Use of 'retarded' as derogatory term is offensive and demeaning

CAN_PsychStudent wrote:

For the record, I just want to point out that the "rose is still a rose by any other name" argument isn't exactly relevant in this context. We're not debating the intrinsic identity of any person or object.

Junket wrote:

<quoted text>
We're debating the use of "retarded" as being offensive. That's obviously in reference to a person or the action of a person - otherwise, how on earth could it be considered demeaning?
Not trying to give you a hard time here - but I'm not understanding your post.
If you want to move the debate into - children live what they learn - that's fine. Agree 100%. Is that your page?

_PrincessSusan_ wrote:

Although it would be difficult, if not impossible, to remove a word from the lexicon of common usage until it falls out of favor in the normal course of events, some words, such as retard, seem to me not to be all that useful.
I say this because most of us have our own unique definitions of a word, thus before, it can be considered in a discussion, said word should first be defined to the satisfaction of all in the debate.
Retard also doesn't seem to be an accurate definition when used to define special needs individuals. There are so many different kinds of special needs that to lump them all under the "retard" label is disingenuous at best.

tired of silly wrote:

People who get their panties in a wad about such nonsense are RETARDS!!!

CAN_PsychStudent wrote:

<quoted text>
I apologize, and you're right. I lost sight of the original argument.
In reference to the title of the forum, I agree that the use of any term denoting a specific group of people in a derogatory manner is offensive. However, I disagree that the word in itself is offensive.
I'm arguing that we shouldn't remove the word "retard" from our vocabulary, but rather watch how we use it (especially, as you pointed out, in the presence of impressionable minds, i.e. children).

Junket wrote:

<quoted text>
The "word" itself should not be blamed. It's the way it's been bandied about that has created hurt for persons limited and sense that the word is used to mock.
I can police my words and actions, polite people do so. However, in this country there is freedom of speech and "tard" or "tardo" etc. has become a fairly common insult - intended for those that likely have average IQ's.
Children not only live what they learn, but they learn what they live. There's nothing that can be done to prevent parents from raising racists, etc. Nothing.
Personally, I do not use that word. There's an abundance of other words that strike me as fitting and more "biting". Gormless, cretin, vacuous, etc.

Charles R Darwin wrote:

<quoted text>
Quite the opposite, I think. The word 'retard' is very flexible. It can be used as an adjective. It can be used as a noun or pronoun. It can be used as a pejorative. It is the context of the conversation that frames the use of the word.

Junket wrote:

<quoted text>
The "word" itself should not be blamed. It's the way it's been bandied about that has created hurt for persons limited and sense that the word is used to mock.
I can police my words and actions, polite people do so. However, in this country there is freedom of speech and "tard" or "tardo" etc. has become a fairly common insult - intended for those that likely have average IQ's.
Children not only live what they learn, but they learn what they live. There's nothing that can be done to prevent parents from raising racists, etc. Nothing.
Personally, I do not use that word. There's an abundance of other words that strike me as fitting and more "biting". Gormless, cretin, vacuous, etc.

CAN_PsychStudent wrote:

<quoted text>
I think we're pretty much on the same page about this. Words have no power on their own; it's the meaning given by the speaker that gives them power.
And you're right; we can't stop parents from raising racist or otherwise prejudiced children. However, as society begins to drop certain forms of discrimination, it becomes harder and harder for parents to successfully raise intolerant children. For example, I would say that it is harder to raise a racist child today (assuming the child is actually exposed to society at large) than it was even 20 years ago.

CAN_PsychStudent wrote:

<quoted text>
If you have something useful to add, please feel free. Otherwise, I'm sure there are other forums where your childish rhetoric will be better appreciated.

Junket wrote:

<quoted text>
You would like to think, right? My mind immediately leapt to this unsavory current event:
http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/06/21/shocking-...
**********
The father of one of those young little darlings defended his son and said hey - he's only 13. That's right - and Hitler was a young boy at one time.

tired of silly wrote:

<quoted text>
Haven't seen you offer a thing that is useful, just more parroting of the PC doctrine that instead of holding people accountable for their reaction to words says that people shouldn't USE certain words in certain ways. The utterly silly belief that people will "feel better about themselves" if they're called challenged instead of retarded, undocumented immigrant instead of illegal alien, and on and on and on. Fact is that if a person depends on others for their self-esteem, they're wasting their time. Self esteem comes from within, not from outside influences. Calling someone a retard is no different from calling them stupid, unintelligent, or any other word that means you're dumb as a box of rocks. And here's a news flash for you, retarded people are stupid. That's what defines them as retarded. All the psychobabble you learned in psych 101 is worthless. Some people are just retards, and I suspect you might be one of them.

tired of silly wrote:

<quoted text>
Haven't seen you offer a thing that is useful, just more parroting of the PC doctrine that instead of holding people accountable for their reaction to words says that people shouldn't USE certain words in certain ways. The utterly silly belief that people will "feel better about themselves" if they're called challenged instead of retarded, undocumented immigrant instead of illegal alien, and on and on and on. Fact is that if a person depends on others for their self-esteem, they're wasting their time. Self esteem comes from within, not from outside influences. Calling someone a retard is no different from calling them stupid, unintelligent, or any other word that means you're dumb as a box of rocks. And here's a news flash for you, retarded people are stupid. That's what defines them as retarded. All the psychobabble you learned in psych 101 is worthless. Some people are just retards, and I suspect you might be one of them.

_Susan_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Some folks are definitely more ignorant, obtuse and uninformed than others.

CAN_PsychStudent wrote:

<quoted text>
You are clearly missing my point. If you actually followed my argument, I stated several times I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't use the word retard. If someone has a developmental disability, I have no problem referring to that person as a retard.(In theory at least; in practice, it sounds rude. But that's a separate issue.)
I'm not arguing for the use of different words. I think "political correctness" is just making more of an issue than it is doing good. I'm arguing we should watch the associations we make between certain words that denote groups of people and negative emotions.
For the record, I so far haven't referenced anything I learned in an introductory psych course. I'm not "psychobabbling," but trust me, if you want psychobabble, I would be happily obliged. And I'm glad you've diagnosed my intellectual disability over the internet; finally I understand why I feel so stupid all the time. I'm a retard.

_Susan_ wrote:

There was no doubt a high survival value to being afraid of those who were different from us. I imagine in prehistoric times, "different" often meant fatal.
Evidently, we have not been able to remove that inherent fear and it shows up as intolerance and even hate today.

_PrincessSusan_ wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey Charles, long time no see!
:)
It may be flexible but first we still have to agree to a common definition.