I know what you’re thinking … “any message board aside from the Straight Dope huh huh huh”.
Seriously, I’m wondering if there are Web sites catering specifically to retarded people. Maybe a broader question is more appropriate: are retarded people using the Internet at all?
To partially answer your, somewhat politically incorrect question, many schools now try to mainstream challenged children. They would use websites that other kids use, but maybe for a longer period of time.
In the past, children born with trisomy 21(Down’s syndrome) were simple labeled “retarded” and warehoused. Today, they are more often encouraged to reach their physical and mental potential, whatever that might be.
To be clear, retarded or retard are considered offensive (this link is for information only, I’m not advocating or requesting anyone “pledge.”)
This website is for people with developmental disabilities and their supporters. So is this one. Just 2 examples.
I’m not really sure of why you’re asking what you’re asking, though (curiosity, looking for resources, busting stereotypes, etc) so I’m not sure if this is useful information.
But, yes, I know many people with developmental disabilities who use the internet, and not just websites that are about disabilities.
Wouldn’t it depend on the level of retardation? The Internets provides entertainment as well as information and I don’t see why a lesser developed mind couldn’t find entertainment with colorful and engaging flash games or whatever.
The writer of that page doesn’t take offense with people using the word “retarded” in the way the OP did.
The writer takes no issue with people using the word “retarded” to mean “developmentally disabled”.
lorene:
In that website is says “people with disabilities should be treated as equals”,
and “(These) people should be given the same decisions, choices, rights, responsibilities, and chances to speak up and empower themselves.”
Fine, but there’s got to be a limit on this. I think that if a person can’t comprehend what the voting issues are, for example, they shouldn’t be allowed to vote. If they can, fine. The same goes with driving.
In other words, SOME mentally handicapped should be “Treated as Equals” and some, not so equal but with respect.
My husband has a very interesting story about mentally challenged people learning to drive. Apparently, some people who are mentally retarded but who are capable of learning to drive make very good drivers, because they know their limitations, and they give driving their complete, undivided attention, unlike, oh, the rest of us.
But I take your point, Jake - equal when it comes to basic human rights, certainly.
I wasn’t saying anything about the content of the websites; just answering the OP.
But as for Jake’s statement—I think the point made by the websites is that developmentally disabled people should have the same rights as everyone. Saying that some people with these disabilities deserve to be treated as equals but not all is, IMO, not treating them as equals.
No one should vote if they don’t understand the process. (Of the developmentally disabled people that I used to work with, only 3 felt strongly about voting, and they were all folks who learned what the candidates stood for and what the issues were. The other 12 or so really didn’t give a darn and chose not to vote. Not saying that’s a representative sample, just my sample.) Everyone should be able to apply for a driver’s license once they are of age and if their health (eyesight, free from seizure disorders) permits. That doesn’t mean everyone will pass the test, and intellect plays a part in that as well.
There are many people with developmental disabilities who have guardians, despite being over 18. This is because it was determined through an examination and a court process that they were unable to make informed decisions for themselves. Here is Ohio’s information about guardianship (I picked Ohio because their info is clearly presented). Some just have guardians who handle their money or their medical issues. I doubt that anyone is saying that those processes should go away (TBH, I haven’t thoroughly read those websites—again, I was just answering the OP) because that would leave a whole lot of people adrift in a society in which they couldn’t adequately get their basic needs met. Still, they have the same basic rights that we all have, just sometimes with accommodations to make enjoying those rights more successful.
Dude, have you SEEN the internet?
What about using the word “retard” as a verb, the way it was originally?
Indeed this is true
In fact the first usage of the word retard to describe the thick came about in 1970!
I’ve learnt something today…
Only anecdotal, but there seems to be a thriving community of high-functioning Autistics and Aspies (those with Asperger’s Syndrome) online. Ballastexistenz is a fairly popular blog I’ve been hearing about lately, plus if you search for communities on a site like LiveJournal you’ll find a huge amount of people.
Many Autistics and Aspies are very awkward with in-person social situations but seem like a totally different person online. There’s a guy in my class who is very loud and disruptive and tends to shout out random phrases, but you’d never guess it from the way he speaks online.
Retarded was the politically correct way to refer to the feeble minded, back in the sixties.
Feeble minded was the socially correct way to refer to idiots, about the turn of the last century.
Idiots were in fashion for much longer.
The words will be used as insults by those who need to insult others. Developmentally challenged will be the insult of future.
Being offended by a word makes being offended by an attitude easier to dismiss.
Tris
God, I hate Politically Correct English. According to that solecism, only White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Males are real Americans: Everyone else is merely a Hypenated-American. It is one of the most racist, sexist, and culturally insensitive things to happen to the language I love.
As for retarded people on the Internet, it’s difficult for me to believe who else would be keeping the ‘C14L][ZZZ’ (‘Cialis’, a drug apparently advertised almost exclusively by spam munged to avoid simple keyword filters) spammers in business. Being naive only goes so far: Even the naive don’t buy drugs from the equivalent of the back of a truck.
Umm, is this a question in search of a problem? Seriously, creating/maintaining a web site specifically individuals with developmental disabilities seems to be a lost cause. Other than an educational owner attempting to mainstream these folks, what’s in it for them? Such a site would be a loss leader. If anything, it would have to be operated for its altruistic benefit, or somehow entice caregivers and families to contribute to its support. Yes, this sounds rude, crude and socially unacceptable.
On the other hand, web sites created and maintained with federal tax dollars are required to meet the requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. While many people think we are addressing just physical disabilities (blindness, hearing impaired, motor skills issues) with Section 508, it also applies to individuals with cognitive disabilities. Of course, Congress being what is and isn’t never offered clarification. In addition, for Section 508 to be successfully administered, reliance upon W3C standards is required. Within W3C is the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. WCAG 1.0 is currently in force with WCAG 2.0 Working Draft just released. Section 508 references WCAG 1.0.
Of course, the usual disclaimer is there is no requirement for web sites unsupported by federal tax dollars to adhere to Section 508, and that it entails so what the hell. However, several states have established Section 508 as their baeeline for state-supported web sites as well. But we’re still only addressing taxpayer-supported web sites.
The unknown is whether the Americans with Disabilities Act plays with commercial and private web sites. While the Target case is specifically addressing blind web users it is still an ADA case against a commercial web site. In 2004 the New York AG applied ADA to commercial and private web sites in that state.
Research is ongoing as to how people with disabilities access the web, including those with cognitive disabilities. One of the better research sites is the Trace Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
One of the (many) hazy areas involves usability and readability of web sites, especially so with cognitive disabilities. Accessibility and usability are not the same thing, nor are they mutually exclusive. One of the clearest blends of the two is best illustrated with readability testing. Readability testing is not a concept to “dumb down” content. That’s a false conception here. Readability, with respect to the web, may be similar to hard copy readability in many ways. Then again, it is different because the brain captures and analyzes web content differently than hard copy content. Still the readability tests for the web are based on hard copy tests and serve as a guide.
I’m going to speculate that web sites specifically for the developmentally disabled with be support sites for caregivers and families. These sites will only be tools to assist the developmentally disabled, but they will not web sites for the developmentally disabled to be used independently by them.
In doing some unrelated research at work this morning, I did find this website, which states that is by and for people with Downs.
The last ONCE campaign features, among others, a picture of a girl with Down’s mousing around in front of a computer’s flatscreen and the line “chatting with a lot of illusion.” ONCE’s lottery ads have been playing the “illusion” for several years; while their acronym stands for Spanish National Association for the Blind, they’ve had members with all kinds of other disabilities for many years. Their campaigns usually picture several different ones, to remind people that they’re “not just for the blind.”
One of the fields in which ONCE funds a lot of research every year is accesibility and the training of their members. One of their vendors in my home town has brain damage from birth (problems pronouncing, learning disability, claw hand and claw foot) and he uses the computerized sales system same as everybody else - the vendor who’s in a wheelchair from a car crash is probably the one that’s the fastest typist, but all vendors use it.
Someone “normal” with a mental age of 13 and living in a developed country will be using the net, nowadays - most “retarded” people have higher mental ages than that. Why wouldn’t they use the net?
It’s already happened. I hear the 12-18 year old boys playing football and basketball on the street in front of my house riding on each other, “What, are you mentally challenged or something?” and other phrases along PC lines.
And frankly it’s funnier that way. Calling someone a “'tard” is so throwaway, but calling someone “developmentally disabled” sounds as much as a diagnosis as an insult 
Does the Simple English Wikipedia count? I suppose people whose first languang is not English might get some mileage out of it, but wouldn’t they (in most cases) just read the article in their own language?
It’s not the entire web site. The purpose of the entire web site is, “Helping people with Down’s syndrome to live full and rewarding lives.”
The web page you linked says, “If you have Down’s syndrome, this page is for you!”
Only one page. Sad.