No, but equivalent levels should be treated equivalently. And the only people who have the ability to determine the level are the demographic in question. There is no way those who use the term against them can determine it. And all evidence I’ve found indicates that mentally disabled consider “retard” as bad as “nigger.”
I was hoping we’d made progress on this, but I guess not. As far as I am concerned, treating it as less offensive is playing favorites, saying that the mentally disabled don’t have as much right to claim something is offensive as black people do.
I wanted Shagnasty to get his warning rescinded, because it was unfair to enforce a new rule without telling anyone about it. So I’m happy about that. But it sucks that the rule itself got rescinded. We could use with a lot less of that bullshit bigotry on this board.
I also hate that Chronos didn’t clarify that “insulting a fictional character” was not the issue, since Shagnasty keeps bringing that up as if it is relevant. A word that disparages a demographic remains disparaging no matter who you use it for. Yes, even the lesser ones.
And, yes, since people keep bringing it up, BigTard actually offends me not because of it being a derogatory nickname, but because it is disparaging towards the mentally ill/mentally disabled. But its use also gives me an indication of which posters I can safely ignore their feelings without feeling remotely guilty. I don’t have to worry that it’s some personal bias because I don’t like them.
(Exceptions if someone is making a joke that in effect makes fun of those who use the term.)
I thought that I had clarified that, but maybe it was just in a PM. That’s correct; the issue of “insulting a fictional character” was never relevant. The only time that insults, per se, are an issue on this board is when they are directed at a member of the board, outside of the BBQ Pit forum. The problem was not the insult, it was the offensiveness of the term.
Just as an observation, I suspect that any more sensitive term we now adopt for the description of any unfavorable condition will in time come to be seen as hateful and insensitive. Trying to enforce these kinds of bans is, in my opinion, lame.
I mean it cripples our discourse. No, no – it handicaps us.
Stop. I meant it disables our ability to describe aspects of the human experience. It becomes physically challenging.
Not sure how to fit “differently abled,” in there, but hopefully my point with respect to euphemism creep is obvious. At one time, “handicapped,” was the sensitive replacement for “crippled,” and now it’s on its way out as patronizing or offensive. There will come a point at which any term we now exalt as sensitive and correct will sound as offensive as “retard,” does now.
I think this is both true and not especially important. Two hundred years ago, “to hell with you” was one of the most offensive things an adult could say to another; today, I’ll read that line in a read-aloud to my third graders with little more than an explanation. Meanings of words change, including their connotations and social acceptability.
Fortunately, we don’t have to write for the past; and on this messageboard we don’t have to write for the future. All we have to write for is the present. If the term “developmentally disabled” makes its predictable way down the euphemism treadmill and, thirty years from now, becomes offensive, I don’t think Chronos is gonna revisit threads from today where people used it and ding people.
The euphemism treadmill is both real and real slow. Keep up, people.
Wait…so if you’re ugly, and I call you ugly, that not only insults your ugly ass but everyone else that’s ugly and THAT’S the definition of hate speech? So what’s the PC alternative, beauty deprived?
I guess if you said I’m going to hang out with all the uglies down at the plastic surgery clinic, I would find that yes you were being insulting to a class of people. You are defining them by of a derogatory term.
Yeah, we were so much better off when people dealt with being offended by minor things, like a black person eating at the same lunch counter, that they created laws against it and vigorously enforced them. Or when people were so offended by different religions that they’d write covenants to ban Jews from buying houses. Or when people were so offended by gay men that the police would raid gay bars and beat them. Why can’t we go back to the good 'ol days when it was only straight white christian people that were allowed to be offended?
Equality of opportunity for all people was and is a worthwhile fight. A crusade against referring to a brown bag as such leads to well deserved ridicule. An ever expanding list of so-called hate speech is closer to the crusade against brown bags.
I just happened to read a post in a recent thread in which a poster referred to a group of people as “gun nuts”.
Clearly this is insulting, it’s intention is to insult gun owners by implying that they are cognitively impaired and lacking in various mental faculties. But in doing so it has used a term which is insulting to those who unfortunately and through no fault of their own are cognitively impaired and lacking in various mental faculties. How are these people supposed to feel when they see such hateful descriptors being thrown around so casually.
While the moderators are discussing this wider topic I would respectfully ask that they also consider banning use of the word “nuts” due to its well known derogatory history.