ok I suppose stupid does not necessarily isolate a group of people as it is a general adjective, otherwise we are a bit out of luck because it is also very hard to describe something strongly unpleasent without using such adjectives
But sometimes you want to convey the backwardness, or that something is a product of a past that should be let go… is it still a slur if you’re not using it as a slur? Kind of like cracker, if you’re using it to refer to a white person it’s a slur, but nobody is going to stop you from calling a saltine or a cheese-it a cracker because that’s what they are… Or do we have to call them mass produced unleavened bread products?
Antiquated or barbaric (amongst others, language is diverse) are words that may express what you’re feeling. Of course, words have multiple meanings and those meanings change over time. Moron was used to describe a deficient intellectual capacity in a medical sense as well, however while an insult, it hasn’t adopted the slur title (maybe it has in some circles idfk). FR clothing is an example where the word is using the same definition as the insult, but describing a physical property instead of an abstract one.
At the end of the day, I usually try to avoid language and actions that are hurtful. With that being said, you can’t satisfy everyone, thus everyone has their own decisions on what values they wish to uphold.
Well, it never was used as a term for “people that are disliked.” Regardless, it depends on intent and context, more often than the alternative, probably not… but etymologically speaking, it should (and needs to) change as a purposeful and intentional way to de-power the current general understanding of the word.
Society as a whole cannot collectively agree on nuance. That’s the problem with a lot of this. Words that started off neutral became harmful over time due to context and etymology. The N word didn’t originally have a racial connotation. It gained one over time and was assigned through racism.
Well, it never was used as a term for “people that are disliked.”
Bullshit. You’ve never heard kids online use it an an insult toward anyone regardless of race? Or Pewdiepie using it as a general insult? It absolutely happens.
Regardless, you don’t get to decide if an insult is offensive to a particular group. You can certainly keep using it after knowing it is, but you’ll be an asshole for doing so.
If you are using a word to refer to a person as belonging to any group with the intent to label that person as lesser or some kind of failure state of being then you are by extention calling anyone being part of that group as being something people wouldn’t want to be. You are implying members of the group are inferior.
Examples :
Calling someone “gay” in a way to mean “uncool”. You are implying that a person should never want to be gay. That being gay - is bad. Inferior to being straight.
“You ____ like a girl!” Your underlying premise is that being female is a failure state. You should be angry at being compared to something who lesser than you. This could apply to looks, ability, mannerisms etc. Hence it implies being a woman is a failure state as opposed to being a man.
Calling someone “the R-slur” when you mean something like “asinine”, “idiotic”, “mean” or “silly” you are implying those groups are failure states of being who those behaviours can be appended to as an expectation. That is a slur This sentiment is the same if you were to change the word you used but the specific history of this specific word as a slur is based on it’s once widespread use in context of being a synonym for “stupid” . Now it is less widespread but as the comic that spurred this conversation shows- it is still being used in the context of being a failure state. Intent makes the slur. If people didn’t use the word to refer to people in a way that was supposed to make them sit up and be indignant they are being compared to a disabled person it never would have become a slur. Since parlance never popularized the other use of the word as a verb “to stop or hinder” and the use of this one as a slur is still active it is far too early to attempt to “reclaim” this one.
You can argue “well a new word will just gain slur status!” and the answer is no. The problem stops when you realize the underlying problem is intent the lesson is understood and society stops creating new slurs by implying inferiority through context. English is vast. Use a word without the connotation of belonging to a specific group and you stop the underlying problem.
I think you have it backwards - calling someone a slur doesn’t make the negative association, society as a whole has already decided those traits are negative, and as a result, we use them as slurs. Stopping people from using hurtful words does not fix the problem, I think it lets some people self-righteously think they’re helping, but it doesn’t really do anything.
We’ve seen that happen with using “gay” as an insult - society has shifted over the years, so that being gay is no longer seen as a bad thing (at least not so much so as it was in the 90s, we still have some room for improvement…) therefore it has lost its power as an insult. Somebody calls me gay today, I don’t really care - it’s inaccurate, but it doesn’t hurt me any. And because it doesn’t hurt me, they’re not going to use it as an insult, because that’s what they’re going for, and it’s not effective.
But certain classes of people will always be looked down on, so those traits will always be used as insults. If society makes it unacceptable to use those words, assholes will continue to use them when they think they can get away with it, or find new words. Think of how many words there are for “mentally deficient”. Many of those words were the clinical term for specific disabilities until they fell out of favor after being used as insults. Stupid is one, as is idiot, moron… The only real difference is recency.
We’ve seen that happen with using “gay” as an insult - society has shifted over the years, so that being gay is no longer seen as a bad thing
I don’t remember that “just happening”… I remember prominent members of the homosexual community deciding to reclaim the word “gay”, and then working to bring the more neutral connotations into the mainstream - and that effort is still ongoing.
The people targeted by the slur had to have the resources and ability to change public perception before that could happen, and it took a considerable, concerted effort. It did not just “shift”, and that process is not equally available to every target of a slur.
Slurs have a couple of different ways of coming about. Calling someone “gay” in the context of being uncool or unmanly was one whete the attitude shifted but consider that because of underlying attitude of homophobia became more appearant to the average listener in the attempt to use it in context of a slur. Once something reflects the small mindedness of the speaker more than insults the listener it does lose it’s power.
Now consider something you said about the disability community :
But certain classes of people will always be looked down on, so those traits will always be used as insults
There is a very large body of disability advocacy that is involved in fighting for a social attitude where this is not the case. In fact it hasn’t always been the case. Our concept of “normal” is historically more recent than you would think and people with mental disabilities in the English world were not really considered a distinct class. You are taking for granted that the disability community will be considered inferior by the wider population because you cannot imagine a state otherwise. That is ableism my friend and it doesn’t change unless you look it in the face and recognize it for what it is.
A fundamental thing lacking in your understanding of slurs is your insistance that their existence is a full negative for the community that they are levied against. It is more useful to look at the designation of slurs almost more as a form of technology those communities use both as a form of self advocacy to spread awareness of underlying prejudices and to identify individuals and groups who hold them particular opposition or threat. They aren’t just about “getting upset” or giving people an avenue to press buttons.
Consider the “N-slur” in light of it being a technology. Those who use it are either :
Identifying themselves as a member of the ‘in’ group and using it as a means of solidarity.
Identifying themselves as an individual that believes they have “the right” to use the slur companionably thus often identifying themselves as a problem who at best doesn’t quite understand the assignment or at worst believes they can make unilateral decisions as part of a group to which they do not belong presenting a threat
Identifying themselves as a legitimate threat by using the word with the full weight of it’s oppressive and derogatory context.
This is legitimately words as weapons of war. A technique hit upon by modern civil rights movements as a means of fighting back. The meeting place of sociology and etymology where people started looking at words beyond strict meaning. What you are attempting to do is disarm a community making use of this but in reality you are identifying yourself using this tech as the second form of threat. The one that treats advocacy as a lost cause because the idea of implicit inferiority is so ingrained you can’t see the paternalism.
I think you misunderstand a little… I am someone that grew up riding the short bus. I have been on the receiving end of this kind of ableism all my life, even before I knew it was a thing or what to call it. That’s why it pisses me off so much anytime some person or forum or whatever discourages use of specific words - it’s not helpful and often tends to backfire and hurt the people you’re so valiantly trying to defend.
Then I am sorry you have internalized the idea that you are part of a class of people who will always be derided because of what you are and that you have learned to accept less. That is a terrible place to be. I can understand rhe drive for comfort in the face of what seems like overwhelming odds.
But for overall movements seeking to make things better, accepting the enemy’s frame of mind just isn’t acceptable. This tension will exist as long as the advocacy remains strong. It exists in my group as well and going softly into that good night never ends well for people like us. We have to work as hard as we do to convince people we are human and worth consideration.
LMAO, ok so I don’t need a lecture. We’re not talking about using “gay” as a pejorative. That’s not the same word that’s being discussed here. Nor are we talking about using femininity as a negative state.
The “R” word originally meant “to slow” or to hold back progress. That’s what it meant before the medical community misappropriated the term for individuals with intellectual disabilities. At some point after that, the word changed into an informal pejorative and then became taboo. At this point, there’s very viable uses of the word that correlate with politics and perspectives that are counter-progressive.
You appearantly do need the lecture because you are not listening. There are plenty of words you can use without using one that, misappropriated or not, was and still is used to describe the disability community and is now primarily linked to that understanding.
Your statement of “well words are fine if they aren’t used at the people who they are meant for” is inherently incorrect, hence the examples each is an example of using the word in a disrespectful or phobic context. What you are proposing is using a word linked through current pejorative use to the disability community to be expanded to not just be used in the context of “stupid” but to now mean essentially “facist” because… Why? You particularly like the word?
Making something more taboo doesn’t decrease it’s power; it increases it. Making things commonplace decreases their power. If the word is truly problematic for you, you’d want to decrease the historical harms.
I certainly do not need a lecture from someone that’s inherently lacking understanding about the evolution of language.
You are talking about the forces of reclamation and that historically isn’t up to people outside of the community effected. You are an agent of the majority outside the community which means if you go against the wishes of the community actively stating its harm then you are enforcing something from without which is a really good way to perpetuate a slur. Until that consensus is met by the group it is never going to lose it’s connection and doing something “for someone else’s good” is patronizing.
You have the seeming of someone who dipped their toe in a discipline and is now using it to lord over others. I suspect however given lack of historical backdrop and advocating for the very circumstances that create slurs there are some holes in your education to address. Let’s do a little a little etymology exercise.
If you say “A man walks down the street” what is the stated gender of the person? If you say “I think you are very nice” should I be offended at the comment on my intellect?
Words sometimes lose their original connotations in favour of other ones. This can happen in historically very short periods and sometimes there’s no reversing the clock. Sometimes a change is there to stay.
A fundamental thing lacking in your understanding of slurs is your insistance that their existence is a full negative for the community that they are levied against. It is more useful to look at the designation of slurs almost more as a form of technology those communities use both as a form of self advocacy to spread awareness of underlying prejudices and to identify individuals and groups who hold them particular opposition or threat. They aren’t just about “getting upset” or giving people an avenue to press buttons.
Consider the “N-slur” in light of it being a technology. Those who use it are either :
Identifying themselves as a member of the ‘in’ group and using it as a means of solidarity.
Identifying themselves as an individual that believes they have “the right” to use the slur companionably thus often identifying themselves as a problem who at best doesn’t quite understand the assignment or at worst believes they can make unilateral decisions as part of a group to which they do not belong presenting a threat
Identifying themselves as a legitimate threat by using the word with the full weight of it’s oppressive and derogatory context.
Those who are using this can track this use if this slur to figure out who their allies are, what are safe communities, which of their associates can be counted on to help and who is setting themselves up as an enemy. This is legitimately words as weapons of war. A technique hit upon by modern civil rights movements as a means of fighting back. The meeting place of sociology and etymology where people started looking at words beyond strict meaning. What you are attempting to do is disarm a community making use of this but in reality you are identifying yourself using this tech as the second form of threat. The one that treats advocacy as a lost cause because the idea of implicit inferiority is so ingrained you can’t see the paternalism.
In typical usage, retard (pronounced /ˈɹiː.tɑːɹd/, REE-tard) is an ableist slur for someone who is considered stupid, slow to understand, or ineffective in some way as a comparison to stereotypical traits perceived in those with intellectual disability. The adjective retarded is used in the same way, for something or someone considered very foolish or stupid. The word is sometimes censored and referred to as the euphemistic “r‑word” or “r‑slur”
Retard was previously used as a medical term.
I looked it up, and it looks like the terminology has changed to refer to “intellectual disability” instead. So it’s actually not in your record when using the most updated terminology.
so you agree it is a multifaceted word that requires contextual definition in order to be used properly.
The noun retard is recorded from 1788 in the sense “retardation, delay;” from 1970 in the offensive meaning “retarded person,” originally American English, with accent on first syllable. Other words used for “one who is mentally retarded” include retardate (1956, from Latin retardatus), and U.S. newspapers 1950s-60s often used retardee (1950).
It’s unfair to judge a word that has over 500 years of use on the last 70 years of history.
A bridge that has stood for 500 years can be considered unusable today due to recent developments.
The word clearly isn’t having the effect you say you want. The solution isn’t to bemoan the poor treatment of the word - the solution is to change the word you use.
more analogies that have no other purpose but to oversimplify and confuse the topic. I can’t fault you though, if this is the best way you can understand language. you tried your best after all.
if the intent of the speaker is misunderstood by the listener it’s the listeners fault for misinterpreting and failing to understand contextual intonation.
simply put, the speaker speaks and the listener listens. intent is conveyed through our words and their meaning. if the listener misinterprets the meaning based on context given, it’s the listeners fault.
have you observed that when listening to the speech of someone who is classically educated that their vocabulary seems to be endlessly descriptive and their intent often lost on the uneducated masses? that those with higher education are often ostracized or mocked because they are perceived as “thinking they’re better”.
that’s because the uneducated masses fail to understand the meaning of the words they speak. the peasants fail to understand the nobility of the spoken word. they simply use common to communicate with their simpleminded friends and neighbors.
I’m sure at this point you have clearly understood my intent of this comment.
The word retard dates as far back as 1426. It stems from the Latin verb retardare, meaning “to hinder” or “make slow”.
Much like today’s socially acceptable terms idiot and moron, which are also defined as some sort of mental disability, when the term retard is being used in its pejorative form, it is usually not being directed at people with intellectual disabilities. Instead, people use the term when teasing their friends or as a general insult.
ignoramous: 1570s, originally an Anglo-French legal term (early 15c.), from Latin ignoramus “we take no notice of, we do not know,” first person plural present indicative of ignorare “not to know, take no notice of” (see ignorant).
your comment used it as a zeugma. the term described who you were speaking to as “one who is ignorant” as well as being used as a tongue-in-cheek soliloquy, using a Latin term when you had announced none were present, which used the original definition of “we take no notice of, we do not know”.
it’s quite clever, though I doubt you meant to do it 😆.
Good, so you would understand that today the R word in 99% of any realistic context is going to be a slur. Stop trying to “um akshually” defend the usage of it.
I use the term as a general insult towards people who seem hellbent on never learning from their mistakes. Like when people keep voting for politicians who openly advocating for violence against those same people, or when people keep getting in car accidents because they think everyone else is the problem (Oh the irony though).
Would never use it towards someone medically incapable of learning from their mistakes, that’s just cruel and not their fault.
Yea this is a slippery slope though, you can play this game with every word and easily turn it into a discussion in bad faith. English, not being my mother tongue, when I think of the word “retarded”, I automatically think of the word as related to describing foolish and stupid actions. But I do also know, on a higher level, that it actually is a medical term. So I am not against this correction (I would for instance be more careful at not be using the anologous word in my language in such a sentence).
Agreed, in its core the problem lies in people’s inclination to be ableist. Whether or not making people conscious of usage of ableist terminology in sentences is helpful to this problem, I am not really sure. But I am also not against it.
The etymology of the word is irrelevant in this context,
you’re ignoring 500 years of definition for the last 70 years of English use. if you ignore the etymology of language then what is the point of language in the first place.
you can’t just ignore the literal history of a word when it suits you, that’s just retarded [hindered/restrained].
only how it’s currently being used in English.
how the term was used in English was to describe a board game, not a person or people. the context, in this case, is the board game. this would imply you have no qualms about their use of the word and your comments are simply arguing for arguments sake.
words are important, context is important, but intention is most important.
Love the sentiment, but the R word slur contributes to treating a group unequally.
ok I suppose stupid does not necessarily isolate a group of people as it is a general adjective, otherwise we are a bit out of luck because it is also very hard to describe something strongly unpleasent without using such adjectives
Most of the time, whenever I see folks using the slur, I feel the word “asinine” would work just as well.
Other words that normally fit are: ludicrous, brainless, or downright silly.
sounds like a good one thanks
But sometimes you want to convey the backwardness, or that something is a product of a past that should be let go… is it still a slur if you’re not using it as a slur? Kind of like cracker, if you’re using it to refer to a white person it’s a slur, but nobody is going to stop you from calling a saltine or a cheese-it a cracker because that’s what they are… Or do we have to call them mass produced unleavened bread products?
Antiquated or barbaric (amongst others, language is diverse) are words that may express what you’re feeling. Of course, words have multiple meanings and those meanings change over time. Moron was used to describe a deficient intellectual capacity in a medical sense as well, however while an insult, it hasn’t adopted the slur title (maybe it has in some circles idfk). FR clothing is an example where the word is using the same definition as the insult, but describing a physical property instead of an abstract one.
At the end of the day, I usually try to avoid language and actions that are hurtful. With that being said, you can’t satisfy everyone, thus everyone has their own decisions on what values they wish to uphold.
deleted by creator
Only if you believe that word is referencing one group of people.
People with mental disabilities have flagged the word as harmful. Trust the victims to know what hurts them.
If the word isn’t being used in reference to people with mental disabilities it’s not the problematic context.
That’s not how it works. I’m sorry you disagree with English, but people are able to be hurt but words not pointed directly at them.
So if someone uses the N word slur for black people to refer to non-black people they dislike, it’s okay?
Well, it never was used as a term for “people that are disliked.” Regardless, it depends on intent and context, more often than the alternative, probably not… but etymologically speaking, it should (and needs to) change as a purposeful and intentional way to de-power the current general understanding of the word.
Society as a whole cannot collectively agree on nuance. That’s the problem with a lot of this. Words that started off neutral became harmful over time due to context and etymology. The N word didn’t originally have a racial connotation. It gained one over time and was assigned through racism.
Bullshit. You’ve never heard kids online use it an an insult toward anyone regardless of race? Or Pewdiepie using it as a general insult? It absolutely happens.
Regardless, you don’t get to decide if an insult is offensive to a particular group. You can certainly keep using it after knowing it is, but you’ll be an asshole for doing so.
I’ve never considered children to be the source of truth regarding the definitions of words.
If you are using a word to refer to a person as belonging to any group with the intent to label that person as lesser or some kind of failure state of being then you are by extention calling anyone being part of that group as being something people wouldn’t want to be. You are implying members of the group are inferior.
Examples :
Calling someone “gay” in a way to mean “uncool”. You are implying that a person should never want to be gay. That being gay - is bad. Inferior to being straight.
“You ____ like a girl!” Your underlying premise is that being female is a failure state. You should be angry at being compared to something who lesser than you. This could apply to looks, ability, mannerisms etc. Hence it implies being a woman is a failure state as opposed to being a man.
Calling someone “the R-slur” when you mean something like “asinine”, “idiotic”, “mean” or “silly” you are implying those groups are failure states of being who those behaviours can be appended to as an expectation. That is a slur This sentiment is the same if you were to change the word you used but the specific history of this specific word as a slur is based on it’s once widespread use in context of being a synonym for “stupid” . Now it is less widespread but as the comic that spurred this conversation shows- it is still being used in the context of being a failure state. Intent makes the slur. If people didn’t use the word to refer to people in a way that was supposed to make them sit up and be indignant they are being compared to a disabled person it never would have become a slur. Since parlance never popularized the other use of the word as a verb “to stop or hinder” and the use of this one as a slur is still active it is far too early to attempt to “reclaim” this one.
You can argue “well a new word will just gain slur status!” and the answer is no. The problem stops when you realize the underlying problem is intent the lesson is understood and society stops creating new slurs by implying inferiority through context. English is vast. Use a word without the connotation of belonging to a specific group and you stop the underlying problem.
I think you have it backwards - calling someone a slur doesn’t make the negative association, society as a whole has already decided those traits are negative, and as a result, we use them as slurs. Stopping people from using hurtful words does not fix the problem, I think it lets some people self-righteously think they’re helping, but it doesn’t really do anything.
We’ve seen that happen with using “gay” as an insult - society has shifted over the years, so that being gay is no longer seen as a bad thing (at least not so much so as it was in the 90s, we still have some room for improvement…) therefore it has lost its power as an insult. Somebody calls me gay today, I don’t really care - it’s inaccurate, but it doesn’t hurt me any. And because it doesn’t hurt me, they’re not going to use it as an insult, because that’s what they’re going for, and it’s not effective.
But certain classes of people will always be looked down on, so those traits will always be used as insults. If society makes it unacceptable to use those words, assholes will continue to use them when they think they can get away with it, or find new words. Think of how many words there are for “mentally deficient”. Many of those words were the clinical term for specific disabilities until they fell out of favor after being used as insults. Stupid is one, as is idiot, moron… The only real difference is recency.
I don’t remember that “just happening”… I remember prominent members of the homosexual community deciding to reclaim the word “gay”, and then working to bring the more neutral connotations into the mainstream - and that effort is still ongoing.
The people targeted by the slur had to have the resources and ability to change public perception before that could happen, and it took a considerable, concerted effort. It did not just “shift”, and that process is not equally available to every target of a slur.
Slurs have a couple of different ways of coming about. Calling someone “gay” in the context of being uncool or unmanly was one whete the attitude shifted but consider that because of underlying attitude of homophobia became more appearant to the average listener in the attempt to use it in context of a slur. Once something reflects the small mindedness of the speaker more than insults the listener it does lose it’s power.
Now consider something you said about the disability community :
There is a very large body of disability advocacy that is involved in fighting for a social attitude where this is not the case. In fact it hasn’t always been the case. Our concept of “normal” is historically more recent than you would think and people with mental disabilities in the English world were not really considered a distinct class. You are taking for granted that the disability community will be considered inferior by the wider population because you cannot imagine a state otherwise. That is ableism my friend and it doesn’t change unless you look it in the face and recognize it for what it is.
A fundamental thing lacking in your understanding of slurs is your insistance that their existence is a full negative for the community that they are levied against. It is more useful to look at the designation of slurs almost more as a form of technology those communities use both as a form of self advocacy to spread awareness of underlying prejudices and to identify individuals and groups who hold them particular opposition or threat. They aren’t just about “getting upset” or giving people an avenue to press buttons.
Consider the “N-slur” in light of it being a technology. Those who use it are either :
Identifying themselves as a member of the ‘in’ group and using it as a means of solidarity.
Identifying themselves as an individual that believes they have “the right” to use the slur companionably thus often identifying themselves as a problem who at best doesn’t quite understand the assignment or at worst believes they can make unilateral decisions as part of a group to which they do not belong presenting a threat
Identifying themselves as a legitimate threat by using the word with the full weight of it’s oppressive and derogatory context.
This is legitimately words as weapons of war. A technique hit upon by modern civil rights movements as a means of fighting back. The meeting place of sociology and etymology where people started looking at words beyond strict meaning. What you are attempting to do is disarm a community making use of this but in reality you are identifying yourself using this tech as the second form of threat. The one that treats advocacy as a lost cause because the idea of implicit inferiority is so ingrained you can’t see the paternalism.
I think you misunderstand a little… I am someone that grew up riding the short bus. I have been on the receiving end of this kind of ableism all my life, even before I knew it was a thing or what to call it. That’s why it pisses me off so much anytime some person or forum or whatever discourages use of specific words - it’s not helpful and often tends to backfire and hurt the people you’re so valiantly trying to defend.
Then I am sorry you have internalized the idea that you are part of a class of people who will always be derided because of what you are and that you have learned to accept less. That is a terrible place to be. I can understand rhe drive for comfort in the face of what seems like overwhelming odds.
But for overall movements seeking to make things better, accepting the enemy’s frame of mind just isn’t acceptable. This tension will exist as long as the advocacy remains strong. It exists in my group as well and going softly into that good night never ends well for people like us. We have to work as hard as we do to convince people we are human and worth consideration.
LMAO, ok so I don’t need a lecture. We’re not talking about using “gay” as a pejorative. That’s not the same word that’s being discussed here. Nor are we talking about using femininity as a negative state.
The “R” word originally meant “to slow” or to hold back progress. That’s what it meant before the medical community misappropriated the term for individuals with intellectual disabilities. At some point after that, the word changed into an informal pejorative and then became taboo. At this point, there’s very viable uses of the word that correlate with politics and perspectives that are counter-progressive.
You appearantly do need the lecture because you are not listening. There are plenty of words you can use without using one that, misappropriated or not, was and still is used to describe the disability community and is now primarily linked to that understanding.
Your statement of “well words are fine if they aren’t used at the people who they are meant for” is inherently incorrect, hence the examples each is an example of using the word in a disrespectful or phobic context. What you are proposing is using a word linked through current pejorative use to the disability community to be expanded to not just be used in the context of “stupid” but to now mean essentially “facist” because… Why? You particularly like the word?
That’s not better.
Making something more taboo doesn’t decrease it’s power; it increases it. Making things commonplace decreases their power. If the word is truly problematic for you, you’d want to decrease the historical harms.
I certainly do not need a lecture from someone that’s inherently lacking understanding about the evolution of language.
You are talking about the forces of reclamation and that historically isn’t up to people outside of the community effected. You are an agent of the majority outside the community which means if you go against the wishes of the community actively stating its harm then you are enforcing something from without which is a really good way to perpetuate a slur. Until that consensus is met by the group it is never going to lose it’s connection and doing something “for someone else’s good” is patronizing.
You have the seeming of someone who dipped their toe in a discipline and is now using it to lord over others. I suspect however given lack of historical backdrop and advocating for the very circumstances that create slurs there are some holes in your education to address. Let’s do a little a little etymology exercise.
If you say “A man walks down the street” what is the stated gender of the person? If you say “I think you are very nice” should I be offended at the comment on my intellect?
Words sometimes lose their original connotations in favour of other ones. This can happen in historically very short periods and sometimes there’s no reversing the clock. Sometimes a change is there to stay.
A fundamental thing lacking in your understanding of slurs is your insistance that their existence is a full negative for the community that they are levied against. It is more useful to look at the designation of slurs almost more as a form of technology those communities use both as a form of self advocacy to spread awareness of underlying prejudices and to identify individuals and groups who hold them particular opposition or threat. They aren’t just about “getting upset” or giving people an avenue to press buttons.
Consider the “N-slur” in light of it being a technology. Those who use it are either :
Identifying themselves as a member of the ‘in’ group and using it as a means of solidarity.
Identifying themselves as an individual that believes they have “the right” to use the slur companionably thus often identifying themselves as a problem who at best doesn’t quite understand the assignment or at worst believes they can make unilateral decisions as part of a group to which they do not belong presenting a threat
Identifying themselves as a legitimate threat by using the word with the full weight of it’s oppressive and derogatory context.
Those who are using this can track this use if this slur to figure out who their allies are, what are safe communities, which of their associates can be counted on to help and who is setting themselves up as an enemy. This is legitimately words as weapons of war. A technique hit upon by modern civil rights movements as a means of fighting back. The meeting place of sociology and etymology where people started looking at words beyond strict meaning. What you are attempting to do is disarm a community making use of this but in reality you are identifying yourself using this tech as the second form of threat. The one that treats advocacy as a lost cause because the idea of implicit inferiority is so ingrained you can’t see the paternalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retard_(pejorative)
As was idiot, cretin, moron, and imbecile, which suffered similar misuse.
Previously? It’s in my medical paper.
It has fallen into disfavor due to its constant misuse as a pejorative. Might want to update the paper.
Why are you telling me, I’m not the one calling patients the R word 😭
So it’s in your medical record. Depending on how old it is, that was very unprofessional of whoever wrote it.
They wrote F70.8, and when I searched it up, the description was the R word.
I looked it up, and it looks like the terminology has changed to refer to “intellectual disability” instead. So it’s actually not in your record when using the most updated terminology.
so you agree it is a multifaceted word that requires contextual definition in order to be used properly.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/retarded
It’s unfair to judge a word that has over 500 years of use on the last 70 years of history.
A bridge that has stood for 500 years can be considered unusable today due to recent developments.
The word clearly isn’t having the effect you say you want. The solution isn’t to bemoan the poor treatment of the word - the solution is to change the word you use.
You have many options - be creative!
more analogies that have no other purpose but to oversimplify and confuse the topic. I can’t fault you though, if this is the best way you can understand language. you tried your best after all.
if the intent of the speaker is misunderstood by the listener it’s the listeners fault for misinterpreting and failing to understand contextual intonation.
simply put, the speaker speaks and the listener listens. intent is conveyed through our words and their meaning. if the listener misinterprets the meaning based on context given, it’s the listeners fault.
have you observed that when listening to the speech of someone who is classically educated that their vocabulary seems to be endlessly descriptive and their intent often lost on the uneducated masses? that those with higher education are often ostracized or mocked because they are perceived as “thinking they’re better”.
that’s because the uneducated masses fail to understand the meaning of the words they speak. the peasants fail to understand the nobility of the spoken word. they simply use common to communicate with their simpleminded friends and neighbors.
I’m sure at this point you have clearly understood my intent of this comment.
if not, read a book.
Yea, and from the same wiki article:
We’re not speaking bloody Latin ya ignoramus.
this is either the perfect comment that uses the word “ignoramus”, or the worst insult.
I’m still not sure if you actually meant to do it or not.
I chose it for its Latin-ness, if that’s what you’re asking.
your comment used it as a zeugma. the term described who you were speaking to as “one who is ignorant” as well as being used as a tongue-in-cheek soliloquy, using a Latin term when you had announced none were present, which used the original definition of “we take no notice of, we do not know”.
it’s quite clever, though I doubt you meant to do it 😆.
No, we’re speaking English. Do you know the definition of etymology?
Do you understand semantic shift?
That’s specifically what I’m referring to.
Good, so you would understand that today the R word in 99% of any realistic context is going to be a slur. Stop trying to “um akshually” defend the usage of it.
I use the term as a general insult towards people who seem hellbent on never learning from their mistakes. Like when people keep voting for politicians who openly advocating for violence against those same people, or when people keep getting in car accidents because they think everyone else is the problem (Oh the irony though).
Would never use it towards someone medically incapable of learning from their mistakes, that’s just cruel and not their fault.
Yea this is a slippery slope though, you can play this game with every word and easily turn it into a discussion in bad faith. English, not being my mother tongue, when I think of the word “retarded”, I automatically think of the word as related to describing foolish and stupid actions. But I do also know, on a higher level, that it actually is a medical term. So I am not against this correction (I would for instance be more careful at not be using the anologous word in my language in such a sentence).
Retarded is an outdated medical term, we use terminology such as intellectual disability these days because of the stigma behind the R word.
Agreed, in its core the problem lies in people’s inclination to be ableist. Whether or not making people conscious of usage of ableist terminology in sentences is helpful to this problem, I am not really sure. But I am also not against it.
Latin would like a word with you on that.
The etymology of the word is irrelevant in this context, only how it’s currently being used in English.
though I’m disappointed that you believe the history of language is irrelevant, I’m happy you feel that way!
in the original comment, they used it in a way to describe a board game, not against a person or people.
so no issue, right?
Very disingenuous for you to omit that.
since you need a spoon I’ll feed it to you.
you’re ignoring 500 years of definition for the last 70 years of English use. if you ignore the etymology of language then what is the point of language in the first place.
you can’t just ignore the literal history of a word when it suits you, that’s just retarded [hindered/restrained].
how the term was used in English was to describe a board game, not a person or people. the context, in this case, is the board game. this would imply you have no qualms about their use of the word and your comments are simply arguing for arguments sake.
words are important, context is important, but intention is most important.
deleted by creator