that you seem to ignire, is that you are laying down rules in an arbitrary fashion. What criteria are we using to govern speech here? Your whim? Why?
Should we use words the way you tell us? Should we allow a certain person to dictate what “liberal” or “libertarian” mean?
And you completely elided over my point that if you object to “retard” then you should also not call people “nuts.”
The next time I’m in a gay-themed thread, I’ll be sure to call the OP a “gerund-stuffer”.
Fine, then. What are we arguing about?
I am not trying to tell you not to use the term. Some others here have also not told you that you shouldn’t use the term. Let’s go back to what was actually said:
Where are we asking you to stop using the word? Where are we trying to control what you say?
Am I asking for the word to be banned? Yes or no? Please copy and paste where I am ordering or demaning that people not use the term. I’m simply giving my opinion (and my reaction) to the term. Am I not allowed to do that?
When a number of people explain to me why they personally cringe when they see the term “nuts” used and they explain that they think lesser of people who use the term, I will gauge whether or not I want to reform my language.