U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Halloween!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 08-20-2010, 11:23 PM
 
326 posts, read 239,127 times
Reputation: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by betamanlet View Post
To compare the word retarded with the derogatory terms for blacks, and the history of slavery and discrimination against blacks in the past, I would have to say would probably be very offensive to blacks, to just compare the two. But I'm not a pc whiner, so I do not get offended on behalf of others.
Do you know the history of those deemed unworthy? Those with cognitive and sometimes physical disabilities often have no one fighting for them. For years there was forced sterilization. You are either clueless or do not care.

I try to be PC. All that means to me is that I treat people with respect and when I learn that something is offensive or bothers someone I stop doing it.


To me politically incorrect is just a PC way of saying a@*hole.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-20-2010, 11:51 PM
 
10,452 posts, read 5,389,631 times
Reputation: 12340
Quote:
Originally Posted by mauiwowie View Post
Do you know the history of those deemed unworthy? Those with cognitive and sometimes physical disabilities often have no one fighting for them. For years there was forced sterilization. You are either clueless or do not care.

I try to be PC. All that means to me is that I treat people with respect and when I learn that something is offensive or bothers someone I stop doing it.


To me politically incorrect is just a PC way of saying a@*hole.
And often people with physical disabilities were thought to have cognitive ones. Disabled people, including the cognitively disabled, have their own history of oppression as well.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2010, 12:00 AM
 
9,643 posts, read 6,727,869 times
Reputation: 5887
seems jennifer anniston stepped in it as well.....here is what the special olympics statement about the word.


"Special Olympics is always disappointed when the R-word is used, especially by someone who is influential to society. The pervasive use of the R-word, even in an off the cuff self-deprecating manner, dehumanizes people with intellectual disabilities and perpetuates painful stereotypes that are a great source of suffering and negative stigma ... We hope everyone will take our pledge to stop using the R-word and promote the inclusion and acceptance of people with intellectual disabilities at www.r-word.org."
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2010, 01:45 AM
 
Location: #
9,606 posts, read 9,373,455 times
Reputation: 6152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece View Post
My feeling is that if it's no longer used to reference a person of limited mental capacity or other handicap then it's fair game to be used outside the medical community any way we please. You can't eliminate the use on one side but still consider it an insult when used by the other.
The next time you see a boss and wish to describe an incompetent co-worker using an adjective, why not use "retard" and see what happens?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2010, 02:45 AM
 
Location: California
25,292 posts, read 16,196,552 times
Reputation: 17682
Quote:
Originally Posted by crbcrbrgv View Post
The next time you see a boss and wish to describe an incompetent co-worker using an adjective, why not use "retard" and see what happens?
I would use other words to describe professional incompetance. But if you think this suggestion shames me you are wrong. I'll still use the word retarded if it fits the situation. Also, if my boss or other coworker used the word retarded to describe someone I wouldn't be offended.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2010, 03:58 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
22,339 posts, read 17,183,095 times
Reputation: 31526
Quote:
Originally Posted by newhandle View Post
What then does it mean? Seriously.
Used in a sentence: The Obama administration has retarded the growth of the American economy.

Surely, no one would object to it being used that way...except maybe for the administration.

It means slow. Examples: You could be developmentally retarded. You could be socially retarded. You could be mentally retarded. Or, the growth of the economy could be retarded. There is nothing wrong with the word in my opinion. It's a descriptive condition that could be applied to anything slowed.

It's when it's hurled that it becomes insulting.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2010, 05:36 AM
 
Location: Brooklyn
40,060 posts, read 19,366,010 times
Reputation: 10110
The very idea that it's necessary to legislate against a word is...retarded.

(It's OK--I don't live in New Jersey so I'm not subject to their law!)
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2010, 06:16 AM
 
4,355 posts, read 1,763,993 times
Reputation: 2918
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea View Post
Here are my thoughts about trying to ‘outlaw’ a word or words, whether by law, ordinance or social pressure.

I agree that, in some circumstances, the use of the word ‘retarded’ may be offensive to some people. In my job I actually have to use the word quite a bit (dealing with people filing for disability insurance benefits or supplemental security income benefits based on the claim that they, or their child, is mentally retarded with an I.Q. below, generally, 70). I will say, as an aside, that those parents seeking benefits on behalf of their children generally have no qualms about calling their children ‘mentally retarded’ to the Administrative Law Judge, since they are seeking financial gain (as well as Medicaid or Medicare benefits).

However, I look at the broader aspect.

One way to ‘control’ people is by regulating words they can use. There are some countries on Earth where to even speak (much less write) certain words can result in criminal prosecution.

Closer to home, we have had attempts by various city councils (who I feel are often the most criminal of political levels, and the most neglected by voters) to outlaw certain ‘words’. For instance, years ago (I do not recall how long) the city counsel of San Francisco considered an ordinance outlawing the use of ‘pets’, mandating ‘animal companions’ (it did not pass). Yet the mere fact that they (the city council) even considered it meant that they were considering controlling speech.

The normal person, I once read, uses only a few hundred words in everyday conversation (with a total vocabulary of 2,500 words or so, if highly educated). If a body (government, private organization, charity, etc) tries to stop people from using certain words they are, in essence, trying to restrict the person’s vocabulary, or the person’s ability to express themselves. It is, to my mind, a form of ‘power’ they (the organization, etc) are attempting to impose upon others: “We prohibit you from using these words”.

Again, I feel it is a question of ‘power’. If I, as one man, can tell you “You may not use this word. If you do, you will be punished, either by law or by social or economic forces”, then I have gained some measure (however small) of power over your thinking. If one learns that they cannot use certain words out loud, eventually they will not use them within the mind. It is a way of trying to control how you think, in the end.

Part 2
For decades and decades white people used the ‘N’ word to demean and demonstrate control over Americans with dark skin (African-Americans).

When I was a lad I saw, with my own eyes, restaurants and drinking fountains with signs saying “Whites Only”. I boarded buses with a “Colored Section” in back. I heard, with unfortunate regularity, white men calling black men “N” right to their face: knowing that this black man (or woman, or child) had no power to respond.

When comedians like Richard Pryor came along, he (and others) would, in front of a audience, use the “N” word, in essence wrestling the word from the white population, and saying ‘we will no longer be put down by this word; you (white) no longer can hurt us by using this word to us’. Of course, as we all know, that is a slope of uncertain degree: Dr. Laura recently found out, to her grief, that it is still a powerful word, that African-Americans resent hearing this word from the mouths of white people. It is still a raw wound that African-Americans feel. Given the history of the word, I do not blame them one bit.

So how does the foregoing fit in with my thesis that restricting words is an attempt at power by the group demanding the restriction?

I hope I am being consistent. The “N” word has such a long, long history of degradation behind it, of being a ‘word of power’ by those in power (whites), that it is no wonder that today, in our society, the use of this word is viewed by a large group (African-Americans) as being an attempt at imposing ‘power’ by the white person using it. When one African-American uses said word to another African-American, the user is not perceived as trying to gain ‘power’ over the other. Yet if a white person uses the word to an African-American, in virtually any context, it may well be perceived as a subtle ‘power’ word. No one likes to perceive themselves as being under the other person’s power by use of a word.

Thus, ‘retarded’. It has a long clinical history of describing a person of below-normal intelligence (i.e., it was not a ‘power’ word). The word has been usurped by some people (as words frequently are, since the English language is constantly changing) with a different meaning, in different contexts (‘that is so retarded’, for instance, referring to some action, usually, as being ‘stupid’ or ‘not logical’).

Is it offensive to those whom are mentally challenged? I would imagine ‘yes’. Being mentally challenged is not the same as being ‘stupid’ or ‘illogical’, at least in the context of how some people thoughtlessly use the word.

Yet, I stand behind those who use the word ‘retarded’ in the newer context. I am against the attempt at limiting speech (including specific words) although I recognize that some words (“N”) are so universally repugnant (again, due to its almost unique history) that social-pressure against using said word is justified. I do not feel that the “R” word has reached that point (universally repugnant) although, in theory, it could in future. I will add that I doubt it will come to pass in my lifetime since the subjects of the word ‘retarded’ have virtually no political or economic power (although the caregivers do, so who knows?).

By the by: it is my custom, here as on other forums, to not respond to those whom ‘quote’ only a portion of my postings, since such limited quotations can be utterly ‘out of context’ of the entire post (I always fully quote someone I disagree with or otherwise wish to contest). If you wish to quote some portion of my thoughts to argue, please do me the courtesy of quoting the whole, and highlight that part you disagree with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea View Post
Thanks to..well, you know who you are....for your kind reputation posting.

I see that trying to articulate anything thoughtful on this forum is a waste of time. I might as well have written: "Retard!..heh...heh...heh...heh..!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
It appears as though you suffer from political correctness. Read the history of Stalin and perhaps you will awaken from the fog of liberalism. Of course you will not, as liberalism is accompanied by the smug conviction of superiority, in spite of the factual evidence. These same core beliefs drove the people of Jonestown to drink the kool-aid and will cause you to adhere to your principles as well. Self examination is difficult and it is particularly embarrassing to realize that you have been beguilled by one of the best cons of the 20th century. That century is over and it is acceptable for you to wake up and evaluate facts. Liberals hate to read, of course, as it is cumbersome and time consuming. Propaganda is "double plus good".


Multiculturalism and Marxism | An Englishman looks at the Soviet origins of political correctness

SpringerLink -

The Origins of Political Correctness :: Accuracy In Academia

Roots Of “POLITICAL CORRECTNESS” « TORONTO News & Views
Hawkeye2009, I thought the readers might like to see what I wrote in this thread and your response to me about Stalin, etc.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2010, 06:23 AM
 
2,031 posts, read 1,277,902 times
Reputation: 1356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred314X View Post
The very idea that it's necessary to legislate against a word is...retarded.

(It's OK--I don't live in New Jersey so I'm not subject to their law!)
You apparently didn't read the article.

The use of the word is to be dropped in governmental materials - ie, legislation, publications. That's all. So New Jersey won't use "retarded" to refer to mentally challenged individuals anymore. Just like they (and all 49 other states) no longer use the word "idiot" (along with the other 49 states) to refer to mentally challenged people. This is hardly anything new. A similar example is that states have moved since the 1960s and 1970s to the term "child born out of wedlock" rather than the old term, "bastard". So has private industry (for example, Westgroup and their legal publications on caselaw pertaining to such children).

So, no one who lives in New Jersey is being prevented in any way from using the words "retard" or "retarded", verbally or in print. Which anyone who actually read the article would know.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2010, 07:52 AM
 
3,805 posts, read 1,906,478 times
Reputation: 1180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyageur View Post
You apparently didn't read the article.

The use of the word is to be dropped in governmental materials - ie, legislation, publications. That's all. So New Jersey won't use "retarded" to refer to mentally challenged individuals anymore. Just like they (and all 49 other states) no longer use the word "idiot" (along with the other 49 states) to refer to mentally challenged people. This is hardly anything new. A similar example is that states have moved since the 1960s and 1970s to the term "child born out of wedlock" rather than the old term, "bastard". So has private industry (for example, Westgroup and their legal publications on caselaw pertaining to such children).

So, no one who lives in New Jersey is being prevented in any way from using the words "retard" or "retarded", verbally or in print. Which anyone who actually read the article would know.
Even still .. calling it a "pre-owned car" will never change the fact that it is still a "used car" ...

Bathroom tissue will still always be "toilet paper" ..
Mobile homes will still always be "trailer houses" ..

and the list goes on ..

Changing the word to describe something won't ever change what it truly already is ..

A bag of poop is still a bag of poop .. regardless of what color the bag is, or what other name you wish to call it ..
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top