Why do you find the word "ret*d" offensive?

Page 4 of 8 [ 115 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

29 Dec 2012, 12:53 am

btbnnyr wrote:

Now that idiot, imbecile, moron, and ret*d/retardate have all become outdated clinical terms, what is going to be the insult that is going to made from the new term "intellectual disability"?

It's most likely too long to be made into a viable insult. It has to be something that can be short and snappy, and bellowed on a playground very quickly.

PseudointellectualHorse
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 1 Nov 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 188
Location: Pasadena, California

29 Dec 2012, 1:33 am

Verdandi wrote:

PseudointellectualHorse wrote:

]Seems to me that anyone who claims to be offended by this sort of thing is just posturing, and our modern hypersensitivity is unnatural and unrealistic and counterproductive. We're just putting social pressure on ourselves to stifle normal human expression.

So verbal abuse is normal human expression? Then I am grateful that I do not qualify for your definition of "normal human."

And why do you think that it is just posturing and not genuine? That's a really bizarre motive to attribute to people, the assumption that everyone who expresses a certain opinion is just being dishonest.

You're slipping in a premise of "verbal abuse". Obviously I don't regard this as inherently verbal abuse; that depends upon the details of the context.

If you look at the YouTube example I posted and you don't find it offensive, and wouldn't consider it appropriate that a screening of the movie be cancelled based upon that clip being regarded as offensive...then you're generally in agreement with my conclusion, although you'd articulate it differently. If you find the clip offensive and agree with the cancellation, then we have different outlooks, and that's probably all there is to say.

mackico
Tufted Titmouse

Joined: 16 Nov 2012
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 49

29 Dec 2012, 2:10 am

My NT brother calls me ret*d all the time.

He did it for years before I got diagnosed, too.

Some people are ret*d. They have actual mental and physical retardation. It can be a correct term. I don't mind if it's being used accurately, mostly because I hate all the euphemisms that they have for it these days. I hate euphemisms. But if you have an IQ above 70 and your growth is not delayed, then you are not ret*d.

I have an IQ of 125. I am not ret*d. But because of my brother, who does actually verbally abuse me on a daily basis, I constantly wonder whether I am actually stupid or not. I certainly feel stupid. I don't like the word when it's used to describe people with autism, because we aren't idiots.

AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

29 Dec 2012, 6:25 am

Because I am not ret*d and also just because people are autistic doesnt always mean they are ret*d! Its used as an insult and it pisses me off!

_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList

IChris
Snowy Owl

Joined: 15 Dec 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 138
Location: Norway

29 Dec 2012, 6:46 am

Verdandi wrote:

IChris wrote:

I do not find it so easy; the way a human use words may be hard to generalize without a bongo-bongoism. To inquire into the use of words may reveal much more than pragmatic features, and it may even reveal a NT tendency rather than a human tendency. I can not say, but I find the tendencies interesting and I do not believe that my future research would agree upon a generalization of this.

It's not an NT tendency. I have observed many autistic people online doing this. I know there's a tendency here to characterize things individuals do not do as NT, but it is not always the case that it is an "NT" thing vs. an "autistic." Most of these offensive words that apply to me do not actually prompt an emotional reaction, beyond the sense that using them as insults is inappropriate. On this forum, such insults are actually a violation of the forum rules. The ability to care about these things is not strictly an NT thing - if anything, it seems to me many NTs say exactly the same things that many autistic people posted in this thread in order to justify their use of such insults.

I will also go ahead and say that just because something actually is the sort of thing an NT is more likely to come up with, this does not make it bad or wrong or to be avoided. Often, they're not bad ideas at all. Sometimes they are, but the same is true of us.

The use of words is a result of the culture, and in many cases the culture is the result of a democratic process meaning the autistics are in minor. That is the surfaceissues. Then one have the cultures structures; like language structures in example, which also has much to say about the culture in itself, and on this level more than the pragmatic features of language may have a big impact.

As 'field independent' also all kinds of words are independent and not attached any specific meaning other than its etymology to me. Of that reason words like ret*d, insane, feeble-minded, disabled etc. stand still in their etymological and historical clothes and not in their cultural clothes for me. If the case is that I use a word in its cultural clothes it is a result of my own judgment of the word to best fit the cultural clothes, which happens for some words where it for others do not happens; my field independence allow me to meet each word with my own original experience and judgment.

Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

29 Dec 2012, 7:42 am

Verdandi wrote:

btbnnyr wrote:

Now that idiot, imbecile, moron, and ret*d/retardate have all become outdated clinical terms, what is going to be the insult that is going to made from the new term "intellectual disability"?

It's most likely too long to be made into a viable insult. It has to be something that can be short and snappy, and bellowed on a playground very quickly.

My prediction is that it will be shortened to its' initials as an insult. Kids will yell, "You are so I. D."

Janissy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 May 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,450
Location: x

29 Dec 2012, 7:51 am

mackico wrote:

I bolded to show how quick the jump is from clinical use ("actual mental and physical retardation") to insult use (" we aren't idiots"). "Idiot" has passed entirely out of clinical use and is purely an insult now. So is it appropriate to say that a person with an IQ of <70 is an idiot? You just did, even if you didn't mean it that way precisely.

The real problem, as Callista has pointed out before, is that people with an IQ<70 are always considered not equal to everybody else and so whatever clinicians call them will always eventually become an insult. This is why "lame" doesn't pack any real emotional punch and isn't written about at all. People with a limp (or even the complete inability to use a leg) aren't considered less equal. But people with low IQ are considered not entirely people. And so whatever their clinical label is, it will eventually turn into an insult whose intent is "you are not really a person".

b9
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

29 Dec 2012, 7:51 am

i can not imagine why people should reassess themselves with respect to what people who are not them say.

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

29 Dec 2012, 8:25 am

PseudointellectualHorse wrote:

]You're slipping in a premise of "verbal abuse". Obviously I don't regard this as inherently verbal abuse; that depends upon the details of the context.

Actually, I am not. People are talking about disagreeing with the term because they find it offensive and abusive. Your response did not exclude such interpretations, and seemed to be making some rather negative assertions about such people.

Quote:

If you look at the YouTube example I posted and you don't find it offensive, and wouldn't consider it appropriate that a screening of the movie be cancelled based upon that clip being regarded as offensive...then you're generally in agreement with my conclusion, although you'd articulate it differently. If you find the clip offensive and agree with the cancellation, then we have different outlooks, and that's probably all there is to say.

I do find that the clip's usage meets the criteria for being "offensive" and I do not see any problems with canceling the public viewing. I would also describe Napoleon Dynamite's usage of the word as verbally abusive.

It's one thing, however, to say that we have different outlooks. It is another thing entirely to say that anyone who claims to be offended by this sort of thing is just posturing. The former acknowledges that reasonable people can disagree. The latter places all who disagree with you into the "unreasonable" category, which is itself an unreasonable stance.

Last edited by Verdandi on 29 Dec 2012, 8:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

29 Dec 2012, 8:30 am

IChris wrote:

What does this have to do with whether autistic people can see the word as offensive? I don't see how it's relevant, unless one wants to acknowledge the fact that NTs also tend to insult cognitively disabled people with the use of words like "ret*d," and that several autistic people are supporting that rather dominant social trend in this thread while labeling disagreement as "primarily NT."

Quote:

As 'field independent' also all kinds of words are independent and not attached any specific meaning other than its etymology to me. Of that reason words like ret*d, insane, feeble-minded, disabled etc. stand still in their etymological and historical clothes and not in their cultural clothes for me. If the case is that I use a word in its cultural clothes it is a result of my own judgment of the word to best fit the cultural clothes, which happens for some words where it for others do not happens; my field independence allow me to meet each word with my own original experience and judgment.

Unfortunately, you are not the sole inhabitant of this world or your culture, and your usage of words that you feel is somehow etymologically or historically pure may very well support those cultural usages you deny have any influence on you.

The attitude that it is okay to use "ret*d" without consideration for those who are frequently labeled as such is predominantly NT, as I noted above.

CyclopsSummers
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,172
Location: The Netherlands

29 Dec 2012, 8:40 am

Janissy wrote:

This appropriation of neutral terms to be used as insults is something that happens in all directions, aimed at every group that can and will be insulted. Next to 'ret*d', there is the word 'spastic' and its abbreviation 'spaz', which is equally controversial and denotes a condition that also has a physical aspect to it aside from a neurological one. In the meanwhile, 'lame' is somewhat of an archaic term in both informal AND formal speech; the current politically insensitive term would be 'cripple'.

My cousin is considered 'metally ret*d' or 'psychologically disabled', at any rate he's experienced significant delays in his development during childhood which has led to the point where now, at age 34, he operates at the 'level' of an 8-year-old. I'm using parentheses because I'm not sure what is meant by 'level' in the eyes of society. He is an equal among the family, among his friends and acquaintances, and frankly any outsider who would reduce him to a label like 'ret*d' before knowing him personally, isn't worth interacting with for him.

_________________
clarity of thought before rashness of action

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

29 Dec 2012, 8:43 am

CyclopsSummers wrote:

You've forgotten one haven't you? You mong.

CyclopsSummers
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,172
Location: The Netherlands

29 Dec 2012, 8:46 am

Tequila wrote:

You've forgotten one haven't you? You mong.

My post was originally more inclusive, but trimmed down for relevance. However, I hadn't taken Down's into consideration. The Dutch equivalent of 'mong' is still an extremely common insult here in the Neth.

_________________
clarity of thought before rashness of action

MindBlind
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 1 May 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,341

29 Dec 2012, 9:16 am

I think it is because it is used in a pejorative sense and because of it's connotations to certain stereotypical ideas about disability, such as that disabled people are less than human. I think that's a bit much to extrapolate from the word, though. I don't personally feel that word is offensive, either. However, language evolves based on its cultural context. I use the word "ret*d" in its original context - slow, delayed, inhibited, that kind of thing. I think that's the only way for a word to not be offensive anymore -reclaiming it.

Although I guess i don't like being called "ret*d" is because it's not what I was diagnosed with, Can't stop my sperging, I guess.

IChris
Snowy Owl

Joined: 15 Dec 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 138
Location: Norway

29 Dec 2012, 9:52 am

Verdandi wrote:

I said I do not know, but that I find the theories of lingustic relativity interesting which has led me to a thesis on autism and language which stills need to be examined. I have said further, without pointing out the reason, that I think this thesis would stand as it do when researched further too.

Quote:

No, I'm an autistic and according to Hans Asperger the feature of field independence is a central feature of my 'identity' and which is the sole reason for my abnormal social and communicative actions. I do not feel if a usage of word is etymologically or historically, I base it upon sources and then I choose, based upon my philosophical beliefs, which use describe my own experience best. If the usage is part of my culture or not does not make any difference.

Quote:

The attitude that it is okay to use "ret*d" without consideration for those who are frequently labeled as such is predominantly NT, as I noted above.

It is not an attitude but a conscious choice in my case. I search for words describing my experiences mostly precise, and in cases I don't find a word I coin my own words for it in a polysynthetic way until I eventually find a word which describe it from historical studies. This is not a pragmatic use of words, but a semantic use of words, and so it does not involve or consider others but is a pure structuring of my own experiences.

IChris
Snowy Owl

Joined: 15 Dec 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 138
Location: Norway

29 Dec 2012, 9:57 am

MindBlind wrote:

However, language evolves based on its cultural context. I use the word "ret*d" in its original context - slow, delayed, inhibited, that kind of thing. I think that's the only way for a word to not be offensive anymore -reclaiming it.

You said it great; in reclaiming words they may of great use rather than an insult.

Page 4 of 8 [ 115 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Jump to:

Why do you find the word "ret*d" offensive? Post Reply New Topic

Why do you find the word "ret*d" offensive?