Support NeoGAF

[Lucario]

DO NOT SAY: He`s Chinese
Say: He`s a person with chineseism?

doesn't really roll off the tongue

I'm not a cocksucker.

I'm a person who is suffering from cocksuckerism.

 

[Odrion]

I can't wait to see it's replacement become an epithet in it's own right. Such is the ever-moving goalpost of language sensitivity.

you're missing the point.

It's like saying that now "faggot" and "nigger" has been demonized, people have invented new words to use just as frequently.

"intellectually disabled" is the same thing as "being useless." i thought the point of not calling someone a "retard" was to make them more equal to the "average" person and to not single them out. Putting ANY name or phrase will serve this purpose, and once "intellectually disabled" becomes distasteful, then maybe they'll start using "cognitively disabled." Then they'll start getting called "coggys" and that then that will become an offensive word.

hell, i'll coin the term right now and head off that branch of offensiveness. Ya'll are a bunch of coggies up in here!

The point is that saying retard stupid or dumb "only reinforces painful stereotypes of people with intellectual disabilities being less valued members of humanity."

also I think cognitively disabled is a different definition, referring more to symptoms that were caused my physical damage that has occurred to the brain.

 

[windowlurker]

"Disabled" is also a bad word.

Kids just get by, by saying "you got the downs".

 

[Count Dookkake]

you're missing the point.

It's like saying that now "faggot" and "nigger" is banned, people have invented new words to use just as frequently.

No, you're missing the point.

Among people of normal intelligence, being seen a less than normal is not a good thing. This is because it really isn't a good thing in that it actually places limits on one's potential. Not because of prejudice, like in your examples, but because of reality.

This is why "retard," or it's replacement, will always exist and be of use. This is not so with your examples.

 

[Odrion]

No, you're missing the point.

Among people of normal intelligence, being seen a less than normal is not a good thing. This is because it really isn't a good thing in that it actually places limits on one's potential. Not because of prejudice, like in your examples, but because of reality.

This is why "retard," or it's replacement, will always exist and be of use. This is not so with your examples.

Once again.

this campaign is to spread awareness and to advocate people to ban it from their own personal use, calling it the "r-word" is their way of pushing the idea that insulting and demeaning people suffering from mental disabilities makes you a shithead. It seems like what Obama did was some empty gesture to please liberals.

So I don't know what the opposition is angry about. If the word "retard" gets replaced with another word, it's a failure of the campaign. Their point is to remove harassment through enlightening people, and discouraging the use of the word "retard" is their way of getting it across to people. It's like along with removing "faggot" out of our lexicon, we have discouraged the idea of homosexuals being a punchline or making fun of effeminate things by saying that they're "gay."

if someone decided to think "Well, instead of saying "retard" I'm going to say "stupid" to describe the price of gasses!", then they missed the entire point.

unless you're implying it's okay to say retard because retarded people are weaker minded and we need to say the word to constantly remind ourselves that retards are more inferior

 

[Count Dookkake]

Yeah, that cut-and-paste job is entirely irrelevant to my post.

You're still missing the point.

The r-word is not analogous to the n-word or the f-word, because it actually has use.









EDIT- The post is still irrelevant, even after your edit. Pro-tip: it's easier to understand my posts if you just read them, in total and in context.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Yeah, I'm sorry, but putting "retard" on the same level as "nigger" or "faggot" just doesn't hold water. It's not a negative thing to be gay, or black, but it IS and pretty much always will be a negative thing to be mentally retarded. Thus, any word that you use for a mentally retarded person will always take on negative connotations and become a generally used word. "Mentally retarded" is a more specific term than "intellectually disabled," which could refer to a number of conditions other than retardation, and shortening that to "retarded" or "retard" is just the natural course that most language tends to take.

 

[Archer]

I thought the "r" word was rape.

Guess I'm out of touch.

 

[Odrion]

Yeah, that cut-and-paste job is entirely irrelevant to my post.

You're still missing the point.

The r-word is not analogous to the n-word or the f-word, because it actually has use.









EDIT- The post is still irrelevant, even after your edit. Pro-tip: it's easier to understand my posts if you just read them, in total and in context.

Yeah, I'm sorry, but putting "retard" on the same level as "nigger" or "faggot" just doesn't hold water. It's not a negative thing to be gay, or black, but it IS and pretty much always will be a negative thing to be mentally retarded. Thus, any word that you use for a mentally retarded person will always take on negative connotations and become a generally used word. "Mentally retarded" is a more specific term than "intellectually disabled," which could refer to a number of conditions other than retardation, and shortening that to "retarded" or "retard" is just the natural course that most language tends to take.

So your saying because you think our society looks at people with mental disabilities as a negative thing, any word to describe them will be negative?

 

[Count Dookkake]

So your saying because our society looks at people with mental disabilities as a negative thing, any word to describe them will be negative?

I'm saying that most people would rather be smart than not, so that any term related to a diminished mental capacity will eventually be used to insult a "normal" person when they do something retarded, er, idiotic, er, cretinous, er...

 

[Verelios]

This is getting way too overblown. It's just a word, that has very explicit connotations that have nothing to do with mental inhibition.

Instead of trying to erase a part of standard language, why don't we try to change the context in its use? I mean, I could say I don't like the word ugly. It's a horrible word~ blah, blah, blah; but it also has its functions no?

Such as, in an aesthetic sense, when one thing is ugly/unslightly it could actually be attractive.

 

[Odrion]

I'm saying that most people would rather be smart than not, so that any term related to a diminished mental capacity will eventually be used to insult a "normal" person when they do something retarded, er, idiotic, er, cretinous, er...

But the point of the campaign is to change that mindset of "having a mental handicap is a negative thing."

 

[Count Dookkake]

But the point of the campaign is to change that mindset of "having a mental handicap is a negative thing." Just like how we stopped using "faggot" once we realized being gay wasn't some psychotic illness or how your level of whiteness wasn't an indicator of how you are in society.

If a mental handicap is not a negative, then I guess we don't need stuff like motorcycle helmets.

The point of the campaign is to alter reality. This will not work.

And, again your analogy the use of the "n-word" or the "f-word" is completely broken.

 

[Mumei]

So you're telling me I succeeded then?

... Depends on what you're thinking? If it has anything to do with winning me over to your position, though:

No.

The only point in what? Whether or not someone -should- be offended? Or whether or not someone -will- be offended? If you are arguing the first, that's subjective - if you're arguing the second, you're being unreasonable.

If someone hears faggot, with or without context - many will be very offended, and I wouldn't blame them. I would just not not use the word faggot - sooooo much easier than supplying a context to not offend.

I don't even care about being offended. It doesn't offend me when I hear it. It does make me feel anxious and potentially unsafe, because I don't know for sure what someone means when they say that.

I agree that they have a right to be offended. But I'm saying they're only offended because homophobes have used that word to offend them. What I want is to dilute all of the homophobia in the term so that homophobes will not be able to use it effectively.

That's contrary to the way that you propose using it.

Using fag / faggot as an insult does absolutely nothing to dilute the homophobia in the term. Even when using it towards people who either cannot be gay men (e.g. Bachmann) or towards people who you know aren't gay, the reason the word holds any power as an insult is because of that association. Words don't actually exist in tight little discrete boxes, and even though you're using it in a different way and it means something different (e.g. stupid / lame) in that context, ultimately its power as an insult is derived from its earlier meaning and you can't fully separate the two when they are being used contemporaneously.

I don't really have a problem with people using slurs in a reclamatory sense, when used by in-group members and honorary in-group members; that's different than what I think you're talking about. But even that is something that I think should be specific to within circles of friends who understand that is the intended meaning. Saying that the guy who caused you to miss your light is a fag doesn't fit that.

 

[gutterboy44]

For those saying that it's silly to be offended: Have you raised a retarded child or otherwise been very close to one?

I don't think anyone has the right to say what words can be used, but I do think it is insensitive to people who are less fortunate to say that they are silly to be offended.

Have you ever raised or been around a kid who is fat, stupid, poor, disfigured, abnormal, deaf, blind, tall, short, etc, etc? People are shit heads to others outside of the accusation or ridicule of being retarded. Somehow making the distinction that calling someone retarded deserves unique treatment is moronic.

Using derogatory terms is always going to make you look daft, the level it does is dependent on the word and the context.

 

[SuperBonk]

... Depends on what you're thinking? If it has anything to do with winning me over to your position, though:

No.



I don't even care about being offended. It doesn't offend me when I hear it. It does make me feel anxious and potentially unsafe, because I don't know for sure what someone means when they say that.



That's contrary to the way that you propose using it.

Using fag / faggot as an insult does absolutely nothing to dilute the homophobia in the term. Even when using it towards people who either cannot be gay men (e.g. Bachmann) or towards people who you know aren't gay, the reason the word holds any power as an insult is because of that association. Words don't actually exist in tight little discrete boxes, and even though you're using it in a different way and it means something different (e.g. stupid / lame) in that context, ultimately its power as an insult is derived from its earlier meaning and you can't fully separate the two when they are being used contemporaneously.

I don't really have a problem with people using slurs in a reclamatory sense, when used by in-group members and honorary in-group members; that's different than what I think you're talking about. But even that is something that I think should be specific to within circles of friends who understand that is the intended meaning. Saying that the guy who caused you to miss your light is a fag doesn't fit that.

I meant "succeeded" as in have I succeeded in using faggot in a non-homophobic context? Regardless, I wasn't really being serious.

What you say is really the crux of the issue though. Does faggot still being used as an insult mean it will never lose its homophobic connotation? I'm not so sure I agree, but I respect your argument.

The "reclaiming" of the word is a very interesting situation, and I think it's a complex enough issue that I don't really know how I feel about it.

 

[Dead Man]

But the point of the campaign is to change that mindset of "having a mental handicap is a negative thing."

But it is. It makes you unable to to perform operations that non impaired people can. That is just the way it is. It does not mean someone is worthless, or cannot have a great life and wonderful experiences, but it is objectively a negative state. It is only defined by being less than some other condition.

I meant "succeeded" as in have I succeeded in using faggot in a non-homophobic context? Regardless, I wasn't really being serious.

What you say is really the crux of the issue though. Does faggot still being used as an insult mean it will never lose its homophobic connotation? I'm not so sure I agree, but I respect your argument.

The "reclaiming" of the word is a very interesting situation, and I think it's a complex enough issue that I don't really know how I feel about it.

Why is 'faggot' an insult? Any answer will come back to it being an insult to be associated with gayness.

 

[Slavik81]

So your saying because you think our society looks at people with mental disabilities as a negative thing, any word to describe them will be negative?

I think you really need to seperate the condition from the person. It's not the people who are looked at negatively. It is the condition that afflicts them which is negative.

I would rather that nobody suffered from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, for instance. That's the leading cause of mental retardation in the western world, and it's completely preventable. We should continue to take active steps to help educate potential mothers and prevent it. The people born with FAS are good people and they still live worthwhile lives, but they shouldn't have to suffer from the problems they face.

There are other issues with how people treat the disabled, but I don't think the tack you're taking here really gets at those.