Use of the term '"retard"

[Goober]

Who's the Sofa King and who's Todd? I get wee Todd did= retarded, but the point is wasted on me because I'm challenged .

OK cancel that question I finally got the rest of it. Geesus I need help.

No- You are OK- I just noted it myself.
Had to follow directions.

 

[petros]

Who's the Sofa King and who's Todd? I get wee Todd did= retarded, but the point is wasted on me because I'm challenged .

OK cancel that question I finally got the rest of it. Geesus I need help.

so f*cking retarded

or bi-focals

 

[Cannuck]

In real life, on the rare occasion I have had to inform a person they were an idiot and to fuk off.

No, you didn't have to. You chose to.

 

[lone wolf]

Retards are those folk who get in their own way. People with mental disadvantages usually try

 

[Goober]

No, you didn't have to. You chose to.

As you were not present that would make you wrong.

 

[Locutus]

Retards are those folk who get in their own way. People with mental disadvantages usually try

Indeed.

This is a retard:

Justin Bieber Fan Spends $100K on Plastic Surgery to Look Like the Singer | Billboard


Maybe a double-retard based on his unintended results:

 

[Cannuck]

As you were not present that would make you wrong.

Either I am not wrong (which is so highly probable as to be certain) or somebody held a gun to your head and forced you to speak those words. Even then, it would still be your choice and I would, of course, still be right.

 

[WLDB]

I don't want to sound insensitive, but, I think society really has bigger issues than the fact that we like to tease one another about being mentally deficient.

Doesnt mean we cant address the smaller 'problems.'

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Insulting terms. I've heard it all. "It was meant to honour them!" "It's what they call themselves!" Blah blah blah.

Here's an op-ed by the eminently conservative Dr. Charles Krauthammer. The specific subject is the Washington Redskins (notice how the auto-censor doesn't blank that?) but it applies generally.

Before anyone makes a fool of herself calling Krauthammer a leftie or a RINO or what-have-you, look him up.

Redskins and reason

By Charles Krauthammer

In re the (Washington) Redskins. Should the name be changed?

I don’t like being lectured by sportscasters about ethnic sensitivity. Or advised by the president of the United States about changing team names. Or blackmailed by tribal leaders playing the race card.

I don’t like the language police ensuring that no one anywhere gives offense to anyone about anything. And I fully credit the claim of Redskins owner Dan Snyder and many passionate fans that they intend no malice or prejudice and that “Redskins” has a proud 80-year history they wish to maintain.

The fact is, however, that words don’t stand still. They evolve.

Fifty years ago the preferred, most respectful term for African Americans was Negro. The word appears 15 times in Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech. Negro replaced a long list of insulting words in common use during decades of public and legal discrimination.

And then, for complicated historical reasons (having to do with the black power and “black is beautiful” movements), usage changed. The preferred term is now black or African American. With a rare few legacy exceptions, Negro carries an unmistakably patronizing and demeaning tone.

If you were detailing the racial composition of Congress, you wouldn’t say: “Well, to start with, there are 44 Negroes.” If you’d been asleep for 50 years, you might. But upon being informed how the word had changed in nuance, you would stop using it and choose another.

And here’s the key point: You would stop not because of the language police. Not because you might incur a Bob Costas harangue. Not because the president would wag a finger. But simply because the word was tainted, freighted with negative connotations with which you would not want to be associated.

Proof? You wouldn’t even use the word in private, where being harassed for political incorrectness is not an issue.

Similarly, regarding the further racial breakdown of Congress, you wouldn’t say: “And by my count, there are two redskins.” It’s inconceivable, because no matter how the word was used 80 years ago, it carries invidious connotations today.

I know there are surveys that say that most Native Americans aren’t bothered by the word. But that’s not the point. My objection is not rooted in pressure from various minorities or fear of public polls or public scolds.

When I was growing up, I thought “gyp” was simply a synonym for “cheat,” and used it accordingly. It was only when I was an adult that I learned that gyp was short for gypsy. At which point, I stopped using it.

Not because I took a poll of Roma to find out if they were offended. If some mysterious disease had carried away every gypsy on the planet, and there were none left to offend, I still wouldn’t use it.

Why? Simple decency. I wouldn’t want to use a word that defines a people — living or dead, offended or not — in a most demeaning way. It’s a question not of who or how many had their feelings hurt, but of whether you want to associate yourself with a word that, for whatever historical reason having nothing to do with you, carries inherently derogatory connotations.

Years ago, the word “retarded” emerged as the enlightened substitute for such cruel terms as “feeble-minded” or “mongoloid.” Today, however, it is considered a form of denigration, having been replaced by the clumsy but now conventional “developmentally disabled.” There is no particular logic to this evolution. But it’s a social fact. Unless you’re looking to give gratuitous offense, you don’t call someone “retarded.”

Let’s recognize that there are many people of good will for whom “Washington Redskins” contains sentimental and historical attachment — and not an ounce of intended animus. So let’s turn down the temperature. What’s at issue is not high principle but adaptation to a change in linguistic nuance. A close call, though I personally would err on the side of not using the word if others are available.

How about Skins, a contraction already applied to the Washington football team? And that carries a sports connotation, as in skins vs. shirts in pickup basketball.

Choose whatever name you like. But let’s go easy on the other side. We’re not talking Brown v. Board of Education here. There’s no demand that Native Americans man the team’s offensive line. This is a matter of usage — and usage changes. If you shot a remake of 1934’s “The Gay Divorcee,” you’d have to change that title too.

Not because the lady changed but because the word did.

Hail Skins.

 

[Goober]

Either I am not wrong (which is so highly probable as to be certain) or somebody held a gun to your head and forced you to speak those words. Even then, it would still be your choice and I would, of course, still be right.

Clearly you have not been involved in certain situations. That is fine.
But you are still wrong.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Either I am not wrong (which is so highly probable as to be certain) or somebody held a gun to your head and forced you to speak those words. Even then, it would still be your choice and I would, of course, still be right.

Actually, it wouldn't be his choice. The law recognises the concept of duress, and does not hold people responsible for what they do under duress.

The law is not always sensible, but in this case it is. A choice so heavily influenced by unacceptable outcomes is not regarded as a true choice by any reasonable person.

 

[Cannuck]

Actually, it wouldn't be his choice. The law recognises the concept of duress, and does not hold people responsible for what they do under duress.

The law is not always sensible, but in this case it is. A choice so heavily influenced by unacceptable outcomes is not regarded as a true choice by any reasonable person.

I'll take that into consideration in the extremely unlikely event that somebody actually held a gun to his head.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I'll take that into consideration in the extremely unlikely event that somebody actually held a gun to his head.

Duress also exists in lesser forms. Not particularly relevant to the words used here, but I wanted to correct your understanding of choice and duress.

 

[Cannuck]

But you are still wrong.

Of course I'm not....unless you are so weak as to not be able to control yourself.
Or perhaps you suffer from a particular mental illness that prevents you from being responsible for your own actions. If that is the case, PM me as I don't think an open forum is where you would prefer to discuss such matters

 

[Goober]

I'll take that into consideration in the extremely unlikely event that somebody actually held a gun to his head.

You are clearly limited in the situations some encounter travelling thru life. It is clear from your post that your cognitive abilities are somewhat constrained.
Tecumsehsbones made his point clear and in a concise manner, but beyond your ability to grasp.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

You are clearly limited in the situations some encounter travelling thru life. It is clear from your post that your cognitive abilities are somewhat constrained.
Tecumsehsbones made his point clear and in a concise manner, but beyond your ability to grasp.

Nah, he's just being contrary. You do it yourself sometimes, y'know.

 

[Cannuck]

Not particularly relevant to the words used here, but I wanted to correct your understanding of choice and duress.

No need to "correct" my understanding. Since we aren't in a court of law, I wasn't speaking in a legal sense. The term "gun to your head" was not meant to be taken as literal. Your confusion is understandable though. I will try and be more precise in my posts in the future

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

No need to "correct" my understanding. Since we aren't in a court of law, I wasn't speaking in a legal sense. The term "gun to your head" was not meant to be taken as literal. Your confusion is understandable though. I will try and be more precise in my posts in the future

The law applies beyond courts. It's a distillation of 750+ years of experience in human interaction. Its wisdom is not perfect, but pretty sound most of the time.

As to the rest, why don't you go have a drink or get laid or something? When you're not being a d ick on purpose, you can be pretty rewarding to talk with.

EDITED TO ADD: OK, Red, I apologise and I take it all back. You're not rewarding to talk with.

 

[Goober]

No need to "correct" my understanding. Since we aren't in a court of law, I wasn't speaking in a legal sense. The term "gun to your head" was not meant to be taken as literal. Your confusion is understandable though. I will try and be more precise in my posts in the future

Both of us were clear. TC was quite clear.
We have both had differing experiences – your experiences are filled with Kumbaya moments, and mine were not.
Kumbaya - YouTube

 

[Cannuck]

The law applies beyond courts. It's a distillation of 750+ years of experience in human interaction. Its wisdom is not perfect, but pretty sound most of the time.

As to the rest, why don't you go have a drink or get laid or something? When you're not being a d ick on purpose, you can be pretty rewarding to talk with.

Why do threads about insults invariably lead to insult slinging?