You know, I don’t see the problem here. Though the language is currently problematic, it’s a valid message.
I disagree with the language being problematic, since the dictionary definition of “retard” is literally to be held back or to hold back. Persons who are mentally held back are by definition being mentally retarded. It’s a valid clinical term.
It really is a shame that “retarded” became a word of disparagement and slang for those who are stupid. A word which is widely regarded as insulting more than anything else.
The other thing that saddens me is that while we have associations for people who are clearly and significantly mentally handicapped, when it comes to simple mental health for everyone else, it’s often regarded as a sign of weakness. Any attempt to seek help for any mental issues is generally looked down upon. There’s a large number of people who not only would benefit from mental health services but need them to lead fulfilling lives. So many people struggle with disorders that aren’t as obvious and have no facilities to seek help or even a diagnosis to understand themselves; at least not without significant personal resources at their disposal, which most lack.
That whole side of humanity generally just needs a small push to get to their potential, and they are often denied a chance to get that push. Either from economic barriers, or social stigma, or other reasons. We actively harm the potential of the race, in my opinion, by allowing those people to continue to struggle with disorders they don’t understand that may be able to be solved with a fairly simple prescription, or changes in their behaviors.
Given how massive this issue is and how easily it could be solved (by providing very basic mental health services to everyone who needs them), I’m continually disappointed in humanity as a whole that this is allowed to continue. This message, no matter what Barbara might say, or want to have happen with this message, it is one that should be repeated, perhaps with more modern terms, and such institutions as what is promoted here, should be maintained. There’s no shame in needing help; regardless if you are someone with a mental disorder, or full mental disability, those services should be made available.
Though the language is currently problematic, it’s a valid message.
Back in the 80s, many people lamented how the word gay had been “ruined” for them.
From that time, there was a sketch by Toronto’s comedy troupe The Kids In The Hall of a little old lady lamenting how the word f-gg#t had been ruined for her. Back in her day, a f-gg#t was a bundle of dry sticks, “on cold winter nights we’d huddle by the fireplace and we’d throw another f-gg#t in the fire”, she says with a sigh.
Then she goes on to say how she used to like fisting - calls it a needlepoint technique - until her friends told her what that word meant now.
She speculates that the word rambler might now mean something filthy, too. All those lovely old words, now tucked away, can’t use them anymore.EDIT: I am using a certain word in historical context here, got censored, so I edited it to see if it now flies under the bots’ radar.
As far as it becoming a word of disparagement and slang for those who are stupid - thats basically what constantly happens. A new word comes out and eventually it is used to insult people and then another new word starts being used.
For an example:
“Autism” seems to be the new accepted term to bastardize into a pejorative, but we haven’t reached the point where the scientific community has to abandon it yet.
It really is a shame that “retarded” became a word of disparagement and slang for those who are stupid. A word which is widely regarded as insulting more than anything else.
“Moron” was literally something doctors used to describe certain patients once too. Any clinical term used to describe someone of low intelligence (putting aside the difficulties in making that determination in any universal sense) will inevitably be used as a pejorative/insult. It can’t be stopped.
Yep. In the 90s when I grew up, the politically correct term was “mentally challenged”, which eventually started being used as an insult. The current term is “special needs” and already I’ve seen it used as an insult.
The word, Autistic, is just beginning this journey. I’ve seen people use that as an insult, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it is considered antiquated and insulting by the time I am old.
The current term is “intellectual disability” and has been since the DSM-V was published in 2013.
Special was also being used as an insult in the 90s…
Same with “simpleton”, “idiot”, “feeble-minded”, and “imbecile”. It really is fascinating how language evolves.
The semantic treadmill can’t be stopped.
I agree 100%, if I may add: Society has also little place for “stupid” people. I mean people with a smaller IQ but who are not special needs. I have a friends who really, with all the best of support, is just not smart. Who has barely managed to finish school and couldn’t understand stuff in their vocational training (I live in Germany, that’s the typical route to go). She is working in a cafeteria now, serving food. She has this job for years and years now, she’s well adapted there. It’s not a special needs job, it is just the kind of job you get if you don’t have a (vocational) degree to show for.
And there is no actual problem with that. She has friends and a husband and a fulfilling life. She’s happy. She does her job well. You can argue that school has failed her but the truth is no matter what you do, she’d never become a lawyer or an accountant. That’s just not in the cards for her. And that’s ok. But what’s not is that she is struggling with money. Because this is where society fails her. Assuming that you can always do better, have a “higher” job, if you just try hard enough. Like, no. We all have limitations. I couldn’t be a doctor because I faint when someone tells me about injuries. That’s ok, too. She won’t have a career or manage the canteen, she’s content, she doesn’t want that either, but she will probably have to work until she dies because her retirement won’t be enough. This isn’t fair.
I’ve seen this with tutoring school children too. Some kids just won’t make it to university and some won’t even finish school. Or they will but that’s just it then. And the sad part is not that they won’t have an amazing education but that despite holding down a job they will just never be able to make it to a point in which they will not struggle financially.
I agree, there will always be differences in intellectual capacity. It’s not a problem as people are needed of every capacity for every type of job to do the work. There’s nothing wrong with someone being of low IQ and taking a job they’re capable of fully grasping. Often, I find that people in positions that suit them often do better at those jobs than people ill suited to their position.
For me it’s really not about how smart you are or what you’re intellectually capable of, it’s about how well you do at the job you have. Knowing the nuances of that position and how to handle situations in the context of the job, which makes you a valuable member of society.
It is shameful that people of low IQ are used as an offending stereotype for society as a whole. Low IQ doesn’t mean anything in the grand scheme of things; especially when taken in context with someone’s utility to society. Some of the most important and helpful people are those with limited intellectual capacity, or holding jobs well suited to people with limited IQ. As an extreme example, say someone who is low IQ works on a farm growing food. That farmer does a good job because they’re all suited to the kind of work they do. This allows more intellectually capable people pursue advancements that can benefit everyone including the farmer. Whether designing vehicles or electronics/computers, or even keeping complex systems running… Everyone is important. People of all IQs and walks of life and everything.
I would argue that people of low IQ are the bedrock of modern society. The people who handle the day to day service needs of the general population. They provide, and maintain the framework in which we all live. Without them, or someone to do those jobs, I believe that society would collapse.
Of course, I continue to believe that everyone of all walks of life should continue to make efforts to improve upon themselves; gain more knowledge and “move up in the world” as they are capable… But no matter what, we still need people who will grow, cook and serve food. We still need people to stock shelves and drive trucks. We still need people to do so much of the work that makes our lives possible at all. Not everyone can be an Einstein. While the notable inventors and thinkers get their names in history books, that progress is built on the backs of hundreds or thousands of “menial labor” workers that helped get us to the point where people of high IQ can spend their lives working on these problems and finding solutions the rest of us couldn’t possibly have thought of.
We’re all a part of the society in which we live, if we’re doing our best to contribute to that society and provide meaningful progress to future generations, then everyone is important. Not just those with fame and notoriety in the history books.
The way I see it is if a word causes harm to people who mean no harm themselves, then we don’t need to use that word in any contexts other than historical. Just like how the use of the words ******, and ******, and my goodness even the word ********* have fallen out of use, rightfully so.
For me, offense is in the listeners mind. Words are simply words. Taking offense to such things is a personal choice. You can choose to be offended or not.
I don’t mean to imply that the victims of bullying or racism or whatever are to blame for their own offense, certainly the words being used as insults is entirely the fault of those that use them in that manner, but it does require that the terms are taken in that same context - as an insult. One term that I feel has had this treatment and been almost turned around by society is the word “gay”. It’s fallen so far out of fashion to use “gay” as a form of insult that in general use, calling someone “gay” isn’t really all that insulting. It’s more offensive to try to use that as an insult than it is precieved as an insult to the listener. Anyone trying to offend with that word is usually seen as someone who is ignorant at best. I have been the victim of bullying in my youth and I have been called gay on several occasions. I am not gay, nor any other classification of LGBTQ+; I support equal rights for everyone including and especially the LGBTQ+ community members. I’m great described as an ally of the group.
The fact is, several previously offensive terms in this same vein, have been taken back by the communities that were one offended at the use. Sometimes the term becomes endearing more than any kind of offensive. Among the African community we see this with “the N word”. Though that’s an internal community use, and not more generalized like gay has become.
I don’t think that my opinions on whether words are or should be offensive changes anything; I have no issues avoiding these problematic words to benefit my fellow humans, and make them more comfortable in what I’m trying to say. Avoiding even the implication that I’m being offensive in my terminology. I feel that restricting my use (or rather eliminating it) of certain words to benefit others, is a small price to pay to help my fellow humans. So small in fact that it goes almost completely unnoticed; and that’s fine. I don’t need nor want recognition for anything I’m doing for the benefit of others. I feel as though it’s my duty to ensure that I am correctly understood, and that no offense is taken when no offense is intended; furthermore, I never intend offense, since there’s never a good enough reason to simply disparage people whom I don’t know, and usually good reasons not to disparage people I know. So to me, even the risk of someone taking offense at something I say is far too much of a risk for me to even say the words that they will find offensive.
“So unto others as you would have them do unto you” - one of the few things I live by. I wish to be treated with respect and dignity, so I will treat others with the respect and dignity I hope that they will give me. Though this statement is most frequently referenced by religion, specifically Christian religions, I am not religious, but the statement is nevertheless valid and something I try to adhere to.
The main factor that saddens me is that my friends and fellow humans allow their emotions to be dictated by the use of these offensive terms by ignorant and uncaring people. The most important thing to me of everything I’ve said is the underlying implication that by getting angry at the use of a word by someone who doesn’t respect you enough to avoid it, gives them control over you and your emotions. The anger is justified, and I’m not going to say, nor imply its wrong to be upset, your feelings are valid; but giving someone else control over you for using a word? It seems like you’re giving bigots and assholes far too much power. They don’t deserve it and they certainly don’t deserve your attention, or time… And they certainly don’t deserve to have any control over you at all. You deserve better than that from them, and from yourself.
But, far be it for me to tell anyone how to think or how to live. I will do my best out here, and I hope that makes a difference to those around me. I hope that others do the same and collectively, we can eliminate such offense towards individuals at the mere utterance of such words, and they’ll fall from favor as “gay” already has done.
I love all of you, no matter what you believe, who you are, or any other factor that might divide us. I wish you all the very best and all the happiness in the world.
For me, offense is in the listeners mind. Words are simply words. Taking offense to such things is a personal choice. You can choose to be offended or not.
So the N-word is not offensive? Do you use it freely?
No. Obviously, as I stated later in my post, I refrain from using words that are taken as offensive in an effort to make my fellow humans more comfortable. I personally don’t have any issue with any word. I refuse to allow someone to have that much control over my emotional state by using a word.
I don’t understand why anyone would want to give someone else control over their person simply because they’re an ignorant bigot who has no issue using such a word in an offensive way.
I do my best to give all of my fellow people (friends, co-workers and even strangers) respect. At least enough respect not to stoop to simple character attacks using historically demeaning language. If I have a problem with someone, that shouldn’t imply that they are somehow less than me, they are simply the center point of the issue I’m having, and I shouldn’t resort to trying to insult them based on something as trivial as their race, culture, religion, creed, or anything else that’s so generalized.
It reminds me of the xkcd comic about double standards: in the first pane it shows two people, presumably men, both standing at a blackboard or similar doing math, and the first is saying to the second “wow, you suck at math”. In the second pane, it’s presumably a man and a woman in the exact same scenario, but in this case, the man is saying to the woman “wow, women suck at math”.
The difference is clear: in the first scenario, they’re addressing the individual, in the second, they’re referring to an entire group based on a single characteristic of that individual. That kind of broad generalization of an individual based on a single factor, whether it is race, gender, religion, etc… Is the core of the issue for me. If I have an issue with someone, or even multiple someone’s of a particular race, gender, class, etc… I make active efforts to not make judgements of all people of that particular race/gender/whatever, based on this small sample.
I’ve had friends of various races, gender identities, religions, etc, who are very rational, intelligent, good natured, etc. I’ve also known people of pretty much every class, gender, race, religion, etc, who are utterly infuriating or annoying to no end for various reasons. For me, it’s not a reflection on that race/gender/whatever, but rather a reflection on that individual. While they may be a particular gender, race, religion, etc… They do not represent every person who is in that race/religion/gender/etc. I’ve noticed there are trends in behavior among people of similar cultures… Where a culture is usually consisting of people with similar race, National origin, religion, etc, but those trends do not and cannot inform my judgement of a person. Many races, religions, etc, belong to multiple cultures, and there are many examples of people from every culture that do not have the same ideologies, religion, or even personality traits, of their root culture, so again, this does not and cannot inform my thoughts about any one individual.
While similarities exist between people of similar or the same culture, each individual is, and must be, treated as an individual because every other system of determining the treatment of an individual, either socially or personally, is incomplete at best, and wildly inaccurate at worst.
Bringing it back to the point. I have no personal issue with any word that may or may not be considered offensive, either to me or others. Taking offense is an entirely personal matter wholly existing in the mind of the listener. As a matter of respect for my fellow person, I refrain from uttering such words that may cause unintentional offense to people as a matter of respect for those people. Furthermore, I respect all individuals I interact with at least enough to not desire to cause offense, especially regarding traits they cannot otherwise change, such as national heritage, race, gender, etc.
I would not personally have any issues using words that are currently considered offensive, if the groups that could be offended by those words were to stand up and say that the word will not be taken offensively.
The N-word specifically, appears to have it’s etymology rooted in Spanish, where the word for the color black is literally “Negro”. I feel that the word is a bastardized anglo mishearing of Negro, by slave owners, back when that was a thing; and as such, it has become inexorably tied to the concept of owning people, meanwhile the dictionary defines the N-word as literally a dark-skinned person (and correctly notes that it is a contemptuous term for such a person).
Words change meaning over time, as I’m sure the N-word first appeared in the dictionary as a dark skinned slave or something equally dehumanizing. The term has already evolved to simply be a dark-skinned person (contemptuous), and may evolve further to any number of potential future definitions.
If such a time arises that the word is no longer seen as offensive to the dark-skinned community, regardless of the speaker, then I would have no problem using the term in whatever context is appropriate for the new definition. If that context is that it should never be used, as it is now, then I will never use it. Full stop.
I have to much respect for people of all races, to use terms which would demean any race.
I still don’t have a problem with it personally. I am also not a dark-skinned person. I maintain that my fellow humans should not allow the utterance of such a word to have any sway on their emotions. Don’t give someone else control over you because they don’t respect you enough that they’ll use such offensive words. Don’t give them that control. They’re worthless humans.
I would not personally have any issues using words that are currently considered offensive, if the groups that could be offended by those words were to stand up and say that the word will not be taken offensively.
Sorry… you want the intellectually disabled to explain why something you say upsets them?
You do understand the concept of intellectual disability, right?
Of course I do. These statements are more broadly applicable. Specifically in the context of that reply, I was being asked about the “N-word”.
Additionally, it’s rather judgemental of you to assume that the intellectually disabled are incapable of enough comprehension that they can understand when something has offended them.
People who fit the description of intellectual disability are wildly varied in what constitutes their disability. Sure, some of them are nonverbal, some may be in a borderline vegetative state. Those are extremes and shouldn’t imply that all people with intellectual disabilities are incapable of understanding or verbalizing their feelings.
Bluntly, if someone is so intellectually disabled that they are unable to express, in some way, shape, or form, that a statement has either offended them, or that a statement does not offend them, then I would argue that the probability that they understand the potentially offensive statement well enough to have an opinion on it, is extremely remote. Thus, their opinion, which cannot be ascertained either way, is not relevant to the discussion.
What’s amazing to me is that you seem to be trying so very hard to find flaws in my argument and get me upset or something, and yet, even as I’m writing this, and recognizing that your statements are most likely just an attempt to troll me… I am stoic and entirely calm.
Think what you will of me. I could not possibly care any less than I already do. This entire discussion has been cathartic. I rarely get to voice my opinions on such things, since those that know me already know what my opinions are on this topic; most of the general population won’t sit and listen to a reasonable argument or have a productive discussion on such “hot button” topics.
So I want to say thank you for the discussion. I truly appreciate the opportunity to re-examine the issue. So far, I have heard no compelling argument to change my outlook or opinion on this issue, and I sincerely hope that at some point someone will read this and realize that they’re giving someone power over them with words, and change how they see such offensive language. If even one person has that moment of realization, then all the effort and time I’ve spent talking about this, has been time well spent.
I hope you, and everyone who reads this, now or in the future, have a very pleasant day.
Additionally, it’s rather judgemental of you to assume that the intellectually disabled are incapable of enough comprehension that they can understand when something has offended them.
I’m not assuming that at all. You’re assuming the ones who are capable enough haven’t stood up and said to stop using that word.
They have.
https://www.specialolympics.org/stories/impact/why-the-r-word-is-the-r-slur
https://www.spreadtheword.global/resource-archive/r-word-faq
Well, we know where you stopped reading.
Do we now?
Is that the woman with the house that nobody’s supposed to see?
You mean this 2002 Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, California Coastal Records Project, photograph that she attempted to suppress in 2003?
Is that the photograph you were referring to? Then yes, you’re absolutely not supposed to see this.
I’m gonna save this picture just in case I want not to see it later.
You know what, I get that has a pretty view and all but I’ve seen too many clifs breaking and the house on top falling over. No thanks.
In line with the wishes of Madam Streisand I have looked at everything in this picture except for the center, which is where I assume the house to be. One of you (Only one of you) may look at the house without disturbing the net number of time sthis house has been seen.
She has a fake shopping mall in her basement. Seriously. That is far weirder than any photo of the outside of her house.
https://www.businessinsider.com/photos-barbra-streisand-tiny-shopping-mall-basement-malibu-2023-11
I believe she is, yes.
Do you think she’ll sue to have this one taken down too, inadvertently raising awareness of the increasing rate of children are born with special needs?
It’s been 20 years since that one incident, but maybe
- Invent a new name for an undesirable condition
- People start using this name as an insult
- Get offended that an insult is used to refer to people with said condition
- Go back to 1
Euphemism treadmill
In the UK people of a certain age remember Joey being an insult.
This is because Blue Peter, a popular kids show, had a segment on a heavily disabled man called Joey Deacon. Between him and his friends at the care home, they had written a small book, at a few words a day. This, they thought, would endear the disabled to the nation’s children, who would see that just because somebody cannot speak or move, they could still achieve something.
The next day, every playground was awash with kids calling each other Joey and grunting at each other.
Blue Peter really did not know us at all.
Except it is not said condition. Because the condition was a misdiagnosis.
“Hysteria” was once a diagnosis for overly-emotional women. It was a misdiagnosis too. And now calling people hysterical is often viewed by those people as offensive. Even if they are being overly-emotional.
You’ll need to elaborate a little, I get how hysteria is made up bullshit, but some people are developmentally delayed, and what’s another word for delayed?
I’m still not getting it. Are you saying intellectual disabilities, formerly known as mental retardation, were previously frequently misdiagnosed? I can’t imagine that’s what you’re suggesting because I don’t see how that makes sense here. I’m confused. Halp.
Give up, he’s just not getting any of it.
The diagnosis today of “mental retardation” is a misdiagnosis because it is no longer an accepted medical term.
Yes. But at the time it was on the euphemism treadmill, it was. And that’s the point being made.
Yes, and ‘hysteria’ was once a diagnosis too. That was not the point that was made. The point was that it is somehow still a valid one today, just not a valid term. It is not a valid diagnosis. It’s not just about word choice.
-
Invent a new name for an undesirable condition
-
People start using this name as an insult
-
Get offended that an insult is used to refer to people with said condition
-
Go back to 1
-
Language changes, Barbra though she never changes and I read the quote in her voice.
I’m sorry, I did not mean to inflict that upon you.
Is this real?
I’m sure the ad is real, although I don’t know it for a fact. It is still a real organization, though the name changed 30ish years ago. It was between 10 and 15 years ago that Obama signed Rosa’s law, changing the words in federal law to “mental disability” or “an individual with an intellectual disability”.
Remember, there was a time when that wasn’t a pejorative term. It was a diagnosis. The way people used the word to “other” those with disabilities is what made it pejorative. Prior to that it was a neutral term.
A lot of terms used to make fun of intelligence used to be a diagnosis, like idiot and imbecile. That’s really neither here nor there, but I find it interesting how mental medical diagnoses become insults but physical ones don’t. I’ve never had someone yell “you play baseball like a paraplegic!” at me.
Edit: I was wrong and have been corrected. See below.
I think “cripple” is considered pejorative, though I don’t know if it was ever a medical term.
Spazz is a pejorative term derived from spasticity.
Also a great band if you’re into powerviolence.
I am and you are correct.
I didn’t know that!
Lame.
Shit, that’s another one I forgot about. And the delivery was well played.
This has been up 6 hours and some lemming hasn’t shouted “REEEEE ABLEIST SLURRRRR!” from the rooftops? Color me surprised.
Ok, now climb down from that rooftop before you fall or something
Oof.
I just looked up the history of ARC (previously NARC). It started in the 30’s when Retarded was the medical term for intellectual disability. Now that Retarded is a pejorative they changed their name to ARC (no longer an acronym) in the 90’s.
Looks pretty heinous today but when this ran it was probably an acceptable use of the word.
I can’t speak to the text of the PSA though, I got lost in the Wiki rabbit hole trying to figure that out.
Retardation is a technical term as well. An engine retarder is one that slows the compression to ease the performance. I don’t think it was intended to be malicious, but it ended up that way.
Yeah for sure. Retard is fine in a lot of instances but using it as an insult to refer to people is the pajorative, and it makes sense that an organization catering to intellectual disabilities would want to distance themselves. Isn’t language fun. I am still reeling from the new slang the kids invented.
There’s tv ads as well. https://www.barbra-archives.info/narc-1970-1974
I’m 90% sure I am. At least that’s what people keep telling me.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
This is why we have voluntary abortion.
What’s your problem with Barbara Streisand?
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/b4s3hh/it_didnt_kill_them_barbra_streisand_apologises/
Barbara should have been aborted.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Fauxmoi/comments/zk34zt/in_raskreddits_what_famous_person_needs_to_be/
Cherry on top:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
Barbara’s “rebuttal” in that article is worth a look at.
Yes, only voluntary abortion can prevent Barbara Streisand
Musks parents knows this feeling.
Using characteristics of a person as an insult is embarrassing and you should feel ashamed.
Yeah you shouldn’t make fun of people with mental disabilities by comparing them to Musk, they’re way better people than he could ever be.
That’s very unwoke.
