The R Word Movement Needs to Die Already!

Post Reply New Topic

Who are people to tell us how we can and can't speak, and why is it always neurotypical people who cry about the word "ret*d"? The First Amendment trumps political correctness in every way, shape, and form, and I, an Aspie, will not have some NT tell me how to speak or even think! I'll say the word "ret*d" all I want and nobody has the right to tell me otherwise! What changed in our society to make people so knee-jerk oversensitive and why? By banning the word "ret*d", they're only telling ASD people, cerebral palsy patients, and others (on top of those who actually are mentally ret*d) that they are too weak to live in a free and civilized society! Just because we have a disability doesn't mean we have to be shielded from the world! Those who'd say otherwise are the real ret*ds.

Sometimes I think to myself and laugh about the fact that the same people that claim that they "Think everybody should be able to do what they want without the objection of others and not be judged for it" are the ones that push so hard for being PC.

It seems too general to be used in many cases, but I have no problem with its definition and accurate use.

I agree, though. The First Amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America protects even offensive speech. The word police have too much time on their hands.

The First Amendment is irrelevant unless people are advocating legal consequences to the word's usage. It says nothing about social consequences, which as far as I am aware is the extent of the movement for the word's eradication.

The first amendment only protects people from the government limiting speech. It does not guarantee freedom from criticism and it does not protect you from censorship by private entities.

Which private entities would want to be thought to act in ways that are contrary to the Bill of Rights, let alone actually do so and risk the scrutiny of their supporters? The First Amendment is a bellwether of the public expectation of civil speech; good, bad and otherwise. As such, people and groups may adopt or ignore it, but it isn't easily dismissed for its influence.

From what I understand, no one is telling you you can't use the word and it should be banned. You are free to use it but free speech also allows people to object to it and express how they feel about the word. Also I have seen people with disabilities object to the word. I believe the movements are to try and get people to stop using the word. I didn't start seeing NTs cry about the word until I joined Babycenter and I learned even NTs are offended with the word than autistic people.

Symbolic speech limits already have the force of law http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... igh-school when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed in February with a California high school?s decision to forbid students from wearing American flag T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo. Who can say that the symbolic-speech precedent would extend to verbal or written speech. Are public-school students allowed to use the "N-word" in their class discussion or pep-rally speeches?

Who are they to tell people how to speak? There's nothing wrong with the word "ret*d" in and of itself! It's just a word like any other. It's the CONTEXT that makes a word good or bad. If something is stupid, it can be said to be ret*d. If someone acts in an ignorant manner, they're ret*d, too, in the same way and for the same reason.

Discouraging the use of a word won't make a mentally ret*d person completely equal to me in any way, shape, or form. I've got capabilities they don't have and they've got capabilities that I don't have and no feel-good cause will ever change that. Even if the bleeding-heart crybabies get their way, people will just use something else to mean the same things as "ret*d". You discourage "ret*d" now; next, you could make it taboo to say "autistic" or "cerebral palsy". Where does the madness end?

Thank you! It irks me when people misunderstand that.

Maybe so, but doesn't political correctness movements apply to society too?

I actually find myself agreeing with the OP's premise here.

If ret*d is an acceptable (by acceptable I'm not talking about what's legal, but rather what's polite/decent) term, why not these terms which were at one point medical terms: mongolian imbecility (down syndrome), moron (mildly intellectually disabled), imbecile (moderately ID), and idiot (profoundly ID).

it isnt called 'mental retardation' anymore,it was changed in may last year officialy but unofficialy they had used intelectual disability for the past few years,they have changed it because [a] it isnt descriptive of our actual disability and [b] it is actualy offensive to us.

mental retardation is not a valid description of our disability, lots of disabilities have had their names changed to highlight what is now known about them; such as ADHD which was once known as minimal brain damage or aspergers which was once known as autistic pyschopathy,if 'autistic pyschopathy' was still being used and had the level of history and connotations as retardation/ret*d has,aspies woud be doing exactly what we are doing over ret*d.

those of us with ID are not slow;we hold a different level of mental capacity to non ID individuals which has an effect on our global functioning level.

MR is offensive to us,it dehumanises us and has so many negative connotations,people also use it to describe bad things or to associate with people who have done something unfunny and stupid;which by association is labeling us with their behavior.

we dont need it banning like any word,we need people to take a bit of personal responsibility for themselves and others, to give people basic respect and not to refer to them with ancient offensive disablist slurs that clearly are used in society to mean 'stupidity'.

?There are no bad words. Bad thoughts. Bad intentions, and wooooords.? ― George Carlin

Well said!