the word retard
Replies
-
Actually, I believe it's pronounced "ruh-tard"0
-
Actually, it all depends on the context of the word being used and the user. For instant, a black gentleman with down syndrome is allowed to say, "Man, that *kitten*'s retarded!" Now if I said that, it would be in bad taste.0
-
And then what? The C word? They are just words.
What if I get together with the Bald guy coalition and we decide "Bald" is derogatory? We gotta come up with something new?
They are just words. I'm not a fan of censorship. I'm more a fan of courteousness.
Words are not always "just words". Words hurt people, especially ones that are racist, hate-filled, discriminatory, or harrassing. There are certain words throughout history that have changed, as the OP indicated. If they're only being used incorrectly, strike 'em!
I have to disagree. Words are just words. It's the meaning, the tone, and the intent that people put behind them that cause the feelings others fill. For example, the 'n-word' is just a word. Because someone used it with the intent of it being a racist/hateful term that is now how it is interpreted. Take away the intent and it's just a word.
Uhhh, the interpretation of the 'N' word is not new. It's always been a hateful word.
Yes, words are just words. And I'm against censorship as well. But it's perfectly fine to dislike when someone uses a word because of the meaning behind said word or even how they're using it.
Just because someone finds it offensive when the word 'retard' is used doesn't mean they want to promote censorship or ban the word altogether. They usually just wish people would be more mindful of other people when choosing the words they use.
I never said the interpretation of the N-word was new. My point is that the intent behind the word is what makes it offensive. The word on it's own is just a word. All words are just words. It's the intent behind them that is important. I know that I've heard that word used in a non-hateful manner (i.e. wat up n...). The intent behind that use is not hateful. It's like the word gay. Gay is just a word but the intent behind it changes the meaning. If I said "I'm so gay and smiley" it would mean I'm happy and smiley. If I say "That person is gay" then the meaning changes to homosexual. If I say "that's so gay" the meaning changes to dumb. But the word gay is just a word.
I also did not agree that a word should be banned because someone finds it offensive. A word is only offensive if that is the intent and/or interpretation behind it and depends upon the person saying it and the person hearing it.0 -
I never said the interpretation of the N-word was new. My point is that the intent behind the word is what makes it offensive. The word on it's own is just a word. All words are just words. It's the intent behind them that is important. I know that I've heard that word used in a non-hateful manner (i.e. wat up n...). The intent behind that use is not hateful. It's like the word gay. Gay is just a word but the intent behind it changes the meaning. If I said "I'm so gay and smiley" it would mean I'm happy and smiley. If I say "That person is gay" then the meaning changes to homosexual. If I say "that's so gay" the meaning changes to dumb. But the word gay is just a word.
I also did not agree that a word should be banned because someone finds it offensive. A word is only offensive if that is the intent and/or interpretation behind it and depends upon the person saying it and the person hearing it.
I have to disagree with this. It is not only the intent that makes a word offensive. Just because someone is using the n word or retard in a funny, term of endearment kind of way, does not make it right. That's the whole issue here. The flippant, misuse of certain words can be offensive.0 -
I know not everyone feels the way I do. Its fine if they don't-- but I'd love the world better if!!!! Okay, that was a total bad joke.. I'm not "sensitive" as you say-- but really, it isn't something to make a joke about. If others say it-- fine but I REALLY wish they wouldn't.
Umm....you would rather people not joke about it, because you have a particular sensitivity owing to your experience with the condition. So yea, you're sensitive about it. Nothing wrong with that, but call it what it is.
Well I guess we have two different interpretations of sensitive. Now I know someone who, after your comments, would have cried and ran out of the room-- and she is an adult BTW. In my eyes, she is sensitive, and I am not. Again, it is fine if you feel otherwise... but we have two different interpretations of the word. And compared to the way I used to be, etc etc etc.0 -
I never said the interpretation of the N-word was new. My point is that the intent behind the word is what makes it offensive. The word on it's own is just a word. All words are just words. It's the intent behind them that is important. I know that I've heard that word used in a non-hateful manner (i.e. wat up n...). The intent behind that use is not hateful. It's like the word gay. Gay is just a word but the intent behind it changes the meaning. If I said "I'm so gay and smiley" it would mean I'm happy and smiley. If I say "That person is gay" then the meaning changes to homosexual. If I say "that's so gay" the meaning changes to dumb. But the word gay is just a word.
I also did not agree that a word should be banned because someone finds it offensive. A word is only offensive if that is the intent and/or interpretation behind it and depends upon the person saying it and the person hearing it.
I have to disagree with this. It is not only the intent that makes a word offensive. Just because someone is using the n word or retard in a funny, term of endearment kind of way, does not make it right. That's the whole issue here. The flippant, misuse of certain words can be offensive.
I'll amend to say the intent and the interpretation because I will agree that it also depends upon how a person takes it. That being said the word is still just a word. I've never stated that a person's intention makes the use of a word appropriate. I'm merely stating that a word is just a word and it's how each person defines/intents/interprets it that makes it hurtful, disrespectful, or okay to use. It doesn't matter what word we use. We could make up a word and if we define it as evil or use it in that manner then the definition/meaning or evil. It's like the word gay. It originally meant happy but someone took it and changed the meaning of it. It's still just the word gay.0 -
I'll amend to say the intent and the interpretation because I will agree that it also depends upon how a person takes it. T
At the Simon Center for the Professional Military Ethic (USMA, West Point) we were taught again and again that "Impact" is the only thing that matters and "Intent" is irrelevant.0 -
I'll amend to say the intent and the interpretation because I will agree that it also depends upon how a person takes it. T
At the Simon Center for the Professional Military Ethic (USMA, West Point) we were taught again and again that "Impact" is the only thing that matters and "Intent" is irrelevant.
I would agree with this.0 -
At the Simon Center for the Professional Military Ethic (USMA, West Point) we were taught again and again that "Impact" is the only thing that matters and "Intent" is irrelevant.
0 -
If you have ever ridden on Trenitalia, the Italian national rail service, the word "ritardo" takes on a whole new meaning. The word means "delay", but after a 2 hr train ride turned into a 6 hr nightmare, I must confess we were using it in a much more inappropriate way.0
-
At the Simon Center for the Professional Military Ethic (USMA, West Point) we were taught again and again that "Impact" is the only thing that matters and "Intent" is irrelevant.
Regardless, I still stand by my statement that a word is just a word. The meaning of a word may have intent or impact but the word itself is just a word which has been my point the whole time. I could call someone a chapsticky gingerbreadman. If I intend it as an insult and it is received as an insult then "chapsticky gingerbreadman" is an insult. And the opposite is true as well if used and received as a compliment. People change the meaning behind words all the time. The word is still just a word. Azdak gave a great example. Ritardo means delay in Italy. After a 6 hour delay it means stupid. It's still just the word ritardo though. It's the definition that is offensive or complimentary.0 -
At the Simon Center for the Professional Military Ethic (USMA, West Point) we were taught again and again that "Impact" is the only thing that matters and "Intent" is irrelevant.
Regardless, I still stand by my statement that a word is just a word. The meaning of a word may have intent or impact but the word itself is just a word which has been my point the whole time. I could call someone a chapsticky gingerbreadman. If I intend it as an insult and it is received as an insult then "chapsticky gingerbreadman" is an insult. And the opposite is true as well if used and received as a compliment. People change the meaning behind words all the time. The word is still just a word. Azdak gave a great example. Ritardo means delay in Italy. After a 6 hour delay it means stupid. It's still just the word ritardo though. It's the definition that is offensive or complimentary.
But without a definition, a word means nothing - like your made up word here. It's not offensive, because it doesn't exist and it means nothing. I can't use a racial slur, for example, intending for it to be a joke, and expect it to be taken as such, because the word is already loaded. The same goes for the word "retard," because it has meaning to it. It's no longer politically correct and has become offensive. It's not just a word.0 -
At the Simon Center for the Professional Military Ethic (USMA, West Point) we were taught again and again that "Impact" is the only thing that matters and "Intent" is irrelevant.
Regardless, I still stand by my statement that a word is just a word. The meaning of a word may have intent or impact but the word itself is just a word which has been my point the whole time. I could call someone a chapsticky gingerbreadman. If I intend it as an insult and it is received as an insult then "chapsticky gingerbreadman" is an insult. And the opposite is true as well if used and received as a compliment. People change the meaning behind words all the time. The word is still just a word. Azdak gave a great example. Ritardo means delay in Italy. After a 6 hour delay it means stupid. It's still just the word ritardo though. It's the definition that is offensive or complimentary.
I'm going to assume you don't have kids, so this will be a hypothetical. Would you be upset if you were the mother of a child with special needs and you kept hearing the word 'retard' ?0 -
Regardless, I still stand by my statement that a word is just a word.
That's a pretty useless statement, and I'll admit that I don't get your point at all. A word is just a word? Not really...without a meaning, a word is nothing more than an incoherent sound. I suppose, through body language and facial expressions, even incoherent sounds can (and are) complimentary or offensive...
but I really don't know what you're getting at when you say "a word is just a word."
And I don't agree that definitions change all the time. Context is incredibly fluid, but would say definitions are pretty stable.0 -
I don't think it's possible, or useful, to divorce words from context, meaning, tone, etc...0
-
I hate that word more then anything. I work at home for the mentally handicapped. I dont mind the word if it used correctly. If the word is used wrong it is just disgusting to me.0
-
The problem with any of this is not the word, but the context, as previosly stated. Retard used to mean mentally handicapped. Not it sort of means dumbass. If we ban retard, than people will start calling each other "mentally handicapped" when they mean dumbass. Then we will have to start calling the handi capped, handi-abled. Then again, can we still call people dumb? Hell, dumb is as genetic as any handicap, so why is that ok. If we are not careful we are language is going to consist of thousands of words we can't say.0
-
The problem with any of this is not the word, but the context, as previosly stated. Retard used to mean mentally handicapped. Not it sort of means dumbass. If we ban retard, than people will start calling each other "mentally handicapped" when they mean dumbass. Then we will have to start calling the handi capped, handi-abled. Then again, can we still call people dumb? Hell, dumb is as genetic as any handicap, so why is that ok. If we are not careful we are language is going to consist of thousands of words we can't say.
^^^^THIS!! Thank you!
To MacPatti (I believe it was you who asked me this) you are correct that I do not have children. That being said if I did and I had a child with a mental handicap and someone called him/her retarded I cannot say that I would or would not be offended. It would all depend upon the context of how they used it. As adrian_indy pointed out, it's not the word that is the issue. There are a number of words where the definition has changed to mean something completely different from it's original meaning such as gay and sick. Both of these are the same words as they were before but now gay means homosexual or stupid and sick means cool. The word didn't change at all. The context and definition did.0 -
It was me who asked about if you had kids.
As the mother of a child who was once labeled special needs (although he's caught up and not considered that anymore), I can assure you that you would be LIVID if someone called your special needs kid retarded.0 -
To MacPatti (I believe it was you who asked me this) you are correct that I do not have children. That being said if I did and I had a child with a mental handicap and someone called him/her retarded I cannot say that I would or would not be offended. It would all depend upon the context of how they used it. As adrian_indy pointed out, it's not the word that is the issue. There are a number of words where the definition has changed to mean something completely different from it's original meaning such as gay and sick. Both of these are the same words as they were before but now gay means homosexual or stupid and sick means cool. The word didn't change at all. The context and definition did.
But calling a homosexual "gay" doesn't mean that "gay" no longer means happy or light in mood. So no, the definition did not change. That is called a colloquialism, and doesn't effect the English language as a whole. Colloquialisms don't CHANGE the original definition. They merely create something new, sometimes recycling pre-existing terms... Same with "sick"0 -
It was me who asked about if you had kids.
As the mother of a child who was once labeled special needs (although he's caught up and not considered that anymore), I can assure you that you would be LIVID if someone called your special needs kid retarded.
Sorry about that Poison! You asked me hypothetically if I would be upset. I responded honestly that it would depend upon the context. I would agree that if my child was called retarded as an insult I would more than likely be upset. That being said I also know of an organization that works with mentally handicapped children and adults and the word retardation is used in the title of the organization. Am I offended or upset by the use of the word in the name of the organization? No. Why? Because it's not intended as insulting and I certainly don't take it that way. Gettinghealth stated that she doesn't mind the word if it is used correctly. But if used wrong then she finds it disgusting. I have to agree with her on how a word is used. The context of how it is used is what I find to be the insulting/complimentary peice as opposed to the word itself. We all know that how a word is said and the tone used are important when conveying how we feel about something.
ShapeUpSidney I will agree that I should not have used the word "changed" as opposed to an additional definition for the word. It doesn't mitigate my viewpoint that it is not a particular word that I have any issues with instead of the meaning and context that words are used in. I think adrian_indy stated it best in his statement in regards to context.
(For the record, I was diagnosed with a learning disability as a child. So I completely understand being upset and insulted when being called certain names. I also know that not everyone who used particular words to describe me meant it in an insulting way.)0
This discussion has been closed.