I am honestly amused by this. There are so many denigrating words that have their origin in or deep connotations with intellectual disability, yet somehow “r-word” is the one that gets all the attention. Though, I must admit I’ve seen people going even further and claiming that “crazy” is an ableist slur.
And I am not sure which is worse, being selective or being consistent but annoying.
"The origins of the latest epithet in vogue are harmless." The origin of the word is irrelevant. Words mean things and can be harmful, regardless of the origin of the word. The meaning and context of words can change over time, regardless of the origin of the word.
Bringing Charles Darwin into the conversation does not help your point.
"Is it worse to have some condition of your birth used as a casual insult -- a reminder of your misfortune? Or is it worse to be constantly patronized, often behind your back by throngs offended on your behalf?"
This is a false trade-off. The whole conversation started because someone used a harmful word, knowing full well it was harmful. If they refrained from using the offensive word they knew was offensive neither condition would have happened (casual insult or patronization).
You know the euphemism treadmill right? The words moron and imbecile were once valid terms for mentally disabled, and offensive to use casually, but are no longer offensive in that way.
Conversely, people tried to introduce the term "special needs" to avoid the connotations of "retarded", and then "special" became an insult.
The word "lame" is also incredibly widely used and no longer considered offensive even though it's still a valid term for those who have difficulty walking.
I don't have a point, just find the whole thing very interesting. "retarded" is definitely in the grey area where I personally try to avoid using it, but it's still commonly used. Perhaps "crazy" and "insane" are next.
I was not familiar with the term "euphemism treadmill." Thanks for the info, that phrase does help bring some clarity and specificity to the discussion.
Is "fat" harmful? Could we say a company overspending is fat or bloated without offending? What about "impotent" or "bald," are they harmful? Can we use them abstractly without offending? What about "anemic?"
Lots of conditions of being are generally disfavored as a condition of our biology. Referencing that disfavor abstractly doesn't bring it in to being. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
These are all hypotheticals. Is there any serious, non-academic question about whether the word we're actually discussing is harmful? Even if there is, we all have a choice about what language we use and whether to respect the fact that certain words may hurt others. The cost of NOT using the relevant word is ... zero. This isn't an academic exercise. It's an emotional exercise.
I disagree. There's an ableist, patronizing assumption to be analyzed here: People with mental disabilities must have the language used around them carefully policed because they can't handle the implied disfavor and emotional harm that language may communicate via their own agency, not like the rest of us.
Sure, we shouldn't use harmful language and emotional intelligence matters. If you're overweight and talking with someone and they constantly find ways to derogatorily refer to your weight or even being overweight abstractly, they may be a jerk. But if someone online abstractly calls something fat, it's not directed at you. That's part of emotional intelligence in my opinion.
I do see your point and your explanation does add some nuance to my thinking on this topic. That being said, I still think it was a poor choice of words as evidenced by the fact that the majority of the replies are debating the OPs language as opposed to their original point.
He could say stupid, but that would offend stupid people. He could say crazy, but that would offend crazy people. How about insane? The expression is all the same.
There are lots of injustices happening in this world that deserve your attention. Policing the use of a word is not one of them.
What is wrong with using the word "retarded"? It means slowed down.
I could understand your objections if jesuscript called something/someone retarded, but they explicitly wrote "But you see, Stripe isn’t retarded." I think that whether a word is offensive or not depends on the context in which it is used.
About the article you linked... perhaps I'm mentally disabled, but despite its "Why Use of the R-Word Needs to Stop" title, I was not able to understand why the use of the r-word needs to stop. Would you mind to elaborate?
Nope, I still don't get it. And I'm somewhat offended that you're just sending me random links instead of clearly explaining your position.
So, there are certain... specific... groups of people with specific characteristics who are sometimes not well thought of by some other people. And there's a word to refer to this specific group of people, and it's considered a Bad Word. And then we as a society come up with a new word for these people, which is now a Good Word. But in a couple of years, it starts being used as a slur (by the other people who dislike the specific people) and quickly becomes a Bad Word. This process keeps repeating ad infinitum and you're not going to solve it by successively banning each subsequent word and coming up with a new one which is now politically correct.
I don't think the words themselves are the problem here? The problem is that some people don't think well of some specific groups of people and whatever term is being used to refer to the specific group of people quickly becomes a Bad Word. And I don't think we'll solve this problem by banning the Bad Word and replacing it with the Good Word.
Retarded, in this context, is being used specifically as an insult by using a superseded medical term to imply that a person is of lesser intellect. The condition in question, intellectual disability as it is now known, is one that cannot be influenced by a person's actions, but is a consequence of birth.
In western culture it is usually considered offensive to use a characteristic that is a consequence of birth as an insult. For example: "Don't be such a black person/jew/asian" is considered offensive because you cannot control the trait of your race any more than you can control an intellectual disability.
Compounding that, as I mentioned above, the term 'retarded' or 'mentally retarded' is no longer used medically or legally, in the same way that 'moron' and 'idiot' aren't considered diagnoses anymore.
Therefore, using the term 'retarded' is culturally associated - exclusively - with insulting a person's actions by comparing them to someone who is disabled with the implication that a disabled person would necessarily act foolishly or irrationally.
It would be the same as if you needed an explanation simplified for you, and from then on every person who then needed a simpler explanation was then said to have 'needed a Tasuki'. You can surely understand, even if you personally don't mind, how that might cause offense.
After all, you are 'somewhat offended' by someone assuming that a link might provide a sufficient explanation instead of holding your hand through the explanation like someone who lacks reason, empathy, logic and intelligence ... Or do I need to Tasuki that further for you?
> In western culture it is usually considered offensive to use a characteristic that is a consequence of birth as an insult.
The problem is the insult, not the characteristic that is a consequence of birth. "You're retarded" is offensive, while "you're Asian" isn't. What about "You don't have legs" said to a person born with no legs? It might or might not be offensive, depending on the context.
> Therefore, using the term 'retarded' is culturally associated - exclusively - with insulting a person's actions by comparing them to someone who is disabled with the implication that a disabled person would necessarily act foolishly or irrationally.
I get how calling someone retarded might be considered offensive, but jesuscript specifically said that Stripe was not retarded. How is that offensive? Would you be offended if I said you were not retarded?
> Or do I need to Tasuki that further for you?
Oh please do tasuki that further for me, I'm a simple man and not offended by you suggesting so.
Thanks, didn’t mean to offend, just thought the article could explain it better then I could .
> The problem is that some people don't think well of some specific groups of people and whatever term is being used to refer to the specific group of people quickly becomes a Bad Word.
If a group of individuals actively find a word offensive and ask others not to use it, I think it’s generally kind to respect their request.
Word associations may change over time, and it’s great you have that insight. I don’t have a solution, other than recognizing the words we say invoke feelings in others. We live in the now.
Finding someone whom feels targeted by the word and is open to a conversation can help you understand why the word is harmful.
Is it worse to have some condition of your birth used as a casual insult -- a reminder of the generally accepted disfavor of your condition?
Or is it worse to be constantly patronized, behind your back,
by throngs hell-bent on pretending away that generally accepted disfavor (and even Darwin himself)?
For what it's worth, when I was a kid, I objected to the idea that I was legally compelled to attend public school, I did and do believe it is unconstitutional on a number of grounds and thus I refused to participate. In retaliation they placed me in special education classes and I spent my time in school being called a retard by the other kids on a daily basis. I'm not offended.
Isn't the whole problem with being in a marginalized community that people treat you differently? If people ran around calling you the N word on a daily basis would it be a comfort to you that you aren't actually black?
Even if it were though, it seems obvious being on the receiving of that slur would have significantly less impact on you, as it didn't actually target anything you saw as part of your identity. I don't see how your experience puts you in a position to absolve others for their use of the term.
Personally, I think we should give significantly more weight to folks who are actually in the impacted community (those with intellectual disabilities, their loved ones, etc). The vast majority of whom _do_ object to the use of the word as a derogatory slur.
To be fair at no point have any of the educational experts or administration ever claimed that I am not retarded. It was never retracted I simply left school when I was older. If we trust the experts on this I'm severely handicapped. Who's to say I'm not a retard?
Special education you got is not reserved for those diagnosed with retardation. You did not even said that you was diagnosed with retardation. The other kids who called you retard are not experts in this particular diagnosis.
There is no reason for school or experts to retract that claim, because they never made it. The claim was done by other kids.
> as it didn't actually target anything you saw as part of your identity
The parent comment already covered this. You don't believe you are, based on how you've talked about this experience. At no point do you say you identify with the word, just that it was used against you.
By this logic, wouldn't people the state labeled as felons, who don't believe they are guilty, be unable to speak about discrimination against felons, even though they personally experienced it at both a institutional and societal level?
I get your frustration here, but keep in mind: your use of that word is not harming Stripe any more than alternatives you could use, but it does harm an unrelated and oppressed group.
People who are overweight should not be accused of being similar to corporations that misallocate and overspend (i.e. fat corporation, bloated spending, etc.).
Anemic, impotent, bald, and on and on.
Language is abstract. Some conditions are generally disfavored. Referencing that disfavor abstractly can be meaningful.
Come now. At the root of all of this is an ableist, patronizing assumption: People with mental disabilities must have the language used around them carefully policed because they can't handle the implied disfavor and emotional harm that language may communicate via their own agency, not like the rest of us.
How would you define adult humor? Surely we have some latitude to be a little off color without being straight up racist, (blank)phobic, and vile? We aren’t kids, we have somewhat of a sophisticated ability to be at another level of sarcasm, humor and dark humor.
The problem is how you're using that word. You're using a word that is used to describe actual people in your search for a "vicious" word. Would you feel as comfortable swapping that word out for a different slur targeting a different demographic?
Your anger at Stripe is reasonable, why are you belittling an entirely unrelated set of people in your attempt to express that anger?
Use of terms like “be better” or “do better” arouses far more resistance in people than the original use of slurs. What leads you to believe you’re endowed with moral authority to tell strangers to be better?
This always cracks me up. Handicap, disabled, retard, and on and on. The origins of the latest epithet in vogue are harmless. But as soon as a term gets co-opted as an insult, we all agree to ditch it. And why? From what I can tell it's just to placate, to pretend Darwin doesn't exist. Reminds me of my two favorite quotes from The Office:
"There is one person in charge of every office in America, and that person is Charles Darwin..."
"You don’t call retarded people retards. It’s bad taste. You call your friends retards when they are acting retarded."
Is it worse to have some condition of your birth used as a casual insult -- a reminder of your misfortune? Or is it worse to be constantly patronized, often behind your back by throngs offended on your behalf?
The answer depends on your culture and outlook on life I suppose.
These don't happen because they're fun fashion choices. They happen because people are becoming aware. The dynamics may resemble whimsy, but it's more than aesthetics underlying.
Can we abstractly use the terms "bald," "stupid," "fat," "anemic," or "impotent" abstractly and negatively?
All describe generally disfavored conditions folks don't have much control over. Referencing that disfavor abstractly doesn't bring it into being. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
This isn't about awareness in my opinion. We're pretending status doesn't exist. We're assuming folks with some condition will be offended and won't be able to handle those emotions with their own agency, so we're patronizing them by carefully policing language. That is, in my opinion, as ableist as it gets.
"The origins of the latest epithet in vogue are harmless." The origin of the word is irrelevant. Words mean things and can be harmful, regardless of the origin of the word. The meaning and context of words can change over time, regardless of the origin of the word.
Bringing Charles Darwin into the conversation does not help your point.
"Is it worse to have some condition of your birth used as a casual insult -- a reminder of your misfortune? Or is it worse to be constantly patronized, often behind your back by throngs offended on your behalf?"
This is a false trade-off. The whole conversation started because someone used a harmful word, knowing full well it was harmful. If they refrained from using the offensive word they knew was offensive neither condition would have happened (casual insult or patronization).
Are the terms "bald," "stupid," "fat," "anemic," or "impotent" harmful when used abstractly and negatively?
Come now. At the root of all of this is an ableist, patronizing assumption: People with mental disabilities must have the language used around them carefully policed because they can't handle the implied disfavor and emotional harm that language may communicate via their own agency, not like the rest of us.
Who are you to say to be better? Policing people's language doesn't make you better, it just makes you feel better. Entirely performative just like woke people using "Latinx" when 90% of Hispanic people preferring they didn't[0].
I’m officially an adult, not a young adult, definitely not a kid. I’d be a little careful around kids with that word, and certainly parents with children that may be dealing with it. Kids struggling with a shortcoming and having other kids attack it can be hard.
I like to think we’re not kids here, and some level of off color talk can be somewhat interpreted as humor at best, sardonic, sarcastic, dark humor, and at worst, appropriately inappropriate - as in, we aren’t kids, and I hope you got me.
So for example, let’s not worry that I used the word, because those who are truly retarded are actually retarded enough to not be offended. Imagine if you took what I just literally. Or did I say it to make a point?
What is adult levity, I guess, is my question? What is non pc, non safe for work (within reason) conversation, among adults? Is it a constant “watch what you just said, but I won’t even consider the context of it”.
Adults also know what tact is and what is considered socially appropriate and not. You don't have to be a kid to not be needlessly insulting to a wide swath of people just to show it to a company who isn't going to read or care about what you said.
https://www.verywellfamily.com/what-is-the-r-word-3105651
Your post brings up interesting view points, thanks for sharing.