I personally would prefer it not be used around here in general. I don't delete it overall, but I will occasionally depending on its usage. I have known too many good people with intellectual disabilities who were abused by bullies calling them that word.

[–] aidan 16 points 9 months ago

People are bullied by a lot of words, stupid, dumb, crazy, ugly, gross. Context of the words used is what matters. Obviously bullying is not acceptable, but a self-deprecating joke is okay.

[–] RealFknNito 14 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Well yeah, context derives meaning which is why words have multiple definitions. I'm not disparaging the differently abled but people's surface level disdain for it is tedious. Barely a decade ago it was the polite way to characterize someone but we needlessly allow words themselves to be tainted rather than take the time to address the context and the meaning used with it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

Ok but like so are the terms idiot and dumb and moron. We've turned them all into insults derived from their original meanings, but that doesn't mean we should never use the words. Context matters.

[–] papalonian 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Hey, I've got a (albeit very minor) mental disability and I use the word casually around friends all the time, but I just want to point out that it's you and me that are tainting the word, your comment makes it sound like "other" people are the cause of it no longer being a clinical diagnosis rather than an insult.

That being said it's definitely falling out of favor in the public eye. It probably won't be too long before it's viewed at or close to the same level as the hard R. I think a lot of us are getting cancelled in 20 years.

[–] RealFknNito 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The only way words become tainted is when they're used to attack people. Using it for a good natured joke or even self deprecating humor can have a positive effect on it. If we all stopped saying it, the few people who choose not to stop and continue to use it to attack people, like "The hard R word" will be seen as extreme. And as someone who enjoys language, attributing words as the source of hate instead of the people who conjure it gives me great conniptions.

[–] papalonian 5 points 9 months ago

Using it for a good natured joke or even self deprecating humor can have a positive effect on it.

I really don't think you're gonna have many people agreeing with you on this one.. it's hard to say a joke is good natured when it uses a word that defines a group of people as an insult. The context isn't going to matter to someone with a disability who's been called a retard maliciously. To use the same example as before, there are plenty of "good natured" people that use the hard R for humor and it pretty much is never gonna land. Or when a gay person hears a straight person say something is gay, they don't really care how many gay friends you have.

Just to be clear I'm not trying to tell you not to use it. Like I said before, I'm an asshole and use it with my friends too. But I realize this makes me an asshole, and instead of trying to spread my asshole around (phrasing..) and convince the people I'm offending that they shouldn't be offended, I keep it to my circle of asshole friends and accept it when people tell me I'm being an asshole.

As someone who enjoys language, you understand that it changes over time. The time period where "retard" is a word that can be thrown around on a TV show without repercussion is coming to an end, just like the time period where calling gay people fags and black people negro or worse came to an end before. Language is not static, we can try to pretend it is but that's just not how it works.

Hope this didn't come off as a rant or anything. Just trying to give my understanding, one retard to another.

[–] FlyingSquid 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm sorry, it was not "the polite way to characterize someone" barely a decade ago. It was a big insult when I was in school in the 80s and 90s.

[–] RealFknNito 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Sir it was in a Disney show when I was growing up. Yes, it was the polite way to say it. - It quite literally means slow. Fire retardant, for example, slows fires.

[–] FlyingSquid 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Sorry... why does it matter that it was in a Disney show when you were growing up?

Again, 'retarded' has been an insult for a very long time. It hasn't even been federally legal to use the term "mental retardation" since 2010 (more than "barely a decade") and by that time, the only people using the term was the federal government. The same federal government that used 'negro' until the 2000s. Are you going to claim 'negro' was the polite way to refer to a person in 1995 next?

But sure, call it polite. People who are actually bullied by it would disagree with you.

https://www.specialolympics.org/stories/impact/why-the-r-word-is-the-r-slur

https://www.spreadtheword.global/resource-archive/r-word-effects

https://www.npr.org/2012/11/05/164342230/a-special-olympian-on-pundits-use-of-the-r-word

https://www.verywellfamily.com/what-is-the-r-word-3105651

[–] RealFknNito 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

.. Because Disney after the whole Hitler era became sanitized and kid friendly and I don't think they were throwing in slurs on their kid friendly shows.

Starting to think you're making stuff up because it's not illegal to use. They made legislation to change the terminology from "mental retardation" to "Intellectual disability" for the Federal Register but made no claims that to use it is illegal.

By the mere fact this exists means Federally it was the proper term to call someone "Mentally retarded". The proper term. I don't think the Federal government was using slurs in legal documents as instanced by the fact they changed it when it started being used for that.

[–] FlyingSquid 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I like how you ignored every link I posted and continue to insist it's polite despite the Special Olympics and a person with Down Syndrome explaining exactly why it is offensive.

Basically you're telling me that you know better about what offends "retards" than the "retards" do themselves.

[–] RealFknNito 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Well yes because there's no date on the first or second article, it could have been written a week ago and I have not at any point said that the word wasn't being used offensively a week ago, nor a year ago, nor five. I said that at one point, over a decade ago (yes I'm being very approximate with time), it was the proper term used by experts to characterize someone.

The link from NPR shows in 2012 it was offensive but still being compared to "Idiot" or "Moron" which I'd wager is where it was at the start of being used as an insult.

All of them ignore my point that it was once the proper and even 'polite' usage to call someone "Mentally retarded" and it evolved into a slur against the intellectually disabled and that cycle of turning words into slurs is exhausting. I personally think using hateful words in non-hateful context is how you reverse this loop which is why you'll find me using it in every way except to talk poorly about people who have an actual disability.

[–] FlyingSquid -5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

The link from NPR shows in 2012 it was offensive but still being compared to “Idiot” or “Moron” which I’d wager is where it was at the start of being used as an insult.

My god, you didn't even read them. Bailey literally says in the NPR article:

She said that it's not offensive and that it's the same as saying cretin or moron, and it's definitely not.

"She" being Ann Coulter, who used the slur to begin with. So sure, it's comparable to 'moron'... if you're Ann Coulter, which I hope you are not.

Again- It is offensive, I do not like to see it here, and I will delete it sometimes.

That is my final word on it as a mod and I advise you not to try to argue with me further on this.

[–] aidan 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That is my final word on it as a mod and I advise you not to try to argue with me further on this.

That's ridiculous to say. You're of course free to have a different opinion, and free to not respond, but a veiled threat to someone following the rules in expressing a disagreement with you is absolutely ridiculous.

[–] FlyingSquid -2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Do you think this path you're going down right now is a wise one?

[–] aidan 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

What does that mean?

[–] FlyingSquid -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I mean I wouldn't argue about you doing your job in politics. If you have an issue with me as a moderator, airing it out in public is not the way to do it. It's not good for either community.

I do not feel that I need a long argument to justify why I sometimes delete a comment using a word that the people who it is used against find offensive. Especially when I didn't do that this time. If you want people to argue endlessly with you about your reasoning for doing something as a mod in your communities, that is your right.

And when someone not just ignores what I have to say about it, but claims what I have posted says the literal opposite of what it says, then yes, I am going to shut that conversation down. I think I gave them plenty of time to air out their complaint that me occasionally deleting "retard" was completely uncalled for because it's not offensive. They certainly didn't do me the same courtesy.

[–] aidan 1 points 9 months ago

I mean I wouldn't argue about you doing your job in politics.

You should if you have a problem with it.

If you have an issue with me as a moderator, airing it out in public is not the way to do it.

That's fair, I just didn't see it as appropriate to DM you, and I don't know any other way to contact you.

It's not good for either community.

I'm not speaking on behalf of politics, it has nothing to do with this. I'm just an individual person.

I do not feel that I need a long argument to justify why I sometimes delete a comment using a word that the people who it is used against find offensive.

I agree, it would depend on the context, but we would probably delete it in politics too.

And when someone not just ignores what I have to say about it, but claims what I have posted says the literal opposite of what it says, then yes, I am going to shut that conversation down.

I agree if someone does that it's deceptive. But at that point just don't respond, or say you're not going to respond because of that. I don't respond all the time, sometimes I have nothing to add I haven't already said, sometimes I don't have time, sometimes I just don't want to. I just don't like the idea of telling someone to drop a topic under threat

[–] RealFknNito 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I didn't know we were having an argument on it. I agree with you for the most part and appreciate you not reactively deleting my original comment.

Have a good weekend.

[–] aidan 7 points 9 months ago

you not reactively deleting my original comment.

Instead just threatening to if you continue to disagree.