Mod The Sims - The Word 'Retarded'

Nekowolf

25th May 2010, 10:59 AM

It's a matter of context. All words are. I call things retarded, nor am I going to stop. Why? Because I'm not directing it at people who do have some form of mental disability, nor am I using it in a context about them.

Same with calling things gay; "that's so gay" is not in reference to homosexuals, nor is it directed at them.

The problem is the immediate association by others, an association that ties in (what they think are) static meanings of words, to a context where this meaning is completely irrelevant.

Words change. Meanings change. There is no absolute in language, and language in itself is entirely about context and interpretation. It's incredibly dynamic. We give words meaning by agreeing as a mass on a meaning; for a while, retarded meant those with mental disabilities. This was it's meaning of the time, because that is how people used it, that's the context it was given. Now its meaning is shifting by younger generations using it in not meaning mentally disabled, but in something being stupid. And something being stupid will be its new meaning, because that is the context it'll largely be used as.

jooxis

25th May 2010, 11:17 AM

As usual I think people are being overly sensitive. I use the word "retarded" and "gay" in front of my friends when I see fit - and I am not doing so to make a negative statement against "people with intellectual disabilities" or people of homosexual orientation, I'm not even referring to them. I'm sure a lot of you use the word bitch, which is derogatory for women.

It depends on who you are talking to and how you mean it. If you're on national television talking to a large audience or just talking to strangers then you should be more careful about the words you use so as to not sound like an asshole. But if you're talking to your close friends, it would be very awkward (not to mention *retarded*) to be worried about your choice of words and what minorities it may potentially offend should they ever hear what you said even though you weren't talking about them anyway but just using a word that people sometimes associate with them.

Damocles

25th May 2010, 07:20 PM

You guys are retarded.

fakepeeps7

25th May 2010, 07:27 PM

I don't mind the word "retarded"... as long as it's used in its original context (i.e., "his physical/intellectual development was retarded"). I don't like it when people use it to mean "stupid" or "silly"... just like I don't like hearing the word "gay" when it's not referring to homosexuality.

I don't agree with the notion of calling it "the R-word", though. It seems like political correctness run amok. That word does have two meanings, one commonly accepted and the other slang. Calling it "the R-word" seems like an agenda to change the language on their terms. It's not the same as "the F-word", for example. That really only ever had one meaning!

jooxis

25th May 2010, 07:44 PM

just like I don't like hearing the word "gay" when it's not referring to homosexuality.

Ahh, well, you shouldn't read old books or watch old movies then ;)
Words can have different meanings, it's normal.

fakepeeps7

25th May 2010, 08:05 PM

Ahh, well, you shouldn't read old books or watch old movies then ;)
Words can have different meanings, it's normal.

Heh... I meant "gay" when it refers to "stupid". That's just insulting.

I think some of my favourite old movies used the term "gay"... before it got co-opted. But it was a positive word back then... not an insult.

Safyre420

25th May 2010, 08:37 PM

Heh... I meant "gay" when it refers to "stupid". That's just insulting.

I think some of my favourite old movies used the term "gay"... before it got co-opted. But it was a positive word back then... not an insult.

Yep, one major show that used "gay" in it's theme song was none other than The Flintstones.

I personally only really care if the terms are used in a derogatory manner. Many words can be used in a derogatory manner regardless of what their definitions are, it all really depends on the context that is being used.

fakepeeps7

25th May 2010, 09:00 PM

Yep, one major show that used "gay" in it's theme song was none other than The Flintstones.

Today's kids might well wonder what the real relationship between Fred and Barney was... :)

mustluvcatz

25th May 2010, 09:23 PM

caninegoddess

26th May 2010, 12:00 AM

Wow, I've read some wonderful responses! And now for MY two cents...

Firstly, I myself have a condition called osteogenesis imperfecta. I have an...erm, oddly shaped face and body. Because of this, and my size, along with my needing a wheelchair to get around, sometimes people assume that I am not of the same intellectual capacity as they are, and occasionally treat me as though I AM mentally retarded. It really angers me because I am intelligent (not trying to brag).

Secondly, I must agree with fakepeeps7, in that I am fine with the word retarded being used in its original context, to describe someone with some sort of intellectual deficit, for lack of a better term. If you're using it with friends however, it loses that. Then, it's an insult. I can see the point others are making when they are not using it to insult others. I, however, just think it's a bit vulgar.

Nekowolf

26th May 2010, 01:19 AM

See, now here's the funny thing about vulgarity. Take the word, fuck. Ooo, it's the big one! The worst of them all!...

Until it starts actually be used consistently. I'll admit I swear a lot, even fuck. And it's becoming more commonly used. The more a vulgarity is used, the more its definitions are stretched out, the less of a vulgarity it becomes. Just like with any other taboo, the more that taboo is practiced, it loses that status. It goes from shocking, to, meh.

You can take offense to the word, "retarded," but the more it's used, the more definitions and contexts it has, the less of an offense it eventually becomes.

Vanito

26th May 2010, 01:29 AM

Mistermook

26th May 2010, 02:28 AM

On the other hand, I'm fine with insulting my friends occasionally when they deserve it. Someone with a thin skin isn't going to last very long in my inner circle.

Nekowolf

26th May 2010, 02:42 AM

@Damocles:

...I don't get the joke, if that was the intention.

fragglerocks

26th May 2010, 03:05 AM

It depends on the intended definition. I do get offended sometimes when I hear people say "Oh, that's gay/retarded.." and here is why-the context of the word then becomes derogatory.

Do people that say that care that I'm offended by it? Probably not, and I accept that. But I don't think poking fun at people for things they can't help is funny. My sense of humor is twisted like that.

lovetadraw

26th May 2010, 06:34 PM

"FUCK" is only a major insult in some countries. On TV in holland it aint beeped away because its "just" sex. Everyone has sex once in a while, it does not target any specific groups.. so yeah its not considered that bad here. Theres way worse insults.

But it is a more selfish word. you 'have sex with' someone, or you 'f :alarm: ck' them.

Gay originally meant happy. It's funny when you hear it not as 'homo', but it's not offensive, it's just the evolution of language. Sheash, newer dictionaries now have "google" as a verb.

I get called a "retard/ ARtard all the time. I just roll it off. What I can't stand are "special Olympic" jokes. In a bowling league I do, the best person (other than me, just saying ;) ) is Autistic. When (don't change subject) Pres. Obama said what he said about "bowling like he was in the special Olympics" it pissed me off.

I think it all depends on, where, when, and with who, you grew up.

LiekOMGEEZE

28th May 2010, 02:58 AM

Well, I think that saying ANY word, that stands for who someone is, and when you use it in the wrong context, is bad:
*someone messes up on trying to tie their shoe*
Person:"OMFG THAT WAS SO GAY/RETARDED"

I just think people shouldn't say that, it's kind of like saying that "gay" or "retarded" is something bad, when the truth is that it isn't, and I am SHOCKED at the amount of kids younger than the age of 9 or 10, it's because their parents teach them that, or their siblings or their friends, and it kind of pisses me off :\, excuse me for a minute while i go join the nearest "Equal Rights Club" or the "LGBT" or whatever it's called i don't know XD

jooxis

28th May 2010, 09:07 AM

Well, I think that saying ANY word, that stands for who someone is, and when you use it in the wrong context, is bad:
*someone messes up on trying to tie their shoe*
Person:"OMFG THAT WAS SO GAY/RETARDED"

Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree. I just don't see anything wrong with that.

What IS offensive, is calling a gay person a "faggot". This is rude and offensive even if it's meant as a joke. I feel uncomfortable around people who use this word so casually. Because it is directly referring to the person's sexuality and is a verbal attack on it.

But calling an inanimate object "gay" has nothing to do with homosexual people. I sometimes use the word gay to mean "cheesy" or something like that. If I say a painting looks gay, I'm not addressing the sexual orientation of the canvas. Therefore, the word has a different meaning in that context. If I were gay, I'd still say the same, honestly.

sayyadina

28th May 2010, 10:08 AM

I use to call fairly (or highly) intelligent people "retards" sometimes, because I expect more from them, as a loving joke. (it goes both ways:) ), so to stop using it would be confusing. Its not meant to hurt people who are 'intellectually disabled/challenged'. I just dont call "them" anything, unless I know them. If I do, I just use their names.

(Im a SouthPark fan as well:)

When people use "retard" to make fun of, hurt or insult people who look or act different from the norm it just pisses me off.

Neerie

28th May 2010, 01:35 PM

But calling an inanimate object "gay" has nothing to do with homosexual people. I sometimes use the word gay to mean "cheesy" or something like that. If I say a painting looks gay, I'm not addressing the sexual orientation of the canvas. Therefore, the word has a different meaning in that context. If I were gay, I'd still say the same, honestly.

I see your point, and the same can be extanded to the word "retard" too I'm sure. I honnestly think that when you consider something gay because it's cheesy, bad, boring, or whatever, I'm sure that you do not link it to gay as meaning homosexual.

HOWEVER, not everyone is like you, and the current use of the word gay to mean stupid/bad, no matter what people say now, DOES originate from homosexual orientation being perceived as bad and is now leading to a vicious circle of tought, even if unconscious, especially in the most concervative areas.

The more you go back in time (and in the USA you don't have to go back far, or at all), homosexuality = bad, people identifying themselves as gay means they are homosexual, therefore gay = homosexuality = bad. Then went just from gay = bad, and at first, at least around here, innanimate objects were not qualified as being gay, people were, rightfully or not, either to out people, or just to be mean, just as faggot was/is used.

The origin of why the word gay can now mean bad or stupid might be lost for most people, but when used so casually, it just helps reinforce, unconsciously, that the idea that being gay is a bad thing, and you only need to look at one argument used against allowing same-sex marriage in the debate (OMG! My kids might be taught that being gay is ok!) to see that if anything, I'm probably not far from the truth.

lovetadraw

28th May 2010, 10:47 PM

Gay can mean happy, silly, careless. I agree there.

As for "fag", I look at it this way, though I'd never call someone that, I've heard gays use that word amongst themselves. Although I guess it's like the N word, or any other racial slur. I'd personally have no issue if someone called me a "honky" who eats hamburgers at McDonald's. But, if it were used bye blacks or Hispanics or Asians, derogatorily, I'd probably take it harder.

Sort of like "Sandwich/Kitchen" jokes. I'd never want it used seriously, but it's good for a laugh. I know I'm exceptionally short, but when people say things like "hey, you're just tall enough to s*** m* o**" I roll with the blow and hit back "Yeah, I'm also at a perfect position to rip them off.." Or (I like swords) when people all me 'sir-lance-a-little', I own it. And we've gotten off subject. The point is, Don't take it too seriously. As long as something is not used in a hateful way, I don't really care. Why turn down a stress reducing laugh? Now when someone uses words in a hateful way, I think they should be run out of town.

But, who decides "hateful"? It took me forever to get it through my skull that these people weren't out to get me and were "laughing with me" not "at me". Once I did that I was free.

Retarded used as an adjective is in some uses somewhat correct. "my computer is RETARDED" Well, if it's running slow, then yes, that firs the definition. Just like Gay, it doesn't necessarily have to mean the mental issue. At least for me, that's not really how I use it.

I use to call fairly (or highly) intelligent people "retards" sometimes, because I expect more from them, as a loving joke. (it goes both ways ), so to stop using it would be confusing. Its not meant to hurt people who are 'intellectually disabled/challenged'. I just dont call "them" anything, unless I know them. If I do, I just use their names.

I agree there too.

fakepeeps7

29th May 2010, 12:42 AM

As for "fag", I look at it this way, though I'd never call someone that, I've heard gays use that word amongst themselves. Although I guess it's like the N word, or any other racial slur.

Problem is, a lot of people in those groups do find those words offensive. For every black person who doesn't mind using the n-word, there's probably another who's deeply offended (because of the background of the word and its original meaning).

Rude is rude... no matter what group one is a part of. (And if you think rudeness has nothing to do with it, I challenge you to go up to people from one of these groups and start throwing these words about, and see what happens.) Words like "retarded" or "gay" are used in a derogatory way. That's what people have a problem with... not the words themselves.

daphnegirl123

29th May 2010, 12:58 AM

Just like Gay, it doesn't necessarily have to mean the mental issue. At least for me, that's not really how I use it.

I hope you aren't saying being gay is a mental issue. :/ I could be totally reading that wrong, though.

I agree with fakepeeps7 and Neerie.

Neerie

29th May 2010, 03:36 AM

I hope you aren't saying being gay is a mental issue. :/ I could be totally reading that wrong, though.
I think that Lovetadraw ment it like this:
"Just like Gay [doesn't necessarily have to relate to sexual orientation], "retarded" doesn't necessarily have to mean the mental issue."

Although I admit, that even this way, considering the context of that sentence, I'm not totally sure I understand myself.

Shoosh Malooka

29th May 2010, 06:44 AM

There are a few things I see:

1. The character of the offender
2. How intense an injury is intended by the offender
3. The character of the recipient
4. How 'close to home' / vulnerable the recipient is to the slur

Case A
The offender is somewhat of a smart bully who rewards himself with pleasure by humiliating a lesser person. He himself would be very scarred if someone could demonstrate how he is below a higher curve ( he doesn't tolerate his own medicine ), and therefore he is aiming to scathe. The recipient of the word 'retard' is a mild case of down syndrome and works under supervision using precision machines to make wooden parts for a small furniture crafting outlet. That being the case, he has grown sensitive to some language, as he is well aware that he won't be a master craftsman, pundit, or doctor because of a handicap.

Case B
The offender is frat boy who has learned the art of insult comedy. He uses the word 'retard' to mock those who make bad choices. The recipient is another student who also enjoys a good cheap shot. He has just made an ass of himself as he was heard on the phone, saying 'Dick who? Do you know the last name? My sister is dating a Dick.'

A little bit of sophism, but Case A is clear contempt while Case B is trivial.

Safyre420

29th May 2010, 09:11 AM

My 2 cents: My 17 year old is MMR, he has an IQ of 60. If he's talking to someone and they say something he said is "so retarded" I DO get offended about it. However, most people who say that while talking to him don't know that he is retarded. They know something isn't quite "right" but they're not aware of just what isn't "right" about him. When they find out, they tend to watch what they say around/to him and leave retarded/stupid/dumb/idiotic out of it. We don't go around telling everyone about his disabilities (he's got a whole list) so I don't expect people to automagically know about them. The fact that people are respectful enough to watch their words around him is something I'm grateful for- but I still don't like to hear anyone called names. I do realize that times/word/meanings/people change with time but I still think there are certain words that shouldn't be used so casually.

You have every right to get offended when someone were to use it, but if they used "retarded" in it's actual context, as in what the dictionary actually states as the definition, will you actually get offended?

(in general to everyone)It really all depends on the context of how someone is using it. If you get offended even if it is used in it's proper context, then YOU are being overly sensitive and seriously need to take a chill pill.

Kids have feelings and a lot of people don't realize that words DO hurt- whether the person saying them means them to or not. Kids will be kids- adults, however, should know better.

Yes, they do have feelings, and yes adults should know better. But kids should also know better, there is an AMAZING amount of hurtfulness that KIDS say to one another that the majority of people NEVER hear. I was subject to a lot of it. Yes, kids will be kids but if the ungrateful brats weren't let loose to do whatever they wanted they wouldn't be as hateful as they are. And people wonder why today's kids are so misbehaved....LACK OF DISCIPLINE...enough said.

Edited to prevent double post:
What IS offensive, is calling a gay person a "faggot". This is rude and offensive even if it's meant as a joke. I feel uncomfortable around people who use this word so casually. Because it is directly referring to the person's sexuality and is a verbal attack on it.

But calling an inanimate object "gay" has nothing to do with homosexual people. I sometimes use the word gay to mean "cheesy" or something like that. If I say a painting looks gay, I'm not addressing the sexual orientation of the canvas. Therefore, the word has a different meaning in that context. If I were gay, I'd still say the same, honestly.

Yay the dreaded "faggot" word. I personally will use "faggot" given that I'm gay. I will occasionally refer to myself as "faggot", though probably due to the fact that given the area I live "gay" isn't in their limited vocabulary so one has to use what is in the other's limited vocabulary. I generally don't take offense to the word "faggot" unless it is directed at me and then I go into overdrive and people should pray I'm not drinking(I'll get violent, very incredibly violent) but generally I will just brush it off because of the area I live in. Most people that I know use "faggot" frequently and if I'm around they will go out of their way to apologize for using it knowing I really don't care if they don't refer to me in a derogatory way using that word because if they're male I will castrate them with a rusty blade.

Edited again to prevent double post:
Rude is rude... no matter what group one is a part of. (And if you think rudeness has nothing to do with it, I challenge you to go up to people from one of these groups and start throwing these words about, and see what happens.) Words like "retarded" or "gay" are used in a derogatory way. That's what people have a problem with... not the words themselves.

Yes, rude is rude, but someone that takes offense to a word because it's simply being used is beingly OVERLY SENSITIVE regardless of context. If the word was being used in it's proper context they have absolutely NO REASON to be offended. If the word is common place in the local vocabulary, there really isn't much one can do about it, it will be used regardless of it offending anyone. Regular uses of "gay", "fag", "faggot", "bitch", "ho", "slut", "nigger"....will be used regardless of people bitching about it or not.

In particular reference to the "n-word", it won't stop being used until the rap artists stop using it....good luck with getting them to stop.

Yeah yeah I know another edit:
So as I was saying to a friend. Also this shows a great example of what I'm talking about, and a little insight to my viewpoints of my own "community"

there's 2 types of gay people, the "fags" and the rest of us

the "fags" instigate the stereotype with their gay pride parades where they prance around in their underwear shoving their crotches in peoples faces

the rest of us just want to live peaceful lives

mustluvcatz

29th May 2010, 03:02 PM

You have every right to get offended when someone were to use it, but if they used "retarded" in it's actual context, as in what the dictionary actually states as the definition, will you actually get offended?

Depends. I'm well aware of the fact that retarded means delayed, underdeveloped, not fully developed, slow... So if someone were to tell me that my son's mental growth was/is retarded that's not so offensive, it's a polite way of stating the truth. But how many people actually say it that way? There's also a person's tone of voice to take into consideration.

As for the kids will be kids thing: Kids should know better, too. But do you (or anyone else) really think that kids saying hurtful/offensive things to each other is a new thing? It's not. My mother is almost 70 and can tell you how she got made fun of for being heavy as a child. I'm 44 and can tell stories about getting made fun off because of my height (I was the shortest kid in the class until 5th grade) and the shape of my nose. I'm sure my grandma, who would be over 100 were she still alive, got teased about something when she was a child. Kids WILL be kids. Kids picking on each other is a part of growing up. That's nothing new. Yes, it seems they're a lot meaner about it- but I'm more willing to cut a kid some slack than an adult.

BTW, I live in an area with many, many kids. There are always kids running around right outside my back door. Since I'm in the kitchen/laundry room/back of my house a lot, I hear quite a bit of what all of these kids say to each other. For the most part, if one of the parents finds out that their kid has been saying something really offensive- that kid does get in trouble for it. (Mine included- my kids can't stand the fact that Mom keeps a good eye on them.) That said, kids do seem to be ruder and meaner than they were when I was a kid and a lot of that has to do with how they're raised..but that's a different subject, isn't it?

Ledgo

30th May 2010, 05:16 AM

I am not offended by it, and I do have a condition that could TECHNICALLY label me as such, even though it's a minor case.

longears15

30th May 2010, 11:38 AM

But calling an inanimate object "gay" has nothing to do with homosexual people. I sometimes use the word gay to mean "cheesy" or something like that. If I say a painting looks gay, I'm not addressing the sexual orientation of the canvas. Therefore, the word has a different meaning in that context. If I were gay, I'd still say the same, honestly. I think the problem here (at least as I see it) is that you're using the word 'gay' to convey the fact that you don't like the inanimate object. So here you have a word that is used to describe a person's sexual orientation, also being used with a strong negative connotation attached to it. The same with 'retard' - if it's being used to describe somebody or something stupid, that negative connotation is being attached to the word and that is why I personally find it offensive if used out of context and why I can see that it could be offensive regardless. It's entirely possible to use them in context with derogatory intent -

I actually had an experience this afternoon along these very lines. An element of my condition is dystonia, which is a type of muscle spasticity. The dystonic posturing varies...at best my feet and ankles are a bit twisted because of contractures but when I have an acute flare up, my muscles go into spasm all over. My arms and legs twist into strange positions, my hands and feet clench and so on, and because it hurts like hell I unintentionally pull odd faces and if I try to speak I often can't manage much more than noise. I had an attack while out with my parents today and had three kids (all separate families) telling their parents to 'look at the spastic'. Now - technically they were probably correct because my problem was due to spasticity, but I still found it hurtful.

Nekowolf

30th May 2010, 01:15 PM

I think the problem here (at least as I see it) is that you're using the word 'gay' to convey the fact that you don't like the inanimate object. So here you have a word that is used to describe a person's sexual orientation, also being used with a strong negative connotation attached to it.
But that would really only work if you assumed words, or to be more technical - language itself, are inherently static, which isn't the case. Words can have a myriad of multiple meanings, gaining some, losing some, or even simply becoming disused altogether.

Gay went from meaning something happy or joyful, to homosexuality, and now to something that sucks which is almost the complete opposite of its original usage. This is, quite simply, the dynamics of language.

Neerie

30th May 2010, 03:19 PM

But that would really only work if you assumed words, or to be more technical - language itself, are inherently static, which isn't the case. Words can have a myriad of multiple meanings, gaining some, losing some, or even simply becoming disused altogether.

Gay went from meaning something happy or joyful, to homosexuality, and now to something that sucks which is almost the complete opposite of its original usage. This is, quite simply, the dynamics of language.

Languages are not static, I 100% agree with you there. The problem in the case of the word "gay" is that it is now conveying the idea that something sucks precicely because it also related to homosexuality in the first place, otherwise why use the word "gay" to mean something that is sucky, unwanted, undesirable, instead of any other word? And that is why it can be, and is often, percieved as offensive.

Nekowolf

30th May 2010, 04:20 PM

I still have to disagree; when most people call something "gay," there is almost no connection to homosexuality at all. The reason words like sucky, unwanted, undesirable, is because "gay" is a slang term. Why say "fuck" instead of "have sex"? Why say bitch instead of "mean-spirited"? Hell, why say "sucks" instead of "undesirable"?

This is simply what slang is. The words like gay and retarded have evolved through their use as slang into new contexts; their original meanings are irrelevant. If I call something gay or retarded, I am not thinking in the terms of their original context; I am not thinking whatever it is is homosexual, or physically/mentally challenged. That is a denotation strung by other people, and usually by those, no offense, who are against those words in the first place; this is because they have a preset meaning or context in mind already.

jooxis

30th May 2010, 04:26 PM

fragglerocks

30th May 2010, 05:11 PM

I completely agree with Nekowolf.

I love dogs and the word bitch means female canine. People use the word bitch in an offensive way - but when they do THEY ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT CANINES OR INSULTING THEM. How is that any different?

The dog isn't going to get its feelings hurt by that word. Human beings understand the words, and it causes hurt.

edit to add: Nekowolf...jooxis...I thought we always agreed in debates. What happened? :p :lol: ;)

mustluvcatz

30th May 2010, 05:33 PM

The problem with slang is that it changes. The meaning of a word can be one thing one week and something totally different the next week. Ok, it might not change that fast but it does change. While I can keep up with the meaning of a word dictionary-wise, it's harder to keep up with the slang meanings.

If you look in a regular dictionary from today and one from 20 years ago, the definitions might have changed a bit but not enough to change the meaning of a word. If you look in the Urban dictionary that's not always the case. The accepted definition of the word retarded doesn't change- the slang meaning of it can and most likely has or will. Accepted definitions are fairly constant, slang isn't.

fakepeeps7

30th May 2010, 08:22 PM

If I call something gay or retarded, I am not thinking in the terms of their original context; I am not thinking whatever it is is homosexual, or physically/mentally challenged.

If you really think the original context doesn't matter, then I dare you to go up to a black person and call them a n*****.

You might think original context doesn't matter, but the person you insult just might. We're talking about respect... not whether something is technically an insult (and the words that we're talking about here, generally speaking, are considered insults).

Nekowolf

30th May 2010, 10:38 PM

Yet some call themselves nigger. And yes, even their white friends may call them nigger too.

But the difference here is you are specifically talking to a person, something that has the capability of interpretation, who can formulate their own assumptions about linguistic meanings and contexts, who can misinterpret what was meant by the speaker.

An inanimate object cannot do this; a concept or an idea cannot do this, or can a situation. These things have no mental capability, they cannot make assumptions about what you said to it, or misunderstand.

Calling a person nigger or retard or fag (which DOES have establish different meanings) is different than calling something non-person one of those things, which is what I figured this debate topic was about, and which my position pertains to.

Nekowolf...jooxis...I thought we always agreed in debates. What happened?
Well, we had to disagree on something eventually :p

jooxis

31st May 2010, 12:13 AM

The dog isn't going to get its feelings hurt by that word. Human beings understand the words, and it causes hurt.

edit to add: Nekowolf...jooxis...I thought we always agreed in debates. What happened? :p :lol: ;)

That's just silly. I can then make fun of a brain-dead person and call him a vegetable because it certainly won't hurt his feelings. And that's not even the point. Besides, as far as I understood - no one in this thread is diagnosed as mentally challenged, yet they're being offended in the name of people who are. I can just as well be offended by someone using the word bitch in a derogatory way in defense of the canine species.

The point was that the word bitch when used in a deragotary way has no CANINE implications just like the word gay when used to mean "cheesy" or "silly" has nothing to do with sexuality even in the slightest.

---

The word "sick" now seems to be commonly used as slang for cool and impressive. Which is positive, while it's other meaning is not very positive. And guess what - depending on context, most people will know what you mean. How amazing is human communication!

Most if not all offensive slang terms have roots in "sensitive" matters. The word "idiot" was commonly used meaning "mentally challenged" back in the day. Pretty much everyone on Earth uses the words 'idiot' or 'idiotic'. But yeah guys, "that's like, totally different!", just click disagree, and don't even dare to elaborate your disagreement.

:rolleyes:

fakepeeps7

31st May 2010, 12:30 AM

If you're so thick-skinned that you never take offense to anything and just ignore any insults directed at you, that's fine. That's your experience; it's not necessarily everyone else's.

Just be aware that some people will take offense to some of these words. It doesn't mean they're overly sensitive or thin-skinned or looking for a fight. They might just have a different history than you, and these words could have a lot more meaning for them... especially if they're used in a negative way.

I don't care if "bitch" also means "female dog". If someone calls me a bitch, I'm going to feel hurt... especially if I'm being perfectly nice and my behaviour doesn't deserve such name-calling. The word has negative connotations to me, and to a lot of other people. Unless I grow fur and a tail (and start chasing it), I don't want to be called a bitch. Same goes for all the other words. I am neither technically "retarded" nor "gay", so if you call me those things I'm going to take it as an insult, because that's obviously how it was intended.

fragglerocks

31st May 2010, 12:48 AM

That's just silly. I can then make fun of a brain-dead person and call him a vegetable because it certainly won't hurt his feelings. And that's not even the point. Besides, as far as I understood - no one in this thread is diagnosed as mentally challenged, yet they're being offended in the name of people who are. I can just as well be offended by someone using the word bitch in a derogatory way in defense of the canine species.

Hey, I just answered your question. I guess I'm following a different line in the debate. Calling someone a bitch is offensive, but I can't feel sympathy for the dog's feelings, because the dog isn't going to get hurt by that. Yes, the owner's feelings will be hurt, but the dog's will not. Same with the vegetable scenario-the family would get hurt. But I don't think I've ever yelled at someone or something "You're a vegetable!" and meant it as an offensive slang term. Furthermore, I have never ran across a single dog owner who was ever offended by someone using that word around them, unless it was maybe said 'at' them. ;) But in the other scenarios we've mentioned, people have been offended. So that's my line of thinking when saying that there's a difference. Not a big one, but it's there.

Its all about context, like I said. I will say that do have a personal bias in this. My daughter is autistic and these things do come up in my life. The doctor told me that with autism comes some mental retardation. I was okay with hearing it that way. A girl at work I didn't like called my daughter a "retard". She got sent to the hospital with a bloody nose.

I don't like slang words like "retarded" when they are used negatively. It offends me. So do a lot of other ones, but I'm not going through the list, at risk of sounding any more "silly" than I already do. :p

mustluvcatz

31st May 2010, 12:57 AM

jooxis, my son is MR. Of course I'm going to get offended "in his name". That's my son, my blood, I gave birth to him. When any of my kids is upset, it affects me too- no matter what it is they're upset about.

jooxis

31st May 2010, 08:53 AM

I don't care if "bitch" also means "female dog". If someone calls me a bitch, I'm going to feel hurt... especially if I'm being perfectly nice and my behaviour doesn't deserve such name-calling. The word has negative connotations to me, and to a lot of other people. Unless I grow fur and a tail (and start chasing it), I don't want to be called a bitch. Same goes for all the other words. I am neither technically "retarded" nor "gay", so if you call me those things I'm going to take it as an insult, because that's obviously how it was intended.

You really tend to make arguments out of something that isn't even part of the debate. Yes, people will get offended if you call them a bitch or retarded or something, duh. The issue was whether it's okay to use those words IN OTHER WAYS with OTHER MEANINGS.

Me being thick-skinned has nothing to do with this. I feel uncomfortable/offended when people say certain things - because of my personal history. We all have something that reminds us of something bad, even though to other people, it means nothing. But what I feel personally and how the English language should be used globally are two different things. If everyone had their way, we wouldn't be able to use thousands of words. Maybe someone had a bad experience with carrots and wants people not to say carrot anymore so as not to remind them of a traumatizing event.

You can't control the way words will be used - language will constantly change and evolve as it has been doing since its invention. So it's completely futile. And as I already mentioned - pointless. You're barking at the wrong tree if you think eliminating some slang words will help fight homophobia or the stigma of being mentally challenged - it won't. In the same way that you won't achieve much for animal rights by eliminating the usage of insults like bitch, bird-brain, jackass, pig, etc.

Furthermore, I have never ran across a single dog owner who was ever offended by someone using that word around them

Which is exactly part of the point I made. ;)

Its all about context, like I said. I will say that do have a personal bias in this. My daughter is autistic and these things do come up in my life. The doctor told me that with autism comes some mental retardation. I was okay with hearing it that way. A girl at work I didn't like called my daughter a "retard". She got sent to the hospital with a bloody nose.

I don't like slang words like "retarded" when they are used negatively. It offends me. So do a lot of other ones, but I'm not going through the list, at risk of sounding any more "silly" than I already do. :p

Again - can't you people make a difference between calling a PERSON who is mentally challenged "a retard" (which is obviously an insult) and using the word "retarded" as a negative adjective for something. I am talking about the latter and I don't see why people keep bringing up the former.

I wasn't referring to you in the last paragraph, I appreciate that you replied.

longears15

31st May 2010, 10:36 AM

jooxis

31st May 2010, 10:49 AM

Jooxis, with absolutely no offence intended (it's so hard to convey tone when one is typing rather than speaking...) I still think that you are missing the point somewhat, and the reason that some of us feel the way we do. Regardless of what term you want to consider - 'retard', 'gay', or whatever - I don't consider that there is a difference. The reason that the term has taken on the meaning it has is because of a perception of intellectual disability, homosexuality as negative things.

As for 'bitch' also meaning female dog...why do you think that it became a derogatory term in the first place?

I understand the issue, at least in the way it has been formulated throughout the thread, beginning from the first post.

I can say:
1. "Haha you're kid is retarded" to someone who has a mentally challenged child.
2. "George Bush's foreign policies are retarded"

Some people in the thread think both 1. and 2. are offensive while I think 2. is not offensive since it is not meant to be offensive towards people with mental disabilities (only to Bush). The word is being used with different implications.

You put a lot of emphasis on etymology and it has to be said that we use tons and tons of words whose roots we aren't familiar with. I understand the slang word "gay" took its roots from a homophobic perception - but right now when people use it there isn't necessarily any underlying promotion of homophobia - despite the roots of the word. Again, like the word 'idiot' - we all use it, but if we consider what it used to mean and how it became an insult - we can be offended all over again.

I don't know why bitch started being used in an offensive way. But I may refer to someone as a "bitch" while I speak and the same time not promote animal hatred, because I'm using the word in a different way. It's not meant to be negative towards dogs. That was my first point.

The second point was that it's futile to fight it anyway. It would be silly of me complain "But there's nothing wrong with dogs - why can't you use some other word for your insults?!" The language and its speakers aren't going to cater to my personal feelings and there's very little any indivudual can do to eliminate words being used however they're being used.

Mosomashu

31st May 2010, 02:23 PM

Personally, I don't really see much wrong with the word 'retarded' but I can see why some people would. I don't use it, though. However, I think calling something 'gay' is just stupid. I mean, what kind of an insult is that? People use it so often that it has many different meanings and can take on a new one every time someone uses it, so instead of saying 'that's so gay' and having to explain afterwards what you mean to someone who doesn't use that word, why not just say what you mean?
(Did that make sense?)

Safyre420

31st May 2010, 03:36 PM

The reason that the term has taken on the meaning it has is because of a perception of intellectual disability, homosexuality as negative things.

Well going by that, if someone were to call an object "retarded" they would be correct in their usage as that object has an intellectual disability, it completely lacks intellect.

fragglerocks

31st May 2010, 07:49 PM

ToadPurse

1st Jun 2010, 01:25 AM

The problem is the immediate association by others, an association that ties in (what they think are) static meanings of words, to a context where this meaning is completely irrelevant.

Words change. Meanings change. There is no absolute in language, and language in itself is entirely about context and interpretation. It's incredibly dynamic.

Agreed. Only word that disgusts me really is "Faggot" usually because it's directed at homosexual people and (I find it) derogatory... whereas "Gay" or "That's gay" has now become another way of saying "That's stupid".

Nobody

2nd Jun 2010, 05:43 AM

I don't think it should be an offense because what we used to "diagnose" as retarded is not retarded. They are normal growing learning individuals they simply appear to have some problems with it.
Here's the deal. Everyone wants the same basic things. And being able to share your thoughts and be heard and have an influence on each others growth and understanding is a basic normal healthy "right". The problem is that there is so much loss of power associated with being wrong and influential that it's caused throughout history the application of severely brutal processes to make sure the "never ending enduring truth" lives on when people find it not so enduring and not so truthful.
Everything is zero sum and on balance of scale one person or one idea that's a bit of a attention whore diminishes every other person. And we all pay the price for it. Because the missing inputs of thought and communication slow down our eventual growth towards understanding. We stick with bad ideas, bad knowledge, poor theories too long because change sometimes threatens the direction something is headed and how individuals are treated and viewed.
The problem is that that change can sometimes need ego's and persons to be resized. You resize them by supporting another view and criti"sizing" a long held view.
And it has every trick in the book as it tries to solidify and institutionalize. You make some ideas or approaches "cherished beliefs" and you move them out of the realm of justification and reason and into the realm of sanctity. Throw in people wanting to kill and die for sanctity and it gets even more dangerous and stupid.
So there's supposedly good ways to get messages across and polite ways to get messages and information and understanding across. But it sometimes is guarded by unjust-justices and sanctimonious dorks.
So bottom line I am loathe to call someone uneducated or unexpeirenced with something a retard just to try to damage their confidence in their mental facualties and ability to understand manipulate and influence the world. But I'll call a doctor a retard if he's got no clue and he's simply trying to relay on "image" or crap or authority to get his point across. I'll call a psychiatrist a retard if he's missing the big picture, forcing people into a conformity box, or just trying to sell drugs.

So retard. Ask me if I want to pick on the retarded kid with you I'll make you eat your underwear instead.

Big shot "know it all" takes advantage of what people don't know. You're going to hear the word retard from me. I'm going to fight you. I'm going to humilate you. I'm going to make you seriously question your mental capabilities. The word retard is a weapon. Use it wisely and don't pull it out till you feel nothing for the other person but contempt.

fragglerocks

2nd Jun 2010, 07:23 AM

I'm going to make you seriously question your mental capabilities.

Apparently you have, because I can't make sense of what you've just posted.

Its like an acid trip gone very, very bad.

Like...horrendously bad.

fakepeeps7

2nd Jun 2010, 07:58 AM

Its like an acid trip gone very, very bad.

Like...horrendously bad.

But acid and forum posts are so much fun!

So there's supposedly good ways to get messages across and polite ways to get messages and information and understanding across. But it sometimes is guarded by unjust-justices and sanctimonious dorks.

So, because you failed to get your message across, does that mean it's an "unjust-justice"... or are we getting into the area of sanctimonious dorkery here? :lol:

simbalena

2nd Jun 2010, 08:05 AM

Stop criti"sizing" him people. :lol:

Nobody

2nd Jun 2010, 10:24 AM

Apparently you have, because I can't make sense of what you've just posted.

Its like an acid trip gone very, very bad.

Like...horrendously bad.

You're trying to get me to call you a retard aren't you. :p

The problem with offense is you have to get to the root nature of it and what it is. Political correctness is a socializing or conforming tool.
For instance it's not wise to call a black man in the US "boy" because he's going to have previous experience as a slave where the slave owner had attempted to control the victim. One of the control points is trying to set up an authoritative non helpless identity for the controller and trying to get the victim to internalize a helpless child that listens to authority role. You can sense that if you are sensitive to it and know what is at the root of it.
The thing with political correctness is it's used to conform and control expression cutting off strategies or methods to deal with situations. It becomes a form of mind control. If you can limit the forms of expression you can eventually limit how people think to respond and it becomes a form of mind control. This is done because effective control has to take on several components. First emotional abuse and minimizing. This sets up the person to overdrive in the mental realm so controlling forces will try to limit thoughts and strategy applications that would bring that back into balance. The old I can kill you but you can't kill me cause it's wrong. I can call you stupid but you can't call me stupid because it's wrong. This is the basic forces of imbalance that lead to our sanctimonious world.

People who are sensitive to social issues or understanding people are simply feed these big powerful group energies and it begins feeding on itself because all the participants think they are actually making things better. It's a way to make peoples natural desire to make the world a better, kinder more harmonious place and harness those forces for a purpose that doesn't really achieve anything in terms of controlling what needs to be controlled. It simply sets up a "fasces" or facist bundle of likemindedness.

But you have to look at the big picture of backdrops of what it is. One person calling another person a retard is a very focused personal thing. If you were to have a developmentally disabled child. You have no way to know how that person would treat your child or will treat them when they grow up. It's not a social universal issue. All trouble results from fasces bundling, the root word of facism. Gay people are gay. They aren't wrong they aren't sinful they aren't doing anything that causes too much collateral damage. They aren't taking over. Their sexual preferences won't cause a tipping point and everyone turn gay. The lines are drawn and there's nothing to change or fix. But people still try to gang up against them and make them feel bad or outside the norm. Or beat them up. It's these forces that make treating a person badly get such a bad name. Because it gets out of hand and out of control so quickly and easily.

So everyone uses that as justification to avoid being mean. If I'm yelling at a black person, I'm not racist. I'm mad at a black person. If I'm trying to convince people to join me in the wonders of slave ownership. Ya I'm up to no good and you probably better shoot me and fight me cause I'm out to hurt people in a deep and lasting way that isn't easily fixed. But it's odd how we make these fasces bundles so easily when they aren't really doing anything to help all that much but when large groups of people are being hurt we react so slowly and timidly with a well that's just the way things are attitude. It's like a strange magnifier and distorter is constantly at work making big problems go on far to long and small problems come together with massive enthusiasm and action from people all over the globe.

So perspective wise using the word retarded is bad and diminishing but I can run into 10 people in a day who have a "thing" about the word retarded. Driving over peoples dead bodies in your bradly or humvee or tank is bad also, but people like having a massive cultural revolution over the hurtful usage of the word retard mostly because it's easy and safe. You can criti-"size" someone who uses the word retard. But people who kill by the thousands and hundreds of thousands solve their problems with death and extreme diminishment. Not even giving people the right to exist much less "be themselves". So we mostly feel empowered and authorized to handle things aren't of too much signficance. It's easy route stuff that doesn't garner too much resistance but the big problems you start trying to fix those and you will open a whole can of massive resistance and threatening backlash.

Say something about politics on this board or any "content" or focused board and you'll have moderators deleting it or shutting down the thread. The moderators will suddenly become fearful that it will start senseless arguments or unfocus the group. But those fears aren't real all the time. They just get hit with them in order to drive discussing important topics onto a small little corner of the net that can be more easily monitored and manipulated.

Zela

2nd Jun 2010, 11:01 AM

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

At the end of the day, people will use the word 'retard' or 'freak'. It isn't nice, but when does someone go through life having not experience someone being mean? I think it is a fact of life. I use the word 'freak', and I know I shouldn't. I use it with my friends when we are joking, but I would NEVER use it as a series, horrible comment to someone. The boys at school use the term 'downy', referring to downs syndrome, to call each other when i.e. someone messes up on a test and gets a really bad mark, or if they fall over. I think it is terrible. All jokes aside, some people think they are being funny, but how many cases of verbal abuse has lead to suicide or self-harm? Probably quite a lot. I know now I am going into a different debate (bullying) but in some cases, the word 'retard' will/would have been used in a bullying way.
The word 'retard' is used in different contexts. It really depends what context it is used in.

fakepeeps7

2nd Jun 2010, 07:22 PM

You can criti-"size" someone who uses the word retard. But people who kill by the thousands and hundreds of thousands solve their problems with death and extreme diminishment. Not even giving people the right to exist much less "be themselves". So we mostly feel empowered and authorized to handle things aren't of too much signficance. It's easy route stuff that doesn't garner too much resistance but the big problems you start trying to fix those and you will open a whole can of massive resistance and threatening backlash.

The average person can't do much besides handle the things that you claim have little significance. As one person, I have no control over those who kill thousands of people. I can go out and protest, sure. But that doesn't do much (except make me feel like I'm doing something).

I do, however, have control over the way I treat others in my everyday life. Just because I can't effect change on a global scale doesn't mean I shouldn't try to do so on a more personal level.

jooxis

2nd Jun 2010, 08:00 PM

Human beings do not run on pure logic. If they did, we would have many of our world problems solved. ;) But as it is, we are highly emotional. To continue an argument saying "Well I know you are offended, but but but....you shouldn't be because the fact of the matter is that you shouldn't feel an emotional attachment to a definition...". I can't do that. Logically, yes, I can see that it shouldn't upset me. But I am not logical when I have an emotional tie. I am not a robot. I have feelings that do get hurt, and so does everyone else.

I have friends that regularly use the word "retarded" to describe things. Yet, its funny that they feel a need to apologize to me when they use it accidentally in front of me. (I don't even say anything...) Jooxis, I am willing to bet that if you were in a room with a few people with down syndrome, and were using the computer, you would think twice about shouting "Stupid retarded computer!" out loud. Or at least I really hope so...you do seem like a kind person.

Even though, logically, a word has a different meaning, it can and will be offensive. Saying it shouldn't be isn't going to make it so.

Yes, we are emotional. And since all emotions are pretty individual, it shouldn't influence what words we're ALL allowed to use during a casual conversation. I look at it this way - if someone tries to offend you - you're obviously going to feel offended. If someone says something insensitive but meant no harm - I'll let it go. I feel that's the best way to go about it.

I'm tired of coming up with examples but here's another one. If your mother committed suicide by hanging, it would have left you with a VERY traumatic experience. In fact, you won't consider the topic of suicide/hanging/ropes funny nor would you appreciate any humor anyone tries to associate with it. And that's to be expected, that's normal. But people sometimes play "hangman" for fun - imagine if your classmates were doing it (and they didn't know about your experience). Would you throw a fit? Would you try to get the game banned because it is in poor taste? The point is, the game is not meant to offend or make anyone uncomfortable, yet it will in some cases. But the fact that it's not MEANT to be offensive is a reason to just look the other way instead of complaining and asking that people don't play it, even when they're not around you.

It's good to be considerate when using words when you're AROUND people who you know will be sensitive about the topic. I wouldn't use the word "retarded" in front of people who would be offended by that word. I never use the word "fat" with a negative implication when I'm around my overweight friends, for example. But I use that word more liberally when I'm around my average-weight friends.

edinfresno

4th Jun 2010, 04:39 AM

As the stepfather of an absolutely wonderful special needs daughter (and, yes, I think of her as my daughter, not as my stepdaughter) I can tell you that I'm quite often offended by the most common usage of the word "retarded", namely; "stupid", "moronic", "imbicilic".. Okay I'm starting to sound like Mr Data, now.. Anyway.. Yes my daughter has learning disabilities and limitations but I can tell you that she's not stupid but is, in fact, bright, funny, witty, quite intelligent in her own ways, very insightful and wise beyond her years and a real heart stealer. Anyone who truly knows her just loves her to pieces, including me.

In respect to the last comments; why I get so offended at the most common usage of the word, "retarded"..

It's not the word, itself, that I find so offensive but the horrible and completely misleading stereotype of mindless, drooling stupidity that has evolved around the word over the years.

If there's any parents of special needs children reading this lets count our blessings, together. I can't speak for anyone else but having my daughter in my life is such a tremendous joy that I can't even begin to describe. I'm sure you feel the same way. At least I hope so.

As for those who continue to use the word, "retarded", in its negative, stereotypical context; well, they're just showing how immature they are. Is that retarded?

jooxis

4th Jun 2010, 08:58 AM

I can tell you that I'm quite often offended by the most common usage of the word "retarded", namely; "stupid", "moronic", "imbicilic"..

:blink:
Why is everyone so picky with etymology in regards to this. If you think "retarded" is not okay as an insult - why do you think "idiot" or "moron" is? Why? Or don't you?

"The word moron, along with others including "retarded", "idiotic", "imbecilic", "stupid", and "feeble-minded", was formerly considered a valid descriptor in the psychological community, but it is now deprecated in use by psychologists"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron_(psychology)

So those words you mentioned all used to mean the same thing as "retarded" in psychology. ALL OF THEM used to be words to describe someone who is mentally challenged. By this logic they should all be offensive to anyone who finds "retarded" offensive, Because they are all rooted in the perception that being mentally challenged is very negative, apparently.

fakepeeps7

4th Jun 2010, 06:01 PM

:blink:
Why is everyone so picky with etymology in regards to this. If you think "retarded" is not okay as an insult - why do you think "idiot" or "moron" is? Why? Or don't you?

"The word moron, along with others including "retarded", "idiotic", "imbecilic", "stupid", and "feeble-minded", was formerly considered a valid descriptor in the psychological community, but it is now deprecated in use by psychologists"

"Retarded" so recently meant "mentally or physically delayed" that people still remember that and the negative connotations that go along with it. Maybe in a hundred years "retarded" will be regarded as just a cute little insult. But I don't think it's there yet, and to keep telling people that they shouldn't be offended shows almost as much insensitivity as if you were to actually use the word itself.

jooxis

4th Jun 2010, 06:38 PM

Well, FINALLY someone gave me a response to that...

But trust me, I get offended by hundreds of things/words/stereotypes that most people say and use - I just go about it differently. So it's not to do with me being insensitive, I am debating. And that is not to say I should be offended in the first place.

"Retarded" is the more "recent" term turning into an insult, that's true. But I see it as something predictable that's happening and has happened before and will happen again.

"Idiot" started becoming an insult at one point and as a result people had to find a different word for mentally challenged. The same thing is happening with the word retarded. It's becoming more of an insult and less of a technical term for mentally challenged. I don't think it's appropriate anymore to say it in that context, or at least isn't preferrable. Future people won't associate that word with mentally challenged people - they already don't. It's going to happen with the next word and so on...

fakepeeps7

4th Jun 2010, 07:28 PM

Future people won't associate that word with mentally challenged people - they already don't.

Do you have a time machine? How do you know what future people think? :lol:

You can't make sweeping statements like that, anyway. A lot of people still do associate the word "retarded" with mental disabilities. If they didn't, this thread doesn't need to exist and wouldn't have been started in the first place.

jooxis

4th Jun 2010, 08:21 PM

Do you have a time machine? How do you know what future people think? :lol:

Because you don't even need half a brain to conclude that - words evolve in certain, often predictable ways, usually with less and less taboo associated with each word that gets used more and more. There are countless examples. "Fuck" is becoming a milder and milder word each year.

You can't make sweeping statements like that, anyway. A lot of people still do associate the word "retarded" with mental disabilities. If they didn't, this thread doesn't need to exist and wouldn't have been started in the first place.

And a lot of people don't. This is the people I was referring to when I said "they already don't". I've been using the word retarded probably a decade before I found out it has anything to do with mental disabilities. Younger generations associate these things even less. It's becoming much more of an insult and much less to do with mental disabilities. Again, you don't need a time machine to predict that it will most likely continue in that direction as many words have before.

fragglerocks

7th Jun 2010, 12:53 AM

I've been using the word retarded probably a decade before I found out it has anything to do with mental disabilities.

Then I highly doubt you are the person we need telling us what words used to mean, what they will mean in the future, and how they should be defined.

It's becoming much more of an insult and much less to do with mental disabilities.

Its becoming an insult because it has to do with mental disabilities. No one refers to someone they don't like as "intellectual" while intending for that to be an insult.

Vanito

7th Jun 2010, 08:59 AM

Technically any word can be used as an insult in the right context. How insulting words may come across depends on who, what situation, how said, where etc.

It makes no sense to define words as 'insulting' or 'not insulting' without the context and people involved.

The same jokes I make with friends or my brother (who has the same healthproblems/disabilities) may be very insulting in another context. "Zombie", "cripple" or "insane" may be funny to us, its not something used with other people unless they share the same sense of humor.

Same thing that in some subcultures where dark/indian/mixed (hindoestanen) race people call eachother the new trendy weird nickname 'coolie' instead of 'mate'. Its a word that refers to slavery but its very hot at the moment amongst those groups. Yet, when an outsider says it it still an insult. The context defines the meaning.

Its becoming an insult because it has to do with mental disabilities. No one refers to someone they don't like as "intellectual" while intending for that to be an insult.
The common insult here is 'nerd'.

jooxis

7th Jun 2010, 01:50 PM

Then I highly doubt you are the person we need telling us what words used to mean, what they will mean in the future, and how they should be defined.

Most people aren't born with knowledge of the etymology of common words and most people were children at some point and didn't care about such things. And I'm not talking about how words should be defined - that gets taken care of itself, regardless of how you all feel about it.

edit: I've really said everything a million times. I don't even know what it is anymore that you guys want. For no one to use the word "retarded" as an insult? That's censorship. Think it's promoting a negative stance towards mental disabilites? That's an overreaction if you ask me. You don't want people to view mental disabilites as something negative?
Define negative. No one is promoting inferior treatment of disabled people but you could say disabilities are not desirable. Most people would not prefer to have disabilities if they would be able to choose beforehand. Most people do not want their children to be born disabled - for their own sake. Why do you think people don't use the word "intellectual" as an insult? Would you then be happy if they did? I hardly know anymore what the debate is.

paksetti

12th Jun 2010, 06:12 AM

Hah. When I was younger, I used to ask people to say "retarded" instead of "gay" when referring to something stupid, as if that made it better-- and they actually did it! It was ridiculous. stupid people.

Honestly, words like retarded, gay and much much worse don't really bother me, unless someone's said it forty times in a row or is being really obnoxious.
But I can see how people get offended.

SuicidiaParasidia

12th Jun 2010, 12:00 PM

i do declare it all comes down to:

just because someone says it doesnt mean you have to believe it.

personally i am very rarely offended...by anything.
guess why?
( hint: i stopped giving a fuck about how other people talk. i stopped giving it relevancy in my life. i stopped giving it the power to influence my line of thought. )

oops, that was more than a hint. oh well.
furthermore: ++, jooxis. ++.

Zela

12th Jun 2010, 03:47 PM

It is always easy to say you don't have to belive what someone says but if you are more sensitive than others, you will take an insult as an insult because at the end of the day, it is an insult. Somepeople can take a comment but others find words more hurtful. People have sensitive areas. Most bullys pick up on people's soft spots, like 'spotty', 'fatty', 'retard'. I don't happen to find some words, 'gay' for instance, that offensive (it doesn't really mean anything pointed towards me) but, an excellent point Pare321 brought up, I can see how it could offend others.

SuicidiaParasidia

12th Jun 2010, 04:20 PM

It is always easy to say you don't have to belive what someone says but if you are more sensitive than others, you will take an insult as an insult because at the end of the day, it is an insult.

easily fixed: grow a skin.
trust me, ive done it. so its not like im talking out of my ass, here.

if theres anything in this world we have the most control over, it is OURSELVES.
we cannot hope to change anybody else, as we do not have that power over them.

whining over what someone else says is the product of not wanting to put forth the effort to change your own perception or making the conscious decision not to let something hurt you.

and to be clear, i WAS a bully in middle and high school. i know the drill. but i also know this: if whoever i was bugging stopped giving me reason to bug them ( IE chose not to be bothered by it any more ), i wouldnt have something to use against them and there was nothing i could do to obstruct them from carrying on their merry way.

Zela

12th Jun 2010, 04:28 PM

I'm simple saying others are more sensitive and that's just them. It isn't because they are whining or because they are cowards. They shouldn't have the change because they don't want to be bullied or picked on. It is simple rude to say certain things. This is just my opinion.
EDIT: I'm not saying I don't completely agree with you; some people do take EVERYTHING seriously and that's a pain, but some people are just sensitive to certain words/things like the word 'retard'. Why should they change and 'grow a skin'? Surely the bully should learn some respect from somewhere.

fakepeeps7

12th Jun 2010, 06:00 PM

and to be clear, i WAS a bully in middle and high school. i know the drill. but i also know this: if whoever i was bugging stopped giving me reason to bug them ( IE chose not to be bothered by it any more ), i wouldnt have something to use against them and there was nothing i could do to obstruct them from carrying on their merry way.

Wow. Way to blame the victim.

Would you still be defending your bad behaviour if you had assaulted people with physical force instead of words?

Oaktree

12th Jun 2010, 06:17 PM

easily fixed: grow a skin.
trust me, ive done it. so its not like im talking out of my ass, here.

if theres anything in this world we have the most control over, it is OURSELVES.
we cannot hope to change anybody else, as we do not have that power over them.

whining over what someone else says is the product of not wanting to put forth the effort to change your own perception or making the conscious decision not to let something hurt you.

and to be clear, i WAS a bully in middle and high school. i know the drill. but i also know this: if whoever i was bugging stopped giving me reason to bug them ( IE chose not to be bothered by it any more ), i wouldnt have something to use against them and there was nothing i could do to obstruct them from carrying on their merry way.

I agree that people should grow a skin, and that the only thing you can change is yourself.

I think your anecdote at the end there is somewhat counter to this idea, though. You said it as if it is the responsibility of the victim to change in order to stop the bullying. From your perspective, you should have changed, since you seem to be aware of the fact that it was wrong. You can't rely on others to change to meet your criteria, but if you think of bullying as wrong, then you can change yourself and stop being a bully. I realize that you have changed and I'm not trying to get on your case about it, but I'm just pointing out that the idea of changing oneself for the better applies in more circumstances than just when one is the subject of bullying.

Safyre420

12th Jun 2010, 06:20 PM

Why should they change and 'grow a skin'? Surely the bully should learn some respect from somewhere.

Surely the victim wouldn't be a victim if they just ignored what someone was saying. The problem with these words isn't how they are used, it's how they are heard and interpreted. Too many people will be offended because the word was simply used, some because it was used improperly and some because it was probably directed at them.

They should 'grow a skin' and learn to figure out what context was used, if the word was actually used as an insult then by all means be offended, if it wasn't don't get your panties in a twist because it wasn't used as an insult. There's nothing more annoying than political correctness.

el_flel

12th Jun 2010, 07:15 PM

The victim is still a victim; whether they ignore it or not, it still happened. I totally agree with Zela; everyone is different. Some people are more resilient and don't get offended often whereas other people take it more easily. And yes, it's ridiculous when someone is over the top but in many cases there are reasons why a person will find something more insulting (groups of people who are subjected to discrimination - women, black people, homosexuals, those with disabilties, for example).

It almost sounds like some people in this thread are saying that if you're sensitive or not thick-skinned then you deserve to picked on, which is absolute rubbish. It's basically a cop out for bad behaviour.

paksetti

12th Jun 2010, 07:39 PM

It's just easier to ignore and forget is when someone offends you. That's not to say they should continue doing it, "should" being the operative word.
You can't tell someone what to do, so if someone is going to say something offensive it's best not to get worked up about it because more often than not, you're not going to change their mind. If someone walked up to you and something offensive, how would getting outwardly upset help? It's okay to get offended- they said something offensive! They just don't need to know that- ignore them, they're not worth it. (Unless, of course it's your kid and they don't know better)
I don't like it when people call me a Dyke, but more often than not I just ignore it. If I said "Don't call me that!" or "Don't say that word!" they would probably want to do it again-- not that it would be my fault.

Being offensive= wrong
Getting outwardly upset= pointless.

SuicidiaParasidia

12th Jun 2010, 10:19 PM

Why should they change and 'grow a skin'? Surely the bully should learn some respect from somewhere.

well, lets turn that on its heel, shall we? i find the same answer either way.

why should i have to stop saying something if clearly they are the ones with a bug up their bum about it? out of pity? are they somehow inferior to me because they cant moderate their emotional output/input through language?

I think your anecdote at the end there is somewhat counter to this idea, though. You said it as if it is the responsibility of the victim to change in order to stop the bullying. From your perspective, you should have changed, since you seem to be aware of the fact that it was wrong. You can't rely on others to change to meet your criteria, but if you think of bullying as wrong, then you can change yourself and stop being a bully. I realize that you have changed and I'm not trying to get on your case about it, but I'm just pointing out that the idea of changing oneself for the better applies in more circumstances than just when one is the subject of bullying.

of course. and you were correct in thinking that i did change.

however, and as much as this goes for others it does go for me: nobody can be made to change.
therefore; change comes to those who are willing to do so.

now, before you respond to that, riddle me this: how likely are they to persuade everybody ELSE to change their ( own ) way of speaking just for them, as opposed to changing their way of thinking so that either they do not see an insult to be offended at, or, so that said insult doesnt bother them so much?

Wow. Way to blame the victim.

Would you still be defending your bad behaviour if you had assaulted people with physical force instead of words?

who's blaming anyone?
both sides are accountable. neither is excused, victim or bully.

and where, praytell, did i defend my bullying? where do you sense pride in my words? do tell; im dying to read.

fragglerocks

12th Jun 2010, 10:35 PM

SuicidiaParasidia

12th Jun 2010, 10:40 PM

Whew! Is anyone else cold? I have a few extra blankets if anyone needs one.

Anyways, can't argue much with the last point, except for one thing. I can't not be offended if I am. Its not a switch I can just turn off and on. But I can choose not to be associated with people I feel are being insensitive towards me. Which is okay, because if we all shared the same views, I would probably be bored to death. ;)

oh no, its never something immediate or automatic.
turning off the switch requires conscious decision and exercise of said decision.
i could list the multitude of ways there are that one could calm themselves and/or change their view, but ultimately i do not know everybody as thoroughly as they know themselves. i only know that with time and effort, they COULD work at not being offended by something that normally would offend them.

but hey; you cant win the race if you avoid the track entirely, right?

bold for truth.

Oaktree

12th Jun 2010, 10:41 PM

of course. and you were correct in thinking that i did change.

however, and as much as this goes for others it does go for me: nobody can be made to change.
therefore; change comes to those who are willing to do so.

now, before you respond to that, riddle me this: how likely are they to persuade everybody ELSE to change their ( own ) way of speaking just for them, as opposed to changing their way of thinking so that either they do not see an insult to be offended at, or, so that said insult doesnt bother them so much?

I agree that, in the particular circumstance of offensive language, it is more likely for the offended person to be able to shrug it off than it is for them to convince everyone else to stop using the offensive language. And I did say that I agree with you when you said that people should grow a skin. I don't really get upset when people try to insult me unless the person doing it is someone I care for. I'm generally pretty apathetic when others use words like "retarded" and "gay". I try to choose my words carefully, but I don't expect that every other person will. I don't really even want everyone to try to be as unoffensive as possible. My opinion on political correctness ranges from boredom to outrage, depending on the circumstances. I speak politely when I'm trying to make an impression, but I think that it is far better for people to be blunt about their feelings, even if it means using a few colorful words and phrases. I think that using those words with malice is a bad thing, but everyone loses their temper every now and then. People are malicious sometimes, and while the behavior should be discouraged, it can't be helped entirely. So, yes, we'll all get along better if people learn not to take things too personally.

SuicidiaParasidia

12th Jun 2010, 10:44 PM

I agree that, in the particular circumstance of offensive language, it is more likely for the offended person to be able to shrug it off than it is for them to convince everyone else to stop using the offensive language. And I did say that I agree with you when you said that people should grow a skin. I don't really get upset when people try to insult me unless the person doing it is someone I care for. I'm generally pretty apathetic when others use words like "retarded" and "gay". I try to choose my words carefully, but I don't expect that every other person will. I don't really even want everyone to try to be as unoffensive as possible. My opinion on political correctness ranges from boredom to outrage, depending on the circumstances. I speak politely when I'm trying to make an impression, but I think that it is far better for people to be blunt about their feelings, even if it means using a few colorful words and phrases. I think that using those words with malice is a bad thing, but everyone loses their temper every now and then. People are malicious sometimes, and while the behavior should be discouraged, it can't be helped entirely. So, yes, we'll all get along better if people learn not to take things too personally.

mmmm cant see any argument in that.

damn, you won. ):

fakepeeps7

13th Jun 2010, 02:38 AM

who's blaming anyone?
both sides are accountable. neither is excused, victim or bully.

and where, praytell, did i defend my bullying? where do you sense pride in my words? do tell; im dying to read.

You said:

and to be clear, i WAS a bully in middle and high school. i know the drill. but i also know this: if whoever i was bugging stopped giving me reason to bug them ( IE chose not to be bothered by it any more ), i wouldnt have something to use against them and there was nothing i could do to obstruct them from carrying on their merry way.

I interpret that as, "If you don't want to be bullied, don't give me a reason to bully you." And then you go and say that the victim is not excused and should be held accountable! If that's not defending bullying, I don't know what is...

(And thanks for the swipe at my character. "Not Memorable"? Stay classy, SP. I don't think you've changed as much as you seem to think you have.)

Vanito

13th Jun 2010, 04:53 AM

Easily fixed: grow a nicer personality!

Why do bullies bully anyway? Bullying is not exactly the same as losing your temper on an issue.

I live by the philosophy: take someone your own size if you want to make a mess. Debate forums are good for debating stuff in that sense: everyone here knows the rules and knows they come here for debate. Picking on weak people is just sad.

Excusing yourself by continuing on those who dont actively stop you is a rather crappy excuse. Your responsible for your own actions. Noone else.

Vanito

13th Jun 2010, 05:30 AM

well, lets turn that on its heel, shall we? i find the same answer either way.

why should i have to stop saying something if clearly they are the ones with a bug up their bum about it? out of pity? are they somehow inferior to me because they cant moderate their emotional output/input through language?
You are actually implying here you do consider or considered people who are weaker to be inferior: if they cannot handle what you say they deserve to be bullied by you. So indirectly you do consider yourself to be superior (or without self-control).

This reasoning makes as little sense to me as dudes raping women just because they are stronger or a groups of whites beating up a black just because they are stronger. "Just because you can" is never a reason.

SuicidiaParasidia

13th Jun 2010, 05:53 AM

You are actually implying here you do consider or considered people who are weaker to be inferior: if they cannot handle what you say they deserve to be bullied by you. So indirectly you do consider yourself to be superior (or without self-control).

This reasoning makes as little sense to me as dudes raping women just because they are stronger or a groups of whites beating up a black just because they are stronger. "Just because you can" is never a reason.

mmmm nooo, where did i say anything about deserving? or even implying it? im asking why i should be expected to change my tune, yet not them. simple equality question, that's all.
eesh you people make up a lot of things.

and for the record, i dont owe you jack by way of reasoning.

but yes, i do. why? because my life is seriously less inhibited by my lack of overemotional umbrage. i do not put obstacles in my way; i take them down.

the one common denominator in any situation, is the person experiencing it from their POV. changing your environment only works as long as:
A) the environment does indeed change truly, and stays changed.
B) you never leave that environment henceforth. good luck with that.

so i could argue that theres really no point to me changing; wherever they go, if they want to see that as a problem, theres nothing but themselves to thank for it. not everybody sees hostile ( seeming? ) use of language as a terribly horrible inhumane thing. and who is it, may i ask, that decided we suddenly all should? the majority? the majority were also smart enough to endorse slavery way back when. ( sarcasm, on the smart part, as i dont trust you to pick that up yourselves any more. )

but like i said. it wouldnt be a problem if people didnt make it out to be one.

comparing me to rapists and physically abusive people is quite charming on your own behalf, by the way. loving it. xD

but in case you havnt learned by now: women are not all weak and defenseless. ever hear about the women who're abused for 20 years and shot their abuse..r... dead? i dont think id brush that off too lightly. dont worry, i do believe the d-bags ( abusive men...or other women ) had it coming, but im also not inclined to show mercy to the murderous femme.

likewise not all black people are helpless, especially nowadays. in fact id say its the rarer occasion that a black person is beaten simply for being black, than women being raped simply for being...well... available for it.

jesus H, this post is too long.
long story short: if neither sides are willing to change, no change will be made. would you rather trust yourself to change, or rely on others to change for you?

( i could also sit here and tangent about how my bullying did actually save a kid, who ended up my best friend for a long while. shy girl, everybody but me picked on her. i went after more stable targets. but it bothers me when a group gangs up on one weaker individual, so i set after her assailants and cleared up the rest of her school life.
why did it work? they knew i was a bully. they knew i was a stronger opponent who would not fold like she did. so put that in your pipes and smoke it. xD )

@fakepeeps7:
" not memorable " was not a " swipe at your character ". i have ONE MTS window open and other shet to do. i cant be arsed to navigate the pages to find your name unless id already copied it into my message from before. and yes. i do have a shitty memory. hence, " not memorable "-your name didnt stick in my head, therefore i had nothing to write down for it but that.

now who's swiping at who? :)

but, since you people seem incapable of seeing it yourselves:
NOWHERE on ANY PAGE *anywhere* do i say that a victim " asked " for it. however, i will not proclaim that they do not exert a certain power over their situation, whether they know it or not. there are ways to stop a bully if one so chooses to seek them.
responsibility and blame are entirely different, though good try for trying to tie them together like that. i saw what you did there.

Vanito

13th Jun 2010, 07:24 AM

mmmm nooo, where did i say anything about deserving? or even implying it? im asking why i should be expected to change my tune, yet not them. simple equality question, that's all.
Not everybody sees hostile ( seeming? ) use of language as a terribly horrible inhumane thing. and who is it, may i ask, that decided we suddenly all should? the majority? the majority were also smart enough to endorse slavery way back when. ( sarcasm, on the smart part, as i dont trust you to pick that up yourselves any more.
I do not expect you to change, I want to know your reasoning. Because it still doesnt makes sense to me.

As said before, theres a difference in who, what, where and why in using offensive language. Some people go overtly politically correct on anything, in some cases using certain words solely has the purpose to annoy or hurt people.

Bullying is targetting on people it with the sole purpose of annoying or hurting the other, its a different thing from people who are offended by words because of political correctness. Saying offensive things is one, continuing when you see you annoy or hurt people is a step further than just using offensive language: you go back to the person because you know it works out bad for them.

(we are debating here in a small group, so please dont drag "the majority" in, as they are not debating here.)

but like i said. it wouldnt be a problem if people didnt make it out to be one.

comparing me to rapists and physically abusive people is quite charming on your own behalf, by the way. loving it. xD

but in case you havnt learned by now: women are not all weak and defenseless. ever hear about the women who're abused for 20 years and shot their abuse..r... dead? i dont think id brush that off too lightly. dont worry, i do believe the d-bags ( abusive men...or other women ) had it coming, but im also not inclined to show mercy to the murderous femme.
I have volunteered for about a year in a disability group, so little need to explain to me what abused women are like. Most are first mentally abused, manipulated and made feel worthless before the physcial abuse starts. Its the typical pattern for abuse. In generally the abusers tend to pick them for low self esteem in the first place: thats why its so frequent with disabled women. Bullies are not that different. They also pick the ones who seem easy and vulnerable victims.

likewise not all black people are helpless, especially nowadays. in fact id say its the rarer occasion that a black person is beaten simply for being black, than women being raped simply for being...well... available for it.
You just explained to me you also seek who is available... well why are you different?

long story short: if neither sides are willing to change, no change will be made. would you rather trust yourself to change, or rely on others to change for you?
It is not logical to assume they can chance: if they could it would be unlogical for them not to do so. Some people may be in situations they cannot easily escape from, some may be more sensitive to others in general. People who have been bullied by groups, or by older stronger kids in the past tend to make easier victims. Abuse at home makes one person violent, the other passive. There are many reasons why people make easy targets, and a lot of things are not easily changed.

( i could also sit here and tangent about how my bullying did actually save a kid, who ended up my best friend for a long while. shy girl, everybody but me picked on her. i went after more stable targets. but it bothers me when a group gangs up on one weaker individual, so i set after her assailants and cleared up the rest of her school life.
why did it work? they knew i was a bully. they knew i was a stronger opponent who would not fold like she did. so put that in your pipes and smoke it. xD )
People do not need to "know" you are a bully to have respect for you. If people harras my friends similarly know they can expect trouble, theres no need to be a bully for that.