• AlexisFR@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    There is nothing wrong with the word “retard”, don’t let corporations push their double speak.

    • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve grappled with “retard” & “bitch” (made a thread about it a couple months ago too, trying to form/reform my opinion).

      Clearly we have to be careful with any messages industry pushes. With that said -

      What do you think about these statements from Special Olympians?

      CC: @yeahiknow3@lemmings.world

      • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I appreciate your good faith response. I see and empathize with your perspective. To play devil’s advocate, you can’t control whether a group of people decide, out of the blue, to internalize hurtful language that isn’t aimed at them. The N-word had a very specific target and a very cruel purpose. The word “retard” did not. It basically has the same vernacular trajectory as “moron,” or “idiot.” From medical diagnosis to non-specific pejorative. Why aren’t those synonyms verboten? Because people like to make things about themselves.

          • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            They’re the same fucking word from different time periods on the treadmill of what is politically correct.

            Either both are slurs that shouldn’t be used or both are acceptable.

            That’s not how language works, and unless you go around calling Black folk ‘colored’, you understand that in other contexts. What words are acceptable and what connotations they have change with time and usage.

              • F/15/Cali@threads.net@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Dude, it’s the euphemism treadmill. You exercise your mind while making other people more comfortable to be around you. Your complaint has existed for hundreds of years, and will only lead to poorer social connectivity. Just hop on and put on some tunes

        • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          It comes from the medical diagnosis “mental retardation”. It was designed from the beginning to target disabled people.

          • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            A “moron” was also a medical diagnosis. Historically, the n-word was designed to be cruel and humiliating. The word retard was not.

            If you choose to be offended every time the word “moron” gets thrown around that’s your prerogative.

              • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                People who use words do so for a particular purpose. That’s what I mean by design. The n-word had one and only one purpose: a humiliating slur against a group of people.

                Since this is obviously not the case with the word “retard” or “moron,” etc., I find the comparison obtuse at best and bad faith at worst.

                Ultimately, people will use terms to call each other stupid. This is inevitable since people are, in fact, stupid.

                  • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I am not fully committed to this position. That said, I just think we disagree on the extent to which intention and context matters when measuring blameworthiness for language acts. For instance, the n-word as repeated by black people might be harmless, whereas its utterance by anyone else is unacceptable. Similarly, using the word “idiot” against a neurodivergent person is very bad. If used against me, though, that’s fair game.

                    I also don’t know the extent to which people are entitled to control what others say because they’re offended. Christians are constantly offended, Muslims are offended, apparently some folks in the special Olympics are offended.

                    Look, unless a word is linked to a hateful ideology, I see no reason to be scared of it quite so categorically.

      • AlexisFR@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        That is true, if you use it against disabled poeple. I only use it against moronic able poeple who should know better.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Honestly, that’s maybe worse. If you’re using it to say something bad about someone else, that means it’s a bad thing and should be condemned. The people who it is actually meant to apply to (in its original meaning) then see them, as a group, as a thing that is insulting to even be associated with.

          It’s wild how hard critical thought is for some people while discussing a word about intelligence…