this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2025
743 points (97.1% liked)
Greentext
6408 readers
2192 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
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.
I literally had an argument with @PugJesus@lemmy.world about this a while back where he declared retard as against sub rules but then continued to call the poster a moron. 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.
So moron is acceptable now because all the people impacted by the discrimination are dead, so we just need to wait for the retards to die off before we can use the word again?
The same group of people and behaviours are/were described by both words.
But we've been over this and confirmed we do not and will not see eye to eye on this.
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
The parallels between the ableist slur and the racist one run deeper than your argument seems to acknowledge. The word "retard" actually does have a specific history and a specific target. It wasn't just common vernacular - it was a medical diagnosis.
The reason medical practice has completely abandoned its use is the same reason society should abandon it - it has a history of exclusion, prejudice, and measurable social harm.
By using an outdated (and objectively terrible) diagnosis as an insult for people who we deem intellectually inferior, we continue to associate developmental and behavioral disabilities with being inferior, and perpetuate the systemic and systematic injustices that some of our most vulnerable population still face to this day.
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.
What do you mean by "designed"?
The euphemism treadmill is a known issue. The reason this ableist slur is offensive is, yes, because it is the most recent turning of the wheel. It is the word used in living memory to both refer to patients with poorly understood medical conditions and as an insult to people deemed intellectually inferior.
There is no designer of words. What matters is how they are used. The word "retard" was used to cause harm. It was used by people to broadly and injustly categorize a group of vulnerable individuals by genetic and environmental conditions outside their control.
It was used as a vicious insult by peers and authority figures, it was used in schools and workplaces, it was used by doctors and parents. It was used - yes - to be cruel and humiliating. Of course it was.
Nobody designed the word to cause harm. But anyone who remembers the schoolyard knows that there are countless kids with very real conditions that were mistreated and misunderstood by professionals, parents, and peers. Some may have used the word in good faith. But many more used it in bad faith. They used it as a tool to be cruel and humiliating, and of course they used it on children and adult who could have been diagnosed with a wide variety of very real (and sometimes treatable/manageable!) mental and behavioral conditions that we are still barely scratching the surface of to this day.
It caused harm. It continues to cause harm. And the people who were and are harmed by it are still alive today. Those children grew up to be adults.
People don't choose to be offended. People are offended by any number of things for any number of reasons. It's usually not a conscious choice. It's often a result of injustices experienced or injustices witnessed. In this case, it's because many of us remember when people used the word "retard" specifically to be cruel and humiliating to vulnerable people.
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.
I listed so many ways in which the word "retard " was used as a humiliating slur against a group of people. How is this not obviously the case? Because it had other purposes?
The word was used as a humiliating slur against a vulnerable group of people. This is indisputable fact. It is a word specifically referring to a group of people, and it was used against that group of people to belittle, demean, and yes - humiliate them.
It was also used as a diagnostic criteria. That history doesn't change the context for the better - it makes the whole story worse. It was a bad diagnostic criteria. Psychology, psychiatry, and neurology are young fields of study that are going through some serious growing pains - in this case, the usage of overly broad umbrella categorizations of deeply nuanced and complex disorders.
People will always use words to cause harm. But have you noticed the thing that's missing in everyone's misguided defense of this word? How everyone complains about "what's next?" when they refer to idiot, imbecile, and moron?
Nothing's next. This particular euphemism treadmill appears to have stopped on the word "retard". Why? Because the fields of psychology, psychiatry, and neurology are outgrowing their old habits, and taking society with them.
We understand these disorders better now. We're trying to find ways to treat them. We're diving deep into all the intricate little details about symptoms, and causes, and care, and prognosis.
We don't have one broad catch-all term like "retard". We have dozens if not hundreds of diagnoses to replace it. And each "new" vernacular replacement-of-the-week is more awkward than the last and doesn't gain remotely the popularity or ubiquitousness of its predecessor.
The euphemism treadmill stopped. Other terms will be used, and weaponized, and cause harm. But they'll never be used by everyone, everywhere the way the word "retard" once was, nor will they ever be used in quite the same way. They will never carry that same weight of shared, mistreated identity. And because of that it will be immortalized - because it was used as a diagnosis and as a humiliating slur by the generations that began to understand the truth. That society has treated our most vulnerable populations so unbelievably bad for so, so long, and we can do better.
The thing is, you're not entirely wrong in your reasoning. It is just a word. If the treadmill had continued for another generation, and a new word had successfully replaced it, it probably wouldn't be a slur. It might be forever used as casually and as apathetically as we use terms like "idiot" and "imbecile" and lose most of its weight and implications (words, by the way, that I'm not defending usage of - I'm just not elevating them to the morally repugnant status of slur)
But that didn't happen. This word still holds a terrible number of memories for the living. The word "retard" has - as you defined and continue to fail to dispute - a specific history of targetting a specific group of people. A specific group of people who are mostly still alive today and have fresh memories of this harm, unlike anyone who was ever diagnosed as an "imbecile". And it was used with the particular purpose of cruelty and humiliation of that specific group of people. It satisfies all of your stated conditions of a slur.
The problem with playing devil's advocate, as you suggested you were? It's a philosophical device in which you defend a position that you wouldn't normally commit to, for the sake of challenging your beliefs or the beliefs of others.
But you seem very commited to this position. Why? Because people don't like the words you use? Have you ever, truly, played devil's advocate against your own belief here? Have you ever genuinely challenged yourself on this the way other people have challenged you, and thought "what if it's not their fault that they're offended by this word? What if that offense - those feelings of pain, and anger - what if that was something forced upon them? What if it's easier - in literally every sense of the word - for me to avoid using this word, than it is for them to avoid hearing it?"
The word doesn't need to survive. Plenty of incredible insults have died out from everyday usage for literally no good reason - language just evolves constantly over time. What's the harm in letting this one die for plenty of very good reasons?
You - any of you reading this, anyone who needs to hear this - you don't need to die on this hill with this word. It continues to wither away, and there's genuinely no personal or societal value in trying to keep it in use. No history needs to be preserved in your vernacular, and certainly not such a troubled history.
No one is trying to take away your speech. No one is coming for your words. But you will upset people with your words throughout your life. You'll upset people with the truth, and you'll upset people with lies. You'll upset people with words carefully chosen, and you'll upset people with off-the-cuff remarks.
But in this case, you will upset people by carelessly using words that carry painful memories. You are not being bold or rebellious. You are not standing proudly against some nebulous tide of societal overcorrection for past mistakes. This is not some last stand for sanity in a world gone mad. There are many places to make that stand, many worthy causes to fight for - this isn't one of them.
You're just using the last word that many people remember being used for cruelty and humiliation against a specific, vulnerable group of people. That will upset people. Please try not to blame them for that.
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.
You are committed to this position, because you continue to hold it despite the core premises of your argument being disputed without reconsideration. You didn't change your position when challenged, nor did you hold your position against that challenge - you just changed the terms of the argument.
We have established countless reasons why the word "retard" had a specific target and a very cruel purpose. It wasn't designed that way, but it was used that way. We have also established that it doesn't seem to have the same vernacular trajectory as moron or imbecile, because the treadmill stopped, and "that's so intellectually disabled" has not and will not be used colloquially to mean "that's so stupid".
I have also provided numerous reasons why this isn't something as simple as "people making things about themselves".
You don't seem to dispute any of these things. It had a specific target and a cruel purpose, and was therefore a slur according to your own definition.
Was it "designed" that way? No. But did it come to be used that way, with the prevalence, apathy, and ignorance of a shared misplaced identity? An identity that was far too broad for a diverse group of people? An identity that was forced upon that group?
An identity that held them back at every turn by a society that believed them all to be lesser, unworthy of consideration or employment? Unworthy of respect?
"It's for their own good", society said, as they broadly and injustly labelled these people, and then used that label to strip them of their rights, abandon them without treatment or help, and abuse them for being different.
So what is a slur?
Again, two main questions I need to figure out (believe it or not, I don’t use “retard” in my everyday speech — which is hard for me because like 80% of the human population is retarded):
Are we really blameworthy for speech acts independent of our intention and context? Right now, I’m leaning no but maybe.
To what extent are others entitled to control our personal, private speech on the basis of their own internalized (and possibly neurotic) offense to it? I.e., religious groups getting mad, or autistic people being offended when people call each other “retarded.”
We also disagree on the facts I think. You have once again, without a morsel of empirical evidence, equated “retard” with the n-word, which is totally preposterous. So I think we are at an impasse.
I appreciate your good faith and legitimate concerns. But if you could, please answer the question. What is a slur? Your original definition was sufficient for both terms.
There is no such thing as empirical evidence for an emotionally qualitative claim. There is no feasible way to achieve true objectivity there. Trying to call one word worse than another scientifically (rather than philosophically) is like asking people to decide which genocide is worse than another. Not all genocides are the same, of course, and already people might rush to say "but we know the worst one!" And maybe they do know the worst slur, or the worst genocide. I don't presume to tell them otherwise.
But the truth is the answers will vary wildly by the person you ask, and you will not walk away with scientifically rigorous definitions, just a dataset of emotional responses that either agree or disagree with your own internal emotional response.
What - in your opinion - are the qualities of the n-word that differentiate it from "retard", such that one could be called a slur, and the other is not? Are these differences universally applicable, regardless of the slurs in question? There are more slurs than the "n-word". What sets those other words apart from the word "retard"?
I really do appreciate your points, because they are reasonable concerns about the nature of human communication and moral philosophy.
Certainly independent of intention, because we as human beings can never truly know another's intentions with certainty. We can do our best but that's not useful for establishing moral principles.
But this is the important thing - being worthy of blame is not being worthy of shame. A person can be blamed for an act they commited with all the right intentions and a morally disputable context. Others can tell them "you should have known better", or others can even choose to no longer associate with that person if they want, because that's their freedom to do so.
But that doesn't make them a bad person. Other people's opinions are not truth. Not in a philosophical sense, not in an objective moral sense. The difference is if that person can accept that blame in the first place. If they can genuinely see why other people blame them, why other people don't want to associate with them, and genuinely try to make sure what they did and what they do next was right to do.
They may even come to the wrong conclusions. They may genuinely think they're doing the morally correct thing, and everyone else is morally incorrect, and sometimes people are right when they think that, and sometimes people are wrong when they think that. That doesn't make them bad people, if they decide to do the wrong thing when their intentions were good. That doesn't make them worthy of shame. But everyone else does unfortunately have to blame them for whatever they do next, good or bad, because there is nobody else to blame.
I know this is terribly apropos, but I have to ask... Was the use of neurotic here intentional?
These examples are not control. If you say a word, and another person says "how dare you!" and decides you're a bad person... have they controlled you?
Sure, sometimes these groups get power and exert control. But I want to clarify that that's not your stated concern here. You didn't bring up examples of theocratic governments or religious persecution. Your stated concern is "to what extent are others entitled... to getting mad... to being offended?"
The answer is to the fullest extent. Others are entitled to be offended, and get mad. They're not entitled to imprison you or harm you. That's control.
But to what extent are others entitled to being offended? What do you think the answer to that question should be? Do you think that you should control them? To tell them that they're not allowed to feel the way they feel about your behavior, and they're not allowed to use the words they want to use to express those feelings?
Or do you think they're allowed to be offended, just as much as you're allowed to be upset when you believe someone is insulting you or judging you without cause or justification?
Everyone is entitled - to the absolute fullest extent possible - to their beliefs, and their feelings, and their expression. This includes you. Just as everyone else is entitled - to the absolute fullest extent possible - to believe you're a bad person for your beliefs, and for the way you express yourself.
I don't think you are a bad person. But I also don't think they're being bad people when they tell you they don't like what you have to say.
A slur is an insulting or disparaging remark (according to the dictionary). Our contention is not over the definition of that word (I hope), but over whether the use of offensive language (such as slurs) is categorically unacceptable.
There are lots of slurs, but only a handful cross the line (for me at least), because I consider them to exclusively and belligerently perpetuate some evil ideology (usually racism). I don’t want to list these words here, but I can think of maybe 3 or 4.
Well, history is not a matter of emotion. It is a matter of empirical fact. We can trace the origins and common usage of words, and the n-word is no exception. That body of knowledge is the product of research (historical data). The (mis)use of the medical term “retard” is also well understood. Its transference to colloquial slang is actually unexceptionable. Consider “psycho” or “cretin.” In the same vein, the word “autist” is now being used disparagingly among teenagers being goofy or weird, and so on.
“Autist” may not be sticky enough to require the medical community to come up with an alternative, more technical (and therefore less appealing) term for that mental disorder.
Regardless, people will continue to look for ways to call each other stupid, and the best thing we can do is encourage researchers to come up with long and convoluted names for medical conditions so they don’t get co-opted by teenagers looking for creative ways to insult each other.
Well, yes and no. You have a responsibility to be mindful of those around you. But they also have a responsibility to at least attempt to understand what you’re trying to say. If we ignore your intentions, the result is tantamount to willful misunderstanding.
Remember, we are apes. Nothing more. Language is complex, and the average person is painfully, animalistically stupid. That’s why we have to be charitable to one another and give folks leeway to communicate without losing our shit over misunderstandings.
That's not the best thing we can do. We don't have to waste time trying to avoid giving teenagers ammunition, and we certainly don't have to do it by giving people with learning disabilities a diagnosis that could be hard for them to remember or understand.
Teenagers don't need ammunition. The reason "autist" isn't sticky enough, the reason it's not used colloquially, the reason it's only an insult for teenagers and people with the emotional maturity of the average teenager is because it's an actual diagnosis with an increasingly well-studied list of symptoms, and standards of care, and moral implications.
It should serve the same vernacular niche as "retard" but it doesn't seem to be doing so. Adults don't say "that's autistic" with good intentions. They do say "that's retarded" with good intentions. Why? Because being a "retard" was a blanket diagnosis with no real treatment options, and no real empirical evidence of its value as a diagnostic label. It was too broad and too vague and therefore effectively synonymous with "very stupid." "Autistic" isn't synonymous with stupid.
I really do think we agree completely for the rest of this, this might just be semantics. They do, absolutely, have that responsibility. You are blameworthy for your acts. And they are blameworthy for their's in response. The whole point is that you and they are entitled to beliefs and feelings, just as you and they are responsible for words and actions. If you are judged poorly for doing the right thing, then you can blame them for that. And they can blame you for the things they're judging you for.
They're entitled to that, because yes we are just apes trying to grasp at moral truths that are not written in the stars or the atoms of the world, and in fact some of these moral truths appear to be actively in contention with many of our ape-derived biological and psychological functions.
And we very often get things wrong. And yes, we have to try to be charitable and give each other leeway. I think that you and I do disagree on some fundamental information, and I think you and I have given each other plenty of leeway, and managed to communicate in a healthy and productive way.
I'm asking you - why should that stop here? Don't the people offended by a term deserve some charitable consideration? Some leeway? They're communicating a feeling that they have. They feel upset. They feel offended. They feel angry. Are they entitled to those feelings? Yes. Can you blame them for those feelings? You are entitled to.
But many of them won't understand or believe your intentions are good. Is that their fault? That they can't see into the mind of a fellow ape, and know your heart is pure?
The transference of "retard" from medical diagnosis to colloquial slang is actually exceptionable. Because it appears to be the last one in the list for this particular group of people. The last one to be so pervasive, so ubiquitous, and so synonymous with "stupid". There were plenty of others before... but what's the next one?
It's not about disarming teenagers. It's about trying to learn more. It's about seeing each other's intentions, and actions, and needs. And it's about not using a word so stained by bad intentions, so villainous in action, and so dismissive of needs.
When a doctor told a parent their son was mentally retarded... that was it. They just were. For the rest of their life. They were a "retard." And the parents just had to deal with it.
When a doctor tells a parent their son is autistic, they follow it with "here's what that means." Here's a couple of potential reasons why they might be the way they are. Here's what their life might look like as an adult, based on these studies. Here's the coping mechanisms you can try to teach them, here's the educational methods that seem to work best, here's the support structure that you need to build.
Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But the whole point is it is far, far better than it ever was with the word "retard", and we as apes and as a collection of apes know so, so much more now. That's why "that's autistic" doesn't mean "that's stupid" for most people, and therefore why it also doesn't replace "that's retarded" for most people.
The term itself was deeply flawed from the beginning, as was idiot, as was cretin. I do blame the people that came up with it, and used it. But I don't think they were bad people. I don't hate them. I think they were acting with good intentions, and probably with the best information that they could find in context.
I just also think they caused a lot of harm by inventing a diagnosis that was far too broad to be medically or socially useful. They can be blamed for that. It was their responsibility to do no harm, and they did harm. That doesn't make them worthy of shame, or bad people. It just makes them human.
I really like your response and I needed a minute to read it. Let me reply later.
But “autist” is used colloquially — all the time. That’s my point. I mean that it hasn’t entered wider usage outside of high schools, twitch, and discord. Boomers don’t use it as an insult (yet).
I didn’t say “autistic” is synonymous with stupid. Usually it’s used to mean you’re excessively or neurotically detail-oriented.
You're absolutely right. You didn't say that "autistic" is synonymous with stupid, I wasn't accusing you of doing so. Neither of us believe it is synonymous, people don't think it's synonymous, and it's no surprise that people will instead use it colloquially to mean "excessively detail-oriented".
Is that so terrible? I don't think so. I wouldn't use it that way, but I also don't say things like "I'm so OCD" for that same purpose - and I don't think it's a terrible thing to do that either! I wouldn't use those terms like that, for the record, nor do I think others should. But I don't think it's anywhere on the same level, and I don't think it ever will be.
I think it's insensitive to use "autistic" and "OCD" in this way because it runs the risk of blinding us to other people's struggles when we normalize their symptoms as "standard neurotypical problem but worse".
But do you see how specific that concern is? Do you see how far we've come? To even care about the idea of not being able to see someone's symptoms? To discuss how it might be insensitive to not even know someone else has a mental condition?
Being "detail-oriented" is not by itself a bad thing. It doesn't bear any terrible implications of your value or worth to society. It doesn't suggest that you can't be trusted to make decisions, or hold a job. If anything some people are starting to think the opposite.
Which is also problematic, because we sometimes romanticize symptoms as super powers - but do you see? Do you see how far we've progressed, when we have to start worrying that people will assume neurodivergent people are too capable?
So calling someone "autistic" when you want to call them "detail-oriented" is insensitive, sure. It might even be labelled as ignorant - but look how high that bar of ignorance is! "Detail-oriented" is simply the most recognizable symptom of a particular flavor of neurodivergence - and using it colloquially like that suggests that you already know how the disorder works!
In the past, children and adults with autism weren't called autistic. Even after the diagnosis was added to the DSM, it went criminally underdiagnosed for a long time.
Some of them, the ones that didn't strongly present symptoms that disrupted their lives, the ones that could mask their behaviors - they were just called "detail-oriented". They were just "weird".
But most of them? The ones that had trouble speaking? The ones that had trouble looking you in the eye? They weren't called "detail-oriented." They were called retarded.
Do you see how it might be different to call someone "retarded" when you want to call them "stupid"? How much deeper the implications run? How much worse the associations are?
I agree with everything you’ve written, but we are sort of going in a big circle. Earlier I wrote that
For that reason, I can endorse everything you’re saying. However, I thought our disagreement was over whether there should be a concerted effort to banish a particular pejorative term from our vocabularies (namely the r-word). I had argued no, since it seemed like an overreaction, whereas you were in the affirmative, since groups of people were being offended/hurt by the casual use of that term.
So then the question becomes:
That's fair, we can step back from the intricacies of this particular word and return to first principles - and I agree, this is an important first principle to discuss. After all this time disagreeing, we may have come back around that big circle to find that we really agreed all along.
I don't really think I advocate for a concerted effort to change the english language the way you imagine. I want people to change the way they think, not the way they talk. I think if they change the way they think, this will certainly change the way they talk. Not the other way around.
I try to invite people to take a look at the words we use as a vehicle for taking a look at the way we use them - the intentions and the context. Why do we use these words this way? What do they mean? Who can be hurt? Why would they be hurt?
I think that there are a lot of good reasons not to use the word "retard". And there aren't many good reasons to use it. I know of plenty of alternatives. So I don't use the word. And I do have the arrogance to think I'm right, and the gall to suggest that others should stop using the word too.
But for the record I have never advocated for censorship of the word "retard" in this conversation, or anywhere. I don't think a fediverse instance or any media platform should just ban the word, or ban people for using it. I don't think people should be silenced for it.
Even below the level of "control", of authority figures or systems imposing changes from the top-down...
Even down to a personal level - I don't think I advocate for people to censor themselves or each other. Please forgive me if I have done so here - that wasn't my intention.
I just want people to be mindful of what they say. To understand what they're saying, and why, and what impact it can have and what implications it carries. I don't think the decisions I make about vocabulary are so severe as your question suggests.
I don't think I'll ever again find someone to go the distance with me on this topic as you have, and I thank you for that. But if I did? And they listened, and thought, and considered... and they walked away, still saying the word? I wouldn't want them to lose their voice. I don't think they should be censored. I might think they're wrong to continue saying it, but I think a lot of people are wrong about a lot of things.
But I do have to say that I think a large part of this conversation unfortunately has boiled down to "who gets to decide?".
You have a list of words in your mind that deserve to be abandoned. I'm fairly confident we could agree on all of them. But I'm not certain, because I don't know your list. I only know my list. Most people only know their list. So I do need to argue against the implication that I have looser parameters from you because my list might be different. I may have added words to my list for different reasons than you added words to yours, but that's not the same thing as having a lower threshold for what offends me. There are people who will add words to their lists that I won't add to mine, and for reasons I won't understand, and I don't think they're wrong for doing so.
That being said, you and I appear to be approaching some of the core concepts of linguistics here, and from different angles. You've joined me this far for this productive discussion, so I feel comfortable asking you to please follow me on one more twist of thought before we step away from ableism entirely -
How often do you call someone a cretin? The interesting thing about the euphemism treadmill is that we kept replacing the "official" words for the same definitions. We actively changed our clinical language each time. But until the treadmill stopped on "retard".... we didn't actively stop using those words colloquially.
We struck them from the medical journals, but we didn't strike them from the social vocabulary. The internet didn't exist. People weren't nearly so up in arms about ableism. You couldn't censor the town square the way you can an online forum. We still use the word moron, and idiot. We even still use the word imbecile sometimes. It's a fun word to say.
But how often do people use the word cretin? You might hear it in a particularly poetic roast, but not out loud. You'll never hear someone say "oh, jennifer? She's a cretin."
(Edit-And I realize this might be a regional thing! Which adds a fun layer to all of this!)
Medical journals stopped using it because it became a derogatory term... but did we stop using it for that reason? Then why didn't we stop using moron?
I take a descriptivist approach to language. I believe it is what it does. The only rules for how we talk to each other are the ones humans made up, and because of that language constantly evolves as we keep making shit up. And I don't set the rules. Nobody does, because we all do. I decide what the language of the future will be as much as you do, which is to say probably not at all.
I don't think we stopped using cretin for good reasons... I think we just stopped using it. I think we'll just stop using a lot of words for no good reason, and so it's not a very big leap from there for me to believe we can stop using a word for genuinely good reasons.
I think that we should try our best not to hurt people. And I think that we will hurt people anyway, no matter how hard we try. No matter our intentions. No matter the context. That's one of the many curses of being the rising ape, and I agree with you - there is absolutely no way to break that curse. Something we do will offend someone somewhere, and that doesn't mean we did a bad thing. But that also doesn't mean we should stop trying.
I totally agree when it comes to any public discourse.
Most people have no clue what that word means or how it originated. I certainly don’t use “cretin,” since I have no use for disparaging someone as diseased and crippled. Maybe that’s your point, that properly understanding the genesis of some term can undermine your desire to use it? And you’re right. Cretinism, the disease, makes me really sad, as does the fact that assholes chose to turn it into a pejorative. So maybe that has something to do with my unwillingness to ever use the word.
In my mind, “retard” was more of a vague diagnosis of mental slowness, so it makes it less real as an actual medical condition. Like when you say “retard” I think “Republican.” Those are the people who need diagnosing. Still, I’m less willing to use the r-word than alternatives like “idiot” whose meaning is totally divorced in my imagination from any origin story.
After all, once you use a word (a bunch of sounds) to mean something long enough, it eventually makes no difference what the word used to mean. That said, I can see your point. The cretin example is a good one. Very persuasive.
For me, the vagueness of the diagnosis is what makes me sad. To think of how many vulnerable people were left struggling for answers with very little help from that word and plenty of hurt from it for so long. Perhaps this makes it less concrete in the mind than a word with a more specific target, but no less sad to me. Cretinism makes me sad as well, and more so when I think about how many people could have easily avoided it if they just knew more about thyroids.
So yes, precisely! If people change how they feel and think, they change how they speak. Not just their internal dictionary, but the way they use their words too.
I appreciate your time, understanding, and well-reasoned discussion. Thank you!
It comes from the medical diagnosis "mental retardation". It was designed from the beginning to target disabled people.
To break down my response to this
There are people with high intelligence and those with low intelligence, bandying about with different words will never change that. Intelligence is crucial in social, economic and evolutionary terms. They are correct no one would ever want to be lacking in intelligence because it would only make life worse. There will always be a need for a word to describe someone of lower intellect, or describe an argument or position as being thoughtless, in order to dismiss the person or idea as quickly as possible with as little engagement possible. Preferably while using small words so they understand.
You can still say they have a room temperature IQ but they might not get the meaning...
I agree, and I would not want someone with an IQ of 70 to be in the military, or to be a teacher, or a doctor, as each of those scenarios would likely result in disaster not just for the 70 IQ individual but for everyone impacted by them.
Yea no. This "everyone is special" bullshit just isn't how the world works. The universe doesn't care about you, the world is a harsh place where the unfit died early deaths until really intelligent people worked out how to increase food production, developed medicines, surgeries and hygiene.
You only need to look up the etymology and history of clinical usage of both dumb and stupid to realise they were used to describe the same groups of people and behaviours during different time periods. More bullshit on the treadmill.
I refuse to censor the word retard while moron, stupid, dumb and idiot are considered fine. To censor a synonym of acceptable words, is to put it bluntly, fucking retarded.
Copying most of my response to a similar line of reasoning elsewhere in this thread - The word was used as a humiliating slur against a vulnerable group of people. This is indisputable fact. It is a word specifically referring to a group of people, and it was used against that group of people to belittle, demean, and humiliate them.
It was also used as a diagnostic criteria. That history doesn’t change the context for the better - it makes the whole story worse. It was a bad diagnostic criteria. Psychology, psychiatry, and neurology are young fields of study that are going through some serious growing pains - in this case, the usage of overly broad umbrella categorizations of deeply nuanced and complex disorders.
People will always use words to cause harm. But have you noticed the thing that’s missing in everyone’s misguided defense of this word? How everyone complains about “what’s next?” when they refer to idiot, imbecile, and moron?
Nothing’s next. This particular euphemism treadmill appears to have stopped on the word “retard”. Why? Because the fields of psychology, psychiatry, and neurology are outgrowing their old habits, and taking society with them.
We understand these disorders better now. We’re trying to find ways to treat them. We’re diving deep into all the intricate little details about symptoms, and causes, and care, and prognosis.
We don’t have one broad catch-all term like “retard”. We have dozens if not hundreds of diagnoses to replace it. And each “new” vernacular replacement-of-the-week is more awkward than the last and doesn’t gain remotely the popularity or ubiquitousness of its predecessor.
The euphemism treadmill stopped. Other terms will be used, and weaponized, and cause harm. But they’ll never be used by everyone, everywhere the way the word “retard” once was, nor will they ever be used in quite the same way. They will never carry that same weight of shared, mistreated identity. And because of that it will be immortalized - because it was used as a diagnosis and as a humiliating slur by the generations that began to understand the truth. That society has treated our most vulnerable populations so unbelievably bad for so, so long, and we can do better.
The thing is, you’re not entirely wrong in your reasoning. It is just a word. If the treadmill had continued for another generation, and a new word had successfully replaced it, it probably wouldn’t be a slur. It might be forever used as casually and as apathetically as we use terms like “idiot” and “imbecile” and lose most of its weight and implications (words, by the way, that I’m not defending usage of - I’m just not elevating them to the morally repugnant status of slur).
But that didn’t happen. This word still holds a terrible number of memories for the living. And it doesn't need to survive. Plenty of incredible insults have died out from everyday usage for literally no good reason - language just evolves constantly over time. What’s the harm in letting this one die for plenty of very good reasons?
You - any of you reading this, anyone who needs to hear this - you don’t need to die on this hill with this word. It continues to wither away, and there’s genuinely no personal or societal value in trying to keep it in use. No history needs to be preserved in your vernacular, and certainly not such a troubled history.
No one is trying to take away your speech. No one is coming for your words. But you will upset people with your words throughout your life. You’ll upset people with the truth, and you’ll upset people with lies. You’ll upset people with words carefully chosen, and you’ll upset people with off-the-cuff remarks.
But in this case, you will upset people by carelessly using words that carry painful memories. You are not being bold or rebellious. You are not standing proudly against some nebulous tide of societal overcorrection for past mistakes. This is not some last stand for sanity in a world gone mad. There are many places to make that stand, many worthy causes to fight for - this isn’t one of them.
You’re just using the last word that many people remember being used for cruelty and humiliation against a vulnerable group of people. What is that worth, to you? What makes the word hold such value, that you would use it even though it upsets people?
Do you use it because it upsets people? Why? What purpose does that serve? Do you honestly think that this word - of all words - will provide some personal or societal benefit? Will you change the future for the better by using it?
Not something I have disputed, in fact I have made this point repeatedly about the word moron.
There will always be a need in language to describe people who are less intellectually capable so I absolutely disagree with this claim. Retard is simply still the word of choice despite efforts to censor its usage.
Censoring speech is exactly what you've claimed isn't happening, yet it is happening and you are making an argument for the censorship of a word.
Yes. Because I clearly don't want to have to waste my time on people who are, or are acting, retarded.
Still the word of choice? Published in the DSM-IV 30 years ago? Not the words that came after? The DSM-V, the ICD? These don't quite fit in the vernacular? They don't satisfy your language needs?
That's the entire point. The treadmill stopped on that word. The diagnosis-turned-slurs have stopped churning out. You can call something idiotic. You can say that's moronic. You can even argue, perhaps, that it's imbecilic. And finally, lastly, immortally, you can say, "that's retarded."
I'm not saying you need to say any of these things, mind you. But I do understand that you want to find a word that's just a bit more satisfying than saying "that's stupid." It sounds childish, I know. So you want to say "that's retarded" because it really works, y'know? And people get upset when you say it.
But would you say "it's disabled" to mean "it's stupid"?
Would you say "that's so handicapped"?
The catch-all term that said "you're stupid" also said "these people are all the same" and has been pinned down and stuck in place in your mind and the minds of society, and words like "disabled" or "handicapped" just doesn't quite cut it. Oh, people use them the way you know they're going to be used. Mean and ignorant people will use the words the way mean and ignorant people will always use words.
But you'll never use them that way.
But you, and your family, and your doctor, and your classmates, and your coworkers, and your friends, and your government... they'll never say "that's so disabled" when they want to say "that's so stupid."
And sometimes people will make mistakes, and other people will say inappropriate things like "what are you, handicapped?" And that won't be okay. Not because of the word itself - even when it is outdated. but because of the association with a medical condition.
It isn't okay to call your friends handicapped or disabled or whatever the next term will be because of the implication that the same word should be used to describe your niece who is nonverbal whose voice you wouldn't even recognize and your brother who forgot to save your video game.
What comes next shouldn't satisfy what you seem to want. We probably won't settle on an easy answer, and the current "safe" terms will probably fall out of favor in their time. Because they become slurs, like "retard"? No. Because they become outdated? Probably.
If we as a society keep moving in the right direction, nobody will ever use the next "safe" terms the way you freely use the word "retard". That's the entire point.
There is no need to set an arbitrary line on some poorly designed IQ chart and say the people below this line are inferior and cost money and the people above this line are human and can have rights oh and then also use that line to call other people stupid.
There are synonyms that you can use for vernacular that absolutely fill the needs that you're suggesting are crucial for the english language. There are plenty of words to call your friend when he left his keys in your car and his phone at his ex's. If they don't satisfy you, be the next shakespeare and write your own.
There are also plenty of words to describe a vulnerable group of people. There will always - of course - be a need to talk about them, and a need to have certain codified terms whose definitions we agree on for the purposes of professional care and legal protections. These don't need to be the same words anymore, and if we do our jobs right they never will be again.
And yes, the word may and probably should be allowed to forever bear the stain of that history of linguistic injustice. The use cases for "That's so stupid, dude" and "The results came back. I'm sorry to tell you this, but your son may never develop the ability to read." don't need to overlap ever again.
"Retard" was the last one, and therefore the worst one. No, being new is not somehow morally relevant. It is the worst one because it is the one that was still in living memory when we learned how to do better.
The treadmill stopped, and you're still standing on it, upset that people are leaving you behind and blaming them for having the audacity to move on. You're not pushing people away to save time. You're just hurting yourself and others.
That is true, if you use it against disabled poeple. I only use it against moronic able poeple who should know better.
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...