Category: News and Views
It is now illegal to use the term 'retarded' in Massachusetts. Yes that's right, we don't have other business to tend to, like fixing potholes or crumbling bridges, we are too busy playing with semantics and formalizing them into law.
Any business, like social services, for retarded individuals has to be referred to in a way like "intellectually challenged individuals" or some other such babble.
I'm failing to see the big deal behind the word retarded, referred to here as "the r word". All it means is slowed, like we put food in the fridge to retard spoilage. All the term means in French is late, like "Je suis en retard". I was supposed to show up quite a bit before I did, I'm late. I know a lady whose first child I believe has Downs, I'm wondering if she can even continue to call him "delayed".
Is changing semantics really going to engender more respect for the individuals? Maybe the line "What ah you intellectually challenged?" can now be made famous in a movie. But what do you expect? The first city, Brookline, that banned spanking one's child is here.
I seriously think this is sick and a total waste of money. Not only will it grant more respect to the individual, but personally, I find it insulting when people try to call me visually-challenged. I'm blind and you're an asshole! True, the word retarded can carry with it connotations not found with the word blind but people need to grow the fuck up. It's not like we're calling intelligent people retards, though this case clearly shows that some can act like them. And then people complain when serious issues aren't met...
Fucken retarted.
But seriously, I agree completely, waste of time and money.
LOL, Striker, you took the line right out of my mouth. Yes, I agree this is a pathetic waste of time and money. Like Eleni said, I can't stand people using the words visually challenge, sightless, etc. I'm blind, and that's that. Our society is far too politically correct already: now we're making it into law. Ugh.
Let's not forget that there are disabled people and organisations for disabled people that put a lot of money, time and effort into debating terminology and language instead of focusing on more important matters. No good disabled people should have anything to do with such organisations - I don't because they're evil and they should be closed down.
Agreed. If they truly want to help people with disabilities, they should focus on that, not what they're called.
Agreed 100%. The "correct" term changes so often that I have lost track, but to say the least, I am blind, and I am never offended by it being said. But, I do not expect any different...Children in our area are now taught at school that the only correct term for their privates is "middle". It goes along the same line...
Gods forbid they teach, oh, I donno, the medical terms which are respectable and which are used in hospitals. No wonder students get stupid when they hear penis or vagina in health class later on.
I agree completely; what a total waste of time and money.
That is bullshit. How would you even inforce such a law? It makes me want to fly over there and scream out retarted at the top of my voice.
Political correct stuff is all about the people enforcing it, making them feel like they did something without having done anything. This is true for the softfooted fools wanting to remove terms like retarded, and the hardheaded fools that want to minimize the effects of slavery in textbooks in school districts in the south. I actually had a wingnut get upset on overhearing a couple of us talking shop because we used the word 'abort' (to stop a process, often in the middle of a loop or action / set of instructions). The term has technical meaning but because of her disposition it set her off.
Yet another pair of groups who woefully deserve each other. We've got wilderness land on this continent: let's fence off some, toss the lot of both sides' extremists in there and call it a game preserve. Goat Island was called that for a reason: They used goats to clear the undergrowth and make it habitable, because they'll consume almost anything. Wonder how we can make use of the wingnuts on both sides? Wherever we put 'em I'm in favor of some serious voltage going through that fence to ensure they don't get out. Don't forget the staff at Berkley who ran off military recruiters because they didn't like what's going on over there. (Who does? Certainly nobody I know who is over there?) We have plenty of mountainous land not really inhabited by people so there oughta be space for the game preserve.
This law is a hopeless cause.
Makes one wonder what retarded children and adults would have to say if they had the mental capacity to comprehend how such a word is used to insult and demean otherwise mentally healthy people.
In such a case, the retards have no voice.
That's humankind for you,we can turn an innocent word into a sharp knife.
Destroy destroy destroy.
Would anybody who has posted on this thread agree to be labeled a retard for the rest of your life?
Sorry, just realized my last post came across as accusatory.
I was only trying to convey how most parents of retarded children probaby feel, and how tough it must be for them to deal with this word when it's being hurled back and forth by people who know nothing about the consequences that mental retardation has on a family.
Just wanted to make you think.
Okay, I'll grant you that the word should be used for people who really are mentally retarded. I myself am a bit of a language purist. But facts are facts and to waste money on a stupid thing like that and try to change how people speak is ridiculous. Besides, they're not trying to change the use of the word when discussing mentally capable people. They're using it against the very people whom the word actually describes! Here's another stupid case. There were people on the island of Lesvos who wanted to change the use of the word Lesbian to refer to homosexual women because they felt that it was unpatriotic. Now I'm a huge Greek patriot and even I think this is ridiculous! It's been used probably for centuries. Well, the judge was smart and threw the case right out of court. LeoGuardian, I agree with you about the game preserve. I guess the new versions of DOS need to be rewritten so that "abort, retry, fail" is removed. While we're at it, people might get offended by the word fail because it might make them feel that they can't do anything right, and maybe, after seeing that the disk was bad, they'd blame themselves and have suicidal thoughts. Maybe, it should say, "stop, retry, quit opperation".
I agree with tiff on this, surprisingly. facts are facts; if people get offended, such is life.
Thhat reminds me of how certain TV networks and whatnot require that the words Harrass or Harrassment be pronounced like the name Harris. Harrisment? Political correctness is and always has been and will be a load of crap.
Remember when I said in a post that we should use dictionary and logic? Guess that went out the window.
Retarded means, well, retarded! Stupid politics.
I agree with the last two posts. thank you.
LOL, Leo, your wingnut would have hated the first cell phone I had up here. It was a little Samsung with a pleasant little ring and the phone lived a long life. I loved that phone, just a simple little emergency purposes phone. Anyway if a call I made didn't go thru or maybe got disconnected because the recipient's area lost the signal, the phrase "Call Aborted" came up on my screen.
There are any number of remote areas, usually Indian reservation areas, for that game preserve. If you're willing to set up the preserve overseas, there are any number of towns not even on the map outside the Algiers airport in Algeria. It's a couple hours drive out of the airport to get to a sizable town. D B Cooper and Jimmy Hoffa could have set up new lives out there or been buried and no one would know. Rugged, mountainous areas, a lot of sheep herding...just make sure the sheep that go to market on Friday don't hit the fence and let 'em have at it.
I'm going to be the odd ball out. . I don't agree a word is a word. retarded is sooo not a nice word. . and I'm talking about for organizations or centers, not just a slang word. When I hear the word retarded, I think of a stupid person , and that is because it has been used as a slang word for this for a long time now! . Many people that have disabilities severely enough to be considered retarded are smart people. There just trapped in a situation where they can't express themselves in a way you or I can!
I don't look at it as a way of being politicaly correct changing this word. I think of it as having manors or respecting those who are associated with the word retarded! Think of it this way, back in the day, blindies, such as you or I were considered retarded and shoved aside and even put in mental or retarded homes if you will. Do you feel differently about this word, when you consider that at one time it was referring to you ? We have come a long way since then, why not let these mentally challenged people if you will , overcome some of there obsticals in being more excepted in society? if getting rid of this word makes them feel better, which I'm sure it does, then let them have there moment! I have worked with many people that hae been clasified as retarded, they feel belittled when associated with this word, and I really can't blame them! i don't think it necessarily needs to be made illegal, but groups or organizations should be made to change there names, out of respect for there members, patients or clients!
then in that case, we should change the wording of visually impaired, since there are people who don't like its usage. sorry to say, the world doesn't work like that.
hmmmm, the world doesn't work like that huh? if you look into things. back in the day we as blindies were called retarded, and oh look you now consider yourself visually impaired. why didn't you call yourself retarded still? oh yeah, cause we have blind organizations helping us out in changing these things and becoming socialy excepted! so why shouldn't they? I've read some of the gay boards and you want to be equal and not singled out? what makes you so special? why should you not be singled out, and someone who has no choice in there situation doesn't want to be considered retarded not have that same option?
We're not called retarded because we on't have problems that would retard i.e. slow down our mental ability. The only reason why we were called that in the past was because of a false assumption that blindness was somehow equated with mental retardation. But these people, whether you call them retarded, mentally challenged, feeble-minded (another old word) or mentally-challenged, still fit the bill of having a mental disability. Calling a blind person retarded would be like calling them deaf if no deafness was present.
what you say may be true to a point. . but one time we had to change peoples minds on this fact. and now it's there turn! and not everyone that goes to these so called retard homes are mentally slowed down as you put it. some still have there minds and no way to express themselves! that don't make them mentally slow.
I noticed you didn't like the fact of being grouped as retarded, and was quick to make an excuse for it!
If they're not slow, then they're not retarded. They just have another mental disability.
ok, getting somewhere. lol! So if there not what you would call retarded, then why should the organization or home or whatever it is be able to call it the retarded .... insert rest of the name? one more question. So say your on the street and you meet up with someone say in a wheel chair being pushed by someone else. you go to tell another person about your conversation and say she or he was pushing a retarded person? your now saying there mentally slow without really knowing. is this fare to them? my point is the word is used so generally , and has been made to be a crude word, due to many using it for slang rude comments, why should it still be used to describe a group of people, that have feelings like you and I and it offends them!
If the organisation primarily deals with people who are mentally slow, then they should continue using the word. But if not, then I agree that another word should be used, but something more normal and not politically correct. I'm not sure what such a word would be in that case. Mentally disabled perhaps? It certainly sounds better than the others and is accurate without being obnoxious. I would never assume that simply because the person was in a wheelchair, he/she was retarded. So I would never use that word in that instance.
i still don't agree. The word is used so generally and has taken on a crude meaning. They may be slow, but still have feelings like you or I
! Look at this topic title. . do you think it was ment as slow. um, no. stupid? yes!
Am with shea on this.
Let’s be honest here we don’t just use the term retarded to refer to someone with learning difficulties, people use it to insult other people. So when you’re calling someone a retard, you are actually making the point that being retarded is an insult.
And why shouldn’t we change words and perceptions? Not so long ago it was still considered acceptable too refer to people of different races by certain terms which are now deamed unacceptable, so why is this different?
In the UK the terms retard, and spaz, and mong are no longer considered to be acceptable and rightly so.
People are too caught up in their own need to say what they want without considering the consequences of what they’re actually saying.
well put! I thought of the race slang to, but wasn't sure how to word it. so Glad you chimed in!
My Language Master has this to say.
"Retarded: Adjective: Slow or limited in intellectual, emotional or academic development. Example, a retarded child.
Retard: Verb: To hold, delay the progress of."
"Stupid: 1. Very dull in mind.
2. Showing or resulting from dullness of mind."
So it can be said, then, that someone who is stupid is not sharp or quick-whitted. So someone who is retarded is, by dictionary definition, also stupid aka dull of mind. But someone can also be stupid and/or feebleminded, meaning showing a lack of intelligence, without being retarded, because they're not necessarily slow. And retardation doesn't always mean a lack of intelligence, only that one is slow in developing it.
If we need to take that route, then I'll concede that people who don't have full intellectual capacity may easily be offended by things and perhaps it really is in their interest to soften things. But people who can comprehend most things need to grow up. Race is a perfect example. While calling someone a nigger can be a bad thing due to it's connotations (though I think that banning 19th century books with the term is insane) and while colored makes no sense, negro or black should be fine. Both get right to the point and aren't said in a hurtful way in 2010. Where this whole African American nonsense came from I don't know. Most people who put a nationality before American can usually trace their ancestry to a relatively short time ago. People don't go around saying Italian, Irishh, Polish whatever American after centuries of their families being here. Now if someone actually from Africa or a close descendent of that person said it, it would make sense. I've even heard some pretty weird things for white people as well that made me shake my head and say "what?" And if everyone is so hell-bent on being accurate, race doesn't even exist in the bloodstream.
You are missing the point.
It’s not about softening the blow for those who are intellectually less able – it’s about not using derogatory terminology to describe people who may not actually have the capacity to realize that they’re being described in derogatory terms. People whose disabilities do not make them intellectually challenged have faught to not be described in such terms because they have the capacity to be offended by them and to fight for equality. Some people don’t have that ability and so someone needs to stand up for them and say that actually, no, it’s not ok to call people retards or spaz or mong or similar..
Furthermore, who are we to decide what should and what shouldn’t offend other people? Just because you’re not offended by it doesn’t mean others can’t and shouldn’t be, to make that judgement is pretty arrogant.
African Americans are proud of their heritage, what’s it to you if that’s how they want to be known? It’s no different to you claiming to be greek even though you’re American, is it? So what’s that about and why can’t you just embrace your americanness?
I'm with claire and shae on this.
with blindness it's not so bad, but retard and spastic have become terms that people have used for decades to insult people, and personally I don't think that's right, and if this helps make distinctions between insults and simple terminology for disabled people, then that's all the better.
Personally, I prefer to be called vision impaired, because I personally do not like being called blind as I have some sight, and in any official capacity, I make this known, just so that anyone who is dealing with me knows that they don't need to tell me every little detail about things like steps and so on because I can see them.
SugarBaby: What you've described is exactly what I meant by softening the blow. They don't understand that the word is an accurate description because they've only heard it used in a derogatory fashion. But mentally-able people should be able to distinguish when a term is being used in it's proper sense and when it's not. Should the word blond be stripped from our vocabulary because of all the "dumb blond" jokes? It certainly makes sense for someone with some vision to be called visually-impaired and not blind. That's actually something that can lead to confusion for people who don't realise that there's a middle ground between totally blind and fully sighted. But I think that people who don't have vision should be called blind because they have no vision to impair.
hold on, but what about the mentally challenged people who might have been called retards nastily and then get called it in passing by other people. you can't expect some of them to be able to tell the difference.
just wait, in 20 years some fool will say that intellectually challenged is affensive and the word will be changed again.
the thing is, being "retarded" is not a disability in itself. Many disabilities have learning difficulties as part of their characteristics, but there is not a disability called "retarded". People who have learning difficulties will have a definitive diagnosis, be that downs/autism/cerebral palsy and the list goes on.
So is it fair to lump all people with learning difficulties into the same "retarded" category? It would be like saying someone was "disabled" regardless of their disability.
Indeed, that's a fair point, what about the people who are totally able to function normally in a social setting, but simply have some learning difficulties? they are certainly not retarded in the sense that most people are used to.
and people we might assume to be "retarded" due to their disability, i.e. a child with cerebral palsy that cannot walk,talk, communicate and is thus considered to be "retarded" yet has normal inteligence which cannot be expressed.
agree with Shea's posts. Well-said.
Sure, if you want to get technical, there are different disabilities. But if you want to look at it that way, I have Retinopathy of Prematurity. Still, there's no difference, in the end, between me and someone who has another disease or condition that made them fully blind, providing that that's all it did. We're both blind. And while the causes of the retardation may vary, the fact is, these people still have mental retardation, hence, they are retarded. That said, there are, as has been pointed out, different degrees. So the person with the learning disability would have a form of academic retardation and not one that affects his/her entire life. As for the cerebral palsy, you're right, SugarBaby, as this doesn't fit the definition... I'm honestly not sure where they'd fall. I'd have to say it's more of a physical disability with some mental overspill but not in the sense of intelligence, just in the one of motor skills. I'd say motor or nural impairment...
Sorry, meant nurological.
However, I feel that putting them all under the category of mentally challenged is a lot more fair, and not to mention easier.
I'd hardly call dislexics retarded.
I wouldn't call dislexics retarded either. They have no mental problem other than seeing letters backwards. Interestingly enough, I've actually known a few blind ones.
However, I would call dislexics mentally challenged, because it is a learning difficulty, and quite a serious one for those who suffer it.
There are all kinds of small disabilities that would come under that heading, and I think for people who are very social, who understand that retard can be an insult, for them to be labeled that would be quite destressing.
I honestly don't care what disability you have. The point is, the word RETARDED< is used so cruely these days, I don't blame people not wanting it to be associated with there family, friends, or loved ones!
Sugarbaby is right that certain words are used to insult people, but rather than debating language, shouldn't we be sorting out the people who think it's acceptable to go around insulting others?
Discrimination is wrong. Discriminators who bully people because of their disabilities, use words to insult people just because they're less intelligent than them, insult people for having a different colour of skin because of who they choose to have relationships with, etc should be punished. Sometimes they use one word like nigger. Other times they'll speak in sentences that clearly insult people. But instead of debating words, governments should tighten laws so that people who verbaly, physically, or sexually attack people because of race, sexual orientation, disability etc are severely punished.
All this playing with words achieves is satisfying advocates who are rubbish when it comes to defending people.
I agree they should, but the problem there is that that in itself would be bloody hard to police and gain convictions for.
and plus, shae is right. I know a lot of people who have mental disabilities, and they have lovely families who really care about them, but they get teased a lot, or laughed at, and I don't like the idea of using a word like retarded to either tease them or heap pity on them. they're better than that.
I'm normally very brutal when it comes to the sentences that I think should be handed out to certain offenders. That said, while I think that such punishments should absolutely be given to those who sexually or physically harm the innocent, I don't think that merely verbally insulting someone should result in government interfeerence, unless it was a threat to the person's well-being i.e. a murder or a rape threat. Someone calling someone a name or saying that they don't like the kind of relationship that said person is having isn't and shouldn't be a crime. If you don't like those kinds of people, don't hang around them. I'm a pagan so I don't associate with fundamentalist Christians who might tell me that I'm going to Hell. Can they say it? Yes. Will I listen to them? No.
the issue here is is that a lot of these people, the mentally challenged, are a lot more intelligent than most people give them credit for.
they know when a term is said to insult them, they know when something's said to try and make them ashamed of themselves.
Ok, here's my 2 cents on this whole thing.
First of all, insults are always going to exist in some form or another. Trying to eliminate them is pointless, because someone somewhere along the line will just think of another one. Of course I don't think it's right to call a mentally challenged person retarded, especially not to their face, but you know what? I've been called every name in the book because I was blind, including retarded, and have been verbally insulted by various people for most of my life, so now I'm at a point where it might still piss me off but only if the insults are thrown at me by someone I actually respect and care about. Who cares if you get called retarded by some random person on the street, because odds are you won't see them again. I'm not saying it's right, but bullying is a fact of life, it's always gonna exist in some form no matter how many zero-tolerance policies are enforced, and that's that. My own school experiences, if I felt like elaborating on them at the moment, which I do not, are enough testament to the fact that bullying runs rampant and nobody gives a rat's ass. But that's another topic.
Banning words actually seems like it might create more stigma in a way. The mental health field, who is always updating their DSM (Diagnostical and Statistical book of Mental Disorders or something like that, sorry, too lazy to look it up right now for the precise title), constantly changes their terminology to make the disorders sound more politically correct, but the same amount of stigma exists. Bipolar disorder used to be known as manic depression, which is to me a more accurate description of one would experience throughout the course of their illness. Bipolar disorder, while still capturing the spectrum in its own way, doesn't quite have the same flare. Then there's the fact that ADHD is now considered a disability. WTF is that?! I fully understand that it impairs a person's functioning, and therefore deserves to be recognized as a disorder. But a disability? Does it cause the person affected by it to apply over and over again for jobs, being fully qualified, and still being turned away? Does it cause people who pass them by on the street to pray over them, look on in horror, offer unneeded assistance, doubt their productivity, or hinder their relationship prospects? Does it cause years of bullying, family breakdown, mental or physical anguish? Well, all right, maybe some mental anguish, but there's medication and therapy, the medication in this day and age being highly overprescribed anyway, which stabilizes the condition. As of now, there's no cure for many types of blindness, fetal alcohol syndrome, Downs Syndrome, etc. The sufferers have no choice but to live with the effects of their disability, whatever it brings. So why do people who have a legitimate disorder, yes, a disorder, a condition that can and will get better with treatment, even if it has to be constantly managed, get to hide behind a label they don't deserve? Only someone who has a true disability knows how that feels. If anything, depression should be considered a disability if we're going to delve into the murky uncertainty that is mental illness and its role in society. Depression is much more debilitating than ADHD, I speak from experience on that one. Yet if you claim to have it, most people spit in your face and isolate you further. Why?
I know I got a bit off topic here, but my main point still stands. In society's hasty quest to fruitlessly eliminate all insults, trying to put on a facade that we're better than other countries by enforcing all this politically correct bullshit, we ignore much bigger problems. How about trying to eliminate the stigma surrounding mental illnesses and disabilities rather than cement them in place by making it even easier to dance around the topics? Saying, "I'm blind" when the time permits should be nothing to be ashamed of, but it is, because people are so scared of offending someone that they stand there and stutter for 5 minutes trying to remember the correct term they heard in a 15-minute required meeting on tolerance or some such bullshit when they started their job. I'm not claiming such things, exist, but it wouldn't surprise me either. It's ridiculous how scared of the disabled the average non-disabled person is. Yes, we should all be sensitive to the needs of others, no matter what they may be. But we're a long way from that, and trying to mess with terminology that sometimes is well-intentioned, but sometimes not is neither here nor there. It doesn't matter what you call it, it's all the same thing.
I don't think it would be hard to police. The people who verbaly abuse disabled people often treat them badly in other ways. They may isolate them, bully them, harrass them, etc. Most of them don't simply call them a name. Countries have hate crimes legislation now, but the problem is that the police just use it when disabled people have crimes committed against them, even when they weren't targeted because of their disabilities. That just confuses people, and it doesn't stop people bullying others just because they have a disability.
screaming_turtle: All I could say is wow! What an incredibly beautiful, well-thought-out and well-articulated post! I agree with you on every point and now you've given something to consider when it comes to the meaning of a disability and also adhd/add/whatever they're calling it these days.
Thank you. Yeah, this is one of those things I feel very strongly about. Terminology is not only something people bend to their liking these days, but something that should really be considered in the way that affects those who are using it. You can take the same word and use it in a derogatory way, but then use it to your advantage if you believe it can't hurt you. But in the same way, we do need to watch what we say. I think it's neither fair nor productive to call a mentally challenged person retarded to their face, but it's going to happen whether we like it or not, and I think that's the point a lot of people are missing here.
I'll have to put myself in the campe of those who do not like the word retarded. See, words are only words if we lived in a culture where words were spoken very tonelessly or in the abstract. Nope, people inject emotions and intent into words, and there is tone and context. Sometimes it's not what you say but how you say it that matters. A person could even use those replacement words that are supposed to be more sensitive in a mocking or belittling way. But yeah, there's got to be something better than retarded, though, since people have decided to put a negative spin on the word. I dislike a lot of these replacement terms, though, because they can tend to be so heavy in syllables and bloated and clinical-sounding. Not sure where the middle ground would be on this issue.
A retardation of a process or system is a slowing of processes. My old computer was retarded because it crashed often. My friend's car is retarded because the breaks are shot. My college is retarted because the management is ignorant. People are retarded when they don't think for themselves. I am retarded for responding to this thread with the obvious. See my point?
Haha, Point taken. Hasn't it occurred to anyone that whatever the new terminology becomes, someone will find a way to twist it around and create slang for it? Because basically its meaning hasn't changed, just the supposed politeness factor. We'll see about that...
Why don't we just have a dictatorship? That's what we're moving towards anyway, if things like this keep up. Next, we're not going to be allowed to say the word "blind" or "deaf". Personally, I try to refrain from using the word "retarded", but I don't think it should be illegal.
So which laws are there on the books against use of certain words and how are they enforced? Only one I can think of are the FCC's standards against use of certain words termed obscene.
I agree with post 59. What is next? Just because some idiots care so little for themselves and those around them to use words in a dirogatory fassion does that mean we have to change our vocabulary? Where will it stop? I too do not use the word, but I still would like to know when enough is enough. Why are we letting idiots who just want to hurt others run our lives? Why should our law makers and upholders waist their time on this type of crap? Do we not have enough real problems to deal with?
i don't think it means the word in general. i think it is towards companies, and organizations using it as a name? but i could be wrong. either way , it's a crude word to associate with anyone!
The thing that interests me about this topic is the levels of hypocrisy being shown. Some of us are perfectly happy to be referred to as visually impaired, while others believe that that should only apply to people with some sight loss and that if you have no vision, that you should then be called blind. Yet at the same time we decry other people's rights to have a negative label removed.
I'd be curious to know just how you same people would feel were you required to contact your local retard centre should you need to speak with a rehab officer about mobility training, or in order to obtain a new cane. I'm willing to bet that that would raise the odd hackle or two. Yet because it isn't you, because it doesn't effect you, then suddenly it is unimportant and a waste of time and money. Total hypocrisy.
Indeed one person who has contributed to this bored, saying how silly this whole thing is actually has a topic on these very same boards entitled "Don't Call Me an American".
Strange that, people with mental impairments and their families don't wish to be referred to as retarded and that's just being silly. but if a person doesn't wish to be called American then God help anybody who thinks of throwing about such a loathsome tag. Total hypocrisy.
How does this work exactly, one rule for them and another for us? That's certainly how most of these arguments are coming across to me.
The very title of this board, while I'm sure was intended to be witty and clever, perfectly illustrates why these people don't wish to be referred to as retards, because the word retarded wasn't being used to denote a human being who is mentally slow, it was used in a derogatory fashion to indicate the original poster's contempt for this ruling. A beautiful own goal there spongebob.
So all in all, this is total hypocrisy.
Dan.
most topics on terms and political correctness are just that; hypocrisy. See now, how the lefties get offended at a term the Great Whites on the Right use, then the Righties get all hysterical over a term used on the left, while calling the softfoots over there too sensitive.
They deserve each other, for sure.
dan is spot on.
Yeah, Dan,I do have contempt for this ruling when there are much bigger problems to be addressed that are totally being ignored. They can come up with any name they want for the mentally slowed and the same folks that show derision for 'em will still be showing it, with the same tone of voice and the same meanness, just a different set of words. What has this ruling accomplished for ANYONE?!
I have a friend who is about 25 years older than I am, like me he is completely blind. I was talking to him not long after we first met and he was telling me that he remembered when blind kids, visually impaired if you prefer, didn't go to schools. Instead they were educated in asylums. Schools were genuinely called blind asylums. By the time I went to a school for the blind in the mid 1980's it was just called a school, I don't think that anybody would have even considered referring to the place as an asylum. no! Not even with me in it!
Now put yourself in the shoes of a potential employer. He picks up a résumé and checks where you were educated and the word that I can guarantee you would have jumped out at him/her from that page is the word asylum. People who have spent time in asylums clearly aren't people that should be made responsible for anything important. Next please.
I have another friend who is a long distance taxi driver. He used to do a lot of contract work for the county that he lived in in England. One of the runs he used to do was taking disabled children from his area up to Derbyshire where they would board for a term at a time before he'd collect them and bring them back home again. One of his charges, somebody he still keeps in touch with too this day as it happens is a lad who suffers with autism. This kids autism clearly meant that he had learning difficulties however he was a long long way from being stupid. Indeed where computers are concerned he is amazingly smart. Since leaving school a few years ago he got a job at PC World where to the best of my knowledge, he has worked ever since. I can't help but wonder though whether he'd have been afforded such an opportunity, the chance to prove himself, if he'd been educated at a place that proclaimed itself to be a retard center rather than a school.
You see it's all well and good to say that this stuff isn't important but that patently isn't the truth. Negative stereotypes can't be changed overnight, changing stereotypes is usually a very long, very drawn out process and yes, like it or not, part of that process is addressing the language used.
Am I suggesting that you can eradicate all prejudice overnight by making the use of the word retard illegal? No I certainly am not. But I am saying that it is a step in the right direction because in 10 years time that building on the corner might just be the place where the retards used to go, then in another 10 years you're starting to deal with a new generation who have never seen the building on the corner with a sign declaring itself to be a center for retards. That's just how real life works I'm afraid. There are no quick fixes, but just because they're not quick, isn't a reason not to bother with them at all.
If you don't strive for the small changes, the big changes can't follow. That's just the way it is.
So to answer your question directly spongebob. Firstly the next time these people go to the center they don't have to be faced with a big sign over the door stating boldly that they're retards. That I'd say is accomplishment in itself but there is more because further to that it means that the state in question is taking these people seriously. It is a statement that even if mindless idiots consider calling somebody a retard an acceptable form of behavior, that at least the state understands that this kind of thing is hurtful and demeaning and not to be tolerated, never mind state endorsed. Lastly it is the states way of showing that it is willing to be proactive to help change people's attitudes towards mental impairment. Remove the word retard from schools and centers today and in ten, twenty, fifty years time you will see the real benefits. That's what either has been, or will be accomplished.
Dan.
Ok, but what about the fact that no matter what terminology is used, whether you say retarded, handicapped, mentally challenged or whatever, it all means the same thing? Do you really think legally changing a name is going to make prejudice disappear? I understand you're saying that it won't happen overnight, but it won't happen at all just because a word is changed. People still hold stereotypes about the mentally challenged even if that's what you refer to them as. If you call someone retarded, it might be more derogatory, but it all boils down to the same thing. The word is still defining a negative perception if that's how you see it.
Also, saying you were educated at a school for the blind could still carry negative connotations. I would certainly hesitate to tell an employer about that, as it conjures up an image in a lot of people's minds of being sheltered and isolated from the sighted world. the employer is probably going to wonder why, if you're so normal and so able to do the job, weren't you educated at a public school alongside sighted kids if you can't work alongside their sighted employees?
Harp: I'll be very honest. I had a biting reply, but your last post really made me stop and rethink a few things. Yes, That can actually happen on occasion and I'm not ashamed to admit when it does. So I will modify what I was about to say, not to censor it, but to reflect my new views. But as a sidenote, I'm not totally against being called visually-impaired. I just think it can lead to confusion and that's why I don't use the term when referring to myself.
I think it's different to talk about a group or organisation and about an individual. If you call me an American, it has no baring on other American-born Greek patriots, however few or many of us there may be. While I may not like it, I also wouldn't take you to court over it and waste tax payers money. At the end of the day, it's how I see myself, how I present myself and how I feel about myself that matters. And as long as the people whom I truly care about respect me, I'm happy.
Prior to reading this post, I would've said that I don't care what an agency calls itself, so long as they are willing to help me and give me things. I also would've said that I would rather see money go towards helping people instead of silly court cases like this. But I think you have a point when you bring up the perceptions and actions of people who see the "retard place" at the corner. While I'm not a sexual prude, I do tend to be one in diction when it comes to serious matters. So I usually tend to take words in their proper meaning, which is why I personally wouldn't have a problem with a place calling itself Agency for the Mentally Retarded or Mentally Handicapped. I know that this place works with such individuals and that they're not meaning any harm by the term as, for example, would a store calling itself Retards Are Us just for attention. I'm still not sure if I would make it a law but I do see how people, particularly the noneducated and especially those who really are mentally retarded, can misunderstand the term and how it can lead to hatred or even outcasting in the workplace or among friends.
I think that we're at a crutial point right now with regard to how we see certain things like words. You have the language freaks like me on one hand and the people who are more in touch with the street on the other. A perfect example of this is the story of your friend. Of course, to us, the word asylum sounds very strange when discussing a school. But people viewed the disabled in a different light at that time and were used to hearing what, to us, would be oddly named places. Unfortunately, the batteries on my Language Master ran out. But I looked it up in Wordweb and found this.
"A shelter from danger or hardship.
A hospital for mentally incopetent or unbalanced person."
I'm sure my 1931 Websters dictionary, which was contemporary when such names were used, would have something more interesting to say. But I don't have it or sighted eyes with me. But the point is that they saw the blind as needing shelter from the outside world. In fact, many of these schools started as sheltered workshops and then split from them to become more academic in nature. The word is still used in that sense by immigrants who wish to gain asylum from whatever tyrany they're suffering at the hands of their governments. It was also assumed that the blind were slow or some such so the word asylum, in their minds, made sense. Yet I do have to agree, that even then, seeing that word might make someone stop because they might think that the person applying for the job was a nit whit.
That said, I do still agree with screaming_turtle and think that people will always find ways to insult and hurt one another. I love your ideas of change, but though it might affect the average person, I really doubt it would change the mind of one hell-bent on causing emotional harm to someone or one who already has preconceived notions about a group of individuals. I'm sure that there are still people out there, and I mean young ones, who would consider the blind as slow, incapable and in need of asylum of some sort, even though the word hasn't been used in a long time for a school or agency for the blind.
But that is the point screaming_turtle, because you see 25 years on from when I started school, most visually impaired people do exactly that. They are now educated at mainstream schools instead of at specialist schools. When I went to school such a thing was very rare, if ever done at all, but a quarter of a century on perceptions, and so attitudes, have changed. That's the point I was making above, in a span of something like fifty years we've gone from being a group of people who were sent to places called asylums for our schooling to being integrated into the general schools system. I should add that this is in the UK, I can't speak for the US because although I do live here now, I'm long out of the education system so have know knowledge of it.
Also I don't agree that Retarded and mentally challenged do mean the same things any longer. Words evolve over time and retarded is most assuredly one such word. If you call somebody mentally challenged, it is because you perceive them as having a mental impairment. Retarded however is far more commonly used these days to denote somebody who has done something especially stupid. It's the difference between a descriptive label and a derogatory insult. Fact is, and I'm sure you'd agree with this if you really thought about it, when you call somebody a retard, it isn't because you believe them to be mentally impaired so much as just plain stupid. Of course I'm not suggesting that you are the kind of person that would go around actually calling people such things, but you take the point.
The word gay is another good example. If you call something gay now it could just as easily mean rubbish, pointless or stupid as homosexual. Yet a century a go it meant none of these things. Then if somebody was gay they were happy, not at all inclined to sleep with members of the same sex, or be rubbish, pointless or stupid.
I doubt that when the word retard was originally coined it was meant in a derogatory sense, but never the less that is the connotation that it has subsequently taken on so I don't blame these people for wanting it to be dropped from the lexicon.
Dan.
Harp,
I do see your point and I agree with you to a certain extent. I know that even though myself and many others are much more open-minded these days, and view the mentally challenged with people that have feelings like you or I, the fact still stands that making the word illegal isn't going to change the minds of people who really want to be insulting. I think the point of this law, while it obviously can't extend to making it so citizens can never utter the word retarded, is misguided. Just because organizations will now drop it from their title, supposedly sanitizing it, doesn't make it any less of a derogatory term. People will still go around calling their friends retarded when they do something stupid, and probably, if they really want to bully a mentally challenged person, use it to their face too. My point is, you can eliminate it from the workplace, but you can't eliminate it from the dictionary so to speak. I'm not saying it's wrong that they want to do this, but I do think it's pointless, as people are still going to use it. Maybe we shouldn't concern ourselves with such people, but what about the fact that the mentally challenged people may still come across this ignorance on the street?
Still, I could just as easily see someone who's grown up with the word mentally challenged using it as an insult, just as gay went from happy, to homosexual to rubbish. An interesting one is blind, for while it hasn't changed it's meaning, people are often heard saying "what are you blind?" "I must be blind or something" and so on. I would hope that they know that the other person and/or themselves aren't blind but yet the word is used in a way that most would find funny but that would still offend the more sensative among us. . It's just a matter of time before people pick up on mentally challenged and start using it to their own advantage. Then again, many people are afraid to say anything in today's climate, so they may not dream of it for another twenty or fifty years, and in the meantime, the mentally handicapped might make strides.
That's true. And as for the asylum thing, some of the conditions of our schools for the blind are bad enough that they could still be considered asylums. I went to one, and could tell plenty of horror stories. I know of others that are just as bad, if not worse. So asylum actually painted a pretty vivid picture in my mind. I'm sure conditions were probably a lot worse back then, so I'm not downplaying that at all. But schools for the blind have a long way to go before they should even be compared to public schools, at least education-wise, trust me.
I agree with screaming turtle; it won't matter what words are used; people will always find something negative to say about them.
The only reason changing stereotypes is such a long, drawn-out process is that people would rather sit round tables, making the same points for years, debating terminology and statistics, etc than do anything that has a quick impact. What are the consequences for example, for teachers who allow children who can see to bully those who cannot? In which newspapers are their names published? Who ever finds out? And what about adults who bully or discriminate against people for being blind? What are the consequences for them? Usually organisations pay compensation, and they can even put a silence clause in the settlement if it is made out of court, protecting all the bullies and all the discriminators.
Do you know how advocates respond to this? They sit around tables talking about terminology and statistics, repeeating what they have said in previous meetings, and putting a positive spin on what they do while passing blame around as if it is a parcel in a party game. That's what's really happening. It's evil disguised as good, and disabled people die because of these individuals who feel no guilt. They die!
Senior, you might be pleased to hear about anti bullying legislation. Have you read about the case of a young Irish girl who migrated to South Hadley, Massachusetts, and was taunted by her classmates until she hung herself? Said teens, some jealous females, jealous because this young woman was cute & could carry her own in an intelligent conversation, and made guy friends, were named & photographed in the local paper. Due to them harrassing this young woman to the point that she killed herself, they have been booked & charged & are awaiting trial.
Their defenders are trying to paint this young woman is depressed, with a history of depression, suicide attempt, prescription for Prozac. So what? So, you make things worse for her until she kills herself? I hope these shits are put in prison for a long time where their fellow inmates mentally torture 'em until they hang themselves with the bed linens. I think legislation changing a word, still, is wasteful, but legislation that says everyone should get an education & not feel uncomfortable about showing up because of harrassment is more worthwhile.
I'm glad to hear that but that doesn't happen in this country.
While their actions certainly contributed to her suicide it was still her choice to kill herself. No one tied her up and hung her. That said, perhaps some time in prison or a large fine will teach these people not to bully. I also think that there should be self-defence classes, both physical and verbal, to teach people how to deal with bullies.
Well, no school would offer self-defense classes though. The motto now is "just walk away." Let's look at how flawed this is, shall we? If someone is passing a rude note insulting someone around the class with the intention that kid will see it, they can't simply leave. The only time that could really happen is if the confrontation happens in a cafeteria or hallway, which usually is the case with bullying anyway, they do it in unsupervised areas. But if that person is looking for a physical confrontation or if there's any kind of drugs involved, it might become dangerous for the other person to walk away. I think that all approaches should be taught, not this crap where a person has a breaking point, punches the bully in the face and then gets suspended for a week and threats of arrest while the bully gets a slap on the wrist because his nose was bleeding. Oh please, it's just pathetic. They only want to hear one side of the story.
I also agree that the bullies didn't really make the girl hang herself, but it was probably the straw that broke the camel's back. With her history of depression she probably just couldn't deal with it anymore, and I personally think that's a valid reason to take your life. It hopefully sent a message, probably to the wrong people like her family if they cared about her, but I sincerely hope those kids will think twice before they bully someone, anad I do think they should still be charged with manslaughter or something for their hand in it.
People who commit suicide because of the bullying they have suffered obviously can't take any more of it, and feel that if their lives continue, they'll have to endure more bullying.
retard isn't just a word used to insult people in small circles or whatever. it's used even in movies as an insult, it's very widely used.
and I totally agree with Dan's post. I haven't got a problem with people being called what they want to be called, though I agree that we shouldn't get offended when people use the word blind in any official context. they can't have one term for a msall group of people and another for a different one.
The victim needs to learn how to fight back and put the bully/ies in his/her/their place. There's no excuse for bullying and I hate the softness that's shown to those who do it and the hardness shown to those who've had enough and teach them a lesson or two. Mind you, I'm talking about normal fighting, never bringing weapons of any kind to school.
The good strong people support those who are weak when they are attacked by evildoers. Not enough good strong people is the problem. Too many people who can't have careers in politics so they go into advocacy and waste time and money while disabled and other people are suffering.
I agree with Senior, I think the people who pass this anti-bullying legislation should be disabled or at least have experienced it themselves so they can make sure punishments are enforced that match the cruelty demonstrated by bullies. Of course it doesn't eliminate the problem that a lot of school administrators still have their heads shoved up their asses but you can't have everything.
Dan
The issue is that today, we have no standards for anything. Fat people are just big, thin people are lucky, and the handicapped are handicapable. Rubbish if you ask me.
They could never get away with enforcing punishments that actually fit the crime, not in America at least, because people here are too soft Lol to the last post. Good one.
I don't know about to soft because in order to be soft you need to have some sort of values. We're neether hard nor soft. We're just, well, retarded.
HI, there are too many posts to go through all of them, but here is one thing to consider. If you do not fall under the category of people who are called this word as a definition of who you are (retarded), then you have no business talking about how much of a silly idea this is. In other words, if you are blind, you are right in stating under what name you wish to be referred as, blind, visually excluded, whatever, but if you are not within this group, frankly, it's not your business, you are not the one dealing with this issue on a daily basis, and it does not affect your life.... So, this is not "retarded."
Ok, they're spending my hard earned money on frivolity rather than on fixing ACTUAL PROBLEMS, and that's not my business?! Taxes here are higher than any other state, with nothing to show for 'em, and they're spending MY MONEY on a name change?! Excuse me, I think it is my business, and it is retarded. We'll see how retarded every other resident here feels it is come election time. There are already plenty of bumper stickers in favor of Governor Patrick's ouster.
Yeah, and vocabulary will always be our business no matter what the word or who it is aimed at.
Here's the problem with spending other peoples' time and money on trivial issues like renaming whatever group: the problems that really need fixed get neglected.
One of my colleagues, a very hardworking custodial dad, is in a medically induced coma because of unfixed infrastructure problems. The man hit a pothole on his motorcycle and was knocked off. His 18 year old daughter was lucky enough to be present to watch her dad's serious accident.
This man was scheduled to get custody of his third child & already has custody of two. He enjoys cooking the family's meals. Now he is in a barbiturate induced coma with one of his feet amputated & surgeons at BUMC debating whether to amputate his other leg above or below the knee. He has a clot on his lung, so I'm really not even sure he'll survive.
Why oh why should the city spend time, money, or resources on I don't know fixing potholes or crumbling bridges when they can legislate a renaming?! Incidentally the treatment of the mentally retarded here is of one extreme or the other and no happy medium, so I doubt the new name will accomplish anything: 1) pregnant woman are STRONGLY DISCOURAGED from genetic testing, even the blood test that isn't that reliable, and HIGHLY ENCOURAGED in the direction of aborting retarded babies before they've drawn a first breath, or 2) they're monitored to see whether or not they're learning even more than average students and even have to be offered private school tuition vouchers average students can't get if it can be shown they're not learning. They're either treated like something out of the Mengele experiments or mollycoddled. I think the name change is an effort at sanitizing, making something look better than it really is, without actual changes in the treatment of these people or problems that actually do affect everyone.
Error...strongly dissuaded from rejecting genetic testing, even what isn't that reliable.
So, let's put our money into solving actual problems.
I tend to agree with that. While I agree that it's sad that we can't use words in their original context anymore because of what they've come to mean in slang, I feel we ought to be spending money on things that are actually problems rather than on trivial things.
So being the ever-present pragmatist, how much money are we talking about here? I'm not one for political correct foobar but still. If it's an issue of money, that's measurable and not a rant. Wonder what the 'figger' is?
Probably way too much. So while they argue on what words to use, the people at whom these new directives are being aimed are missing out on truly necessary aid.
It's the same sort of stupidity that some television networks practice regarding the word Harrassment. Ok so it does sound like her ass if you look at it in the right way but still. Now on certain TV networks and even in some movies they pronounce it like the name Harris as I've said before. Granted this might also be something of a dialectical thing sort of like the R sound in Wash. But I think it's rather riddiculous that a lot of other people use it as a politically correct thing since most people agree it's just a bunch of crap.
in regards to the word harass, I don't think it's a dyalect thing; it's political correctness, from what I was told, anyway.
Oh I agree it's mostly political correctness bullshit but I've ehard that a very small part of it could be dialectical. But I still think it's riddiculous.
Agreed. Is everyone a Kindergarderner who oos and ahs just because they heard a word? It reminds me of kids in health class getting stupid over the word penis.
I remember that. But it's like I said before, even words that have perfectly innocent meanings can't be used anymore because of what they've come to mean in slang. Words like Gay or Queer, the former meaning happy and the latter of course meaning strange or odd. But because both are now slang terms for homosexuals you can't say them without people assuming that's what you meant.
I say reeducate in most cases. I refuse to lose and/or to change my language because of idiots.
Oh boy you said that...word! Now go warsh your mouth out and maybe next time you will say something a bit cleaner like tali-wacker or magic wand or something. Lol! I hate this political correctness shit.
You're definitely right about that. Vertically Challenged? Visually Challenged? Ok I can sort of understand Visually Impaired when speaking of someone who has partial vision, but it grates on my nerves when people who know I'm totally blind (I don't count light perception as usable sight), use terms like Visually Impaired or even, shudder, non sighted, to describe me. What's wrong with blind? But moving back towards the original topic though I can see why people are up in arms about the word Retarded. We've taken to using it far too much for movies, TV shows, music and things we find unentertaining. That show's retarded, that sort of thing. Myself I refuse to behave like that. If I don't like a movie, TV show or something like that I just say I thought it was dumb. And while I may have in my younger years I never use the word to describe people.
Oh no! You said the word dumb. Now you'll offend all the mutes out there because dumb originally meant unable to speak. lol
True. And it probably wouldn't matter that I wasn't talking about people. But I actually heard on the news about a local school here in the Magic Valley area of Idaho that was campaigning to eliminate the words Retard or Retarded from our vocabularly, particulary from slang. And while I agree it's a worthy goal if they're hoping to eliminate it altogether they're going to be waiting a very long time. They may be able to curb its use within their own walls but they're never going to get rid of it altogether unfortunately. The same is true, as much as I hate to say it, for words like the N word.
So we are going to control each other through language now? It won't end!
No, probably not unfortunately. Heck, I heard somewhere that people were trying to avoid using Obama's middle name because it happens to be Hussein. Now whether Mr. Barak is behind this I don't know. But it's riddiculous. It's only a name after all. I'd feel sorry for some average Iraqi guy going about his day and suddenly getting whacked because his name just happened to be Saddam Hussein. On a lighter note though I did think it a bit funny, or at the very least ironic, that during the fiasco known as the Bush/Gore presidential election there was an elderly Bush supporter who happened to be named Al Gore.
Room 101
Agglika, se parakalo... What?
And then there are those who will blatantly emphasize his middle name as a sort of jab at him. Guess they never learned good sportsmanship, did they? LOL!
The name "Hussein" is fairly common in the Muslim world. Kind of a childish way to take a jab at someone. Matter of fact I had an Indian classmate who had that surname. I think the family was Muslim but from outward appearances lived like secular human beings, dad was a respected psychiatrist in the community. Folks need to grow up. Kind of like bitching about veils & separation of the sexes in the mosque when there are much bigger human rights abuses in those countries. They need to come up with bigger reasons to dislike him to join the adult world. The whole "Is he or isn't he a Muslim?" is kind of childish too, kind of like the tabloids "Whose gay & whose straight?" business. Who cares?
People will never grow up.
So I can walk up to someone in Massachusetts and say, "Go fuck your mother, you useless shitface," legally but I can't walk up to you and say, "So and so is being retarded." ridiculous. not saying I want to do that in particular, just saying it's ridiculous.
Oh God, that's as bad as making fun of Arnold Schwarzenegger and saying he can't be governor of California because he can't say things right. Jesus H, come up with a valid argument against him. I don't like or dislike the guy because I'm not Californian and I don't pay attention to that, but if I were to argue for or against him, I would have a valid reason. Same for Obama, if he is religious or not, it's not going to affect my opinion of him. The former is an outdated issue now, but that is not the point. The point is that people don't come up with valid arguments for or against people in politics.
it's not rediculous, it is...retarded.
hahaha Good come back!
lol.
well, yeah, I think it's called politically correct, and it's news to me that we have passed political correctness laws. I still don't see the problem with the word Men or He. It's a little bit of a round about democratic junk that dems like to put in place so not to what was it? Yes, Not to offend people! hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! way way too funny! Now we must be the age of political correctness too, eh?
uggg seriously? Some people need a life.... A waste of time and money yes...
Indeed, and now you know what a useless bunch of people looks like.
It's part of that fuzzy thinking proposed by advocates and religious people alike: We can't or won't do something constructive, so let's ... er ... say that we did? and the 'say that we did' part is usually very much a stretch.
Pile of rubbish I tell you.