My ret*d younger brother .

Post Reply New Topic

Well, for the most part.

We have a lot in common with other developmentally disabled people. I don't like the idea that "pure autistics aren't actually intellectually disabled at all"--many of us are; some aren't, some are even gifted. Whatever one's level of intellectual ability, it's common on the spectrum to have delays in adaptive skills, in communication, in general independent-living skills. That's the same exact problem that people with intellectual disabilities face; both autistics and people with IDs have trouble because they don't easily learn all the skills expected of a typical person.

Talking about the "intelligence level" of an autistic person isn't a particularly useful pursuit. Intelligence is such a vague concept to begin with; with autism, it's downright typical to have extreme deficits combined with extreme strengths. How do you classify the intelligence of someone who performs at the 2nd percentile on one thing and the 98th on another? You can't just split the difference and call them average. That's not an average cognitive style and if you expect that person to function at the 50th percentile you'll both fail to support their disability and fail to nurture their talent.

But, yes, some people with ID have autism and some people with autism have ID. Some people on WP have diagnosed intellectual disabilities, though I wish we had more, because they are underrepresented here and we badly need their perspective on things.

There's nothing wrong with having ID, or being ret*d, or whatever you want to call it. It's just a thing that happens sometimes, like autism, like giftedness, like blue eyes. It shouldn't be a source of shame, nor should anybody use it as an insult.

I should really address the original post here, though. The impression I get is that the OP's younger brother is getting the help he needs, because he has this "mental retardation" diagnosis; and that at the same time the OP, with just the autism diagnosis, is considered "too high-functioning" to need any help, and so isn't getting any despite apparently needing it pretty badly.

This happens. A lot. It's like you're trying to cross the gap between what you can do and what the world expects of you; and both you and your brother have gaps that are too wide to jump on your own. Because your brother's gap is wide enough that it's obvious he can't get across on his own, someone has built a bridge for him. But because yours is just slightly beyond your ability, it's not so obvious that you can't cross it on your own, and nobody understands that you need a bridge, too.

This is part of the reason why I hate functioning labels so much. Sure, they could call me "low-functioning" and write me off as having no talents; but if they call me "high-functioning", it's just as bad because with that label comes the assumption that I don't need any help.

being that the well has been poisoned for the R word [which itself was a euphemism for worse words], I propose the substitute term "cognitively disabled" or CD. but I suppose that will eventually become an epithet also, one day. it is a tricky thing, referring to people who have issues. my sister, when I was young [special ed] didn't tell people I was the R word but she did say "he thinks differently."

I use the word ret*d to refer to low intellectual functioning.
No matter what word is used, they all mean the same thing, low intellectual functioning.

About the topic of the thread, you would probably have been better taken care of like your brother if you had been recognized as autistic at a young age.

Yes but the r-word is like the n-word so really isn't supposed to be used in "refined social commentary"

I think if people use ret*d less and the new word becomes prevalent, then the new word will become the slur, like ID will be the new slur.

no matter what euphemism is used, it just dances around the fundamental power imbalance between those of greater cognition and lesser cognition. to point out these differences is the ticklish thing.

If there is no dramatic shift in the majority perception of intellectual disability, I think it's more likely that both terms will become slurs. "Moron" "imbecile" and "idiot" all used to be clinical terms....their status as slurs hasn't changed despite the fact that they are not clinical terms anymore and haven't been for a very long time.

I try to use "intellectual disability" unless I'm quoting someone else (or if I was talking to somebody with ID who preferred the term "ret*d".....I have never met a person with ID who wanted to be called "ret*d" but that doesn't mean they don't exist), because I want to show respect for people and be considerate of their feelings. It doesn't really matter if I say "ret*d" in a way that is non-offensive, and attached to a completely neutral concept devoid of shame -- my intentions and conceptualizations/paradigms are not the only ones that matter, and most people wouldn't even know what my intentions and conceptualizations/paradigms were (especially given that "ret*d" has become an offensive slur, it is possible that my conceptualizations/paradigms of intellectual disability/MR would be misunderstood completely).

I've seen people say, "no offense" (or some variation of it) and then just use the r-word with abandon.....but you can't just say, "no offense" and then realistically expect people to not be offended.....

For one thing, you won't necessarily be believed because saying "no offense" implies you are well-aware of the fact that a term is often offensive and that there are alternative terms that are less offensive or not offensive at all....so to then continue to use the often-offensive term sends a message (intented or not) that the feelings and concerns of others don't matter as much as yours do, or that you don't take their feelings/concerns seriously or don't think their feelings/concerns are important. If you really don't want to offend anybody, then why not just try to use a term that most people won't find offensive? (I would think it would be easier, too, than explaining that you don't mean offense, especially when the explanation goes beyond the words "no offense".)

For another thing, people can have emotional associations and memories associated with words that aren't easily removed or ignored, so even if someone really does believe that you mean no offense when you call them "ret*d" you may still be churning up a lot of painful memories and feelings -- why risk doing that if you don't have to?

It could be argued that you shouldn't have to be responsible for another person's emotional reaction, but that argument only goes so far.....If you knowingly use a term that you are aware is widely regarded as offensive, you have at least partial responsibility for any hurt feelings caused by your use of the term, regardless of how you intend it and regardless of whether or not the term used to be a legitimate/neutral clinical description or diagnosis -- the meaning and use of words is culturally and collectively defined and changes with time, like it or not. You can't go around calling people "imbeciles" and "morons" based on their IQ scores and expect to be absolved of responsibility for any hurt feelings that result from your use of those terms. Calling people "ret*d" is only different in that the shifting-away-from-use-as-a-clinical-term-because-of-popular-use-as-an-insult is more recent.



I see it as a problem that any change in terminology is considered a "euphamism" at all.



Intellectual disability shouldn't be seen as something that needs euphamisms. Defining ID as shameful/embarrassing is part of what causes clinical terms to become derogatory slurs.

I also think that using whatever term is preferred by the person with intellectual disability (assuming their ID is of a level where they are able to communicate a preference) gives power back to them -- or, at least, avoids taking it away. (And in the case of people who aren't capable of communicating a preference, it becomes more an issue of ensuring that the power imbalance isn't harmful to the person with ID.)

...I can barely walk . It takes ages for me to make my way from thiis shelter to the library , for my couple computer hours...Because of my congestive heart failure and my kidney failure , I spend mamy many hours in bed in the shelter plus sometimes they makke me eat dinner in y room , like jail lockdown , and I get endless shiit about my coughing:-( .

Yeah, it is that way. And it's like around the 50% diagnosed with Autism.

Yeah.

I don't think there will be much shift in perception of low intellectual functioning in foreseeable future.
Future generations of children will continue to grow up calling each other the latest slur word.
The more obsession over the words, I worse I find the situation to be.

that will be the case until love for power is eclipsed by power of love, when rather than putting themselves above others, people will instead atone with others instead.

To change perspectives on mental retardation, I think it is best for people to say what they about mental retardation and mentally ret*d people in the open instead of political correctness inhibiting people from saying what they think or using the words that they want to use. Then there can be rational discussion on how to change perspectives and be more accepting of mentally ret*d people. I think the "you are using the wrong words" approach doesn't help, because it just covers up the real issue, and people continue to think the same things or worse about mental retardation while using the "right" words. I don't think it is morally wrong to have prejudice against mentally retardation or mentally ret*d people, because it is possibly a deeply ingrained part of human brains to respond this way through our evolutionary history.

About the topic of the thread, it sucks that the more disabled brother got taken care of and has a good home, while the less disabled brother had much less support. I think parental attention/support needs to spread to less disabled or not disabled siblings instead of focusing too much on more disabled child.

Have you asked him if he wants to see you? You're saying that he is like a 3-4 year old. My son is 2 and although he doesn't have the vocabulary to fully express himself, he could answer such a question. It could be that your brother appreciates your calls but wouldn't be excited enough about a visit to see you die on his doorstep. Or it could mean a whole lot to him and it might be worth some advance planning and extra effort.