Timothy Bryce
Active Member
Admittedly, this is a topic that I might be lacking in understanding so I appreciate any assistance.
The other day, I was watching a game at a bar and one of the players on screen made a huge mistake. One guy I was watching the game with shook his head and said, "that'd be right - the retard we all knew him to be". Immediately when this guy said "retard," another guy turned around to him, noticeably offended, and confronted him about his use of the word. The offended guy's complaint was based upon the fact that he "works with special needs children" and that he is always offended when he hears that word being used. The guy apologised and said to offended guy that he never intended to use the word to offend anyone.
Now, I have an enormous respect for language and love flexible use of the English language so this altercation left me puzzled. After briefly looking at the etymology and considering the past and present uses of the word, I'm still at a loss about this offended guy's reaction.
First off - apparently this was a term that was widely accepted with medical connotations and used as a means to refer to people with mental disabilities as an alternative to being called things like "idiot" or "moron". This was apparently up until the last 15 years when people started deciding that "retard" should be considered an insult. Secondly, the word is used so liberally today to refer to so many different things in literally infinite contexts that to avoid the word would probably only cripple expression.
Considering the above paragraph, it's obvious to me that there needs to be a term that distinguishes people with intellectual disabilities for everyone's benefit however it seems as if the very nature of the topic would doom any term that refers to intellectually challenged people to eventually become a term of insult. This almost confirms to me that simply being offended by something does not constitute any form of argument and by assuming that it does stifles progress.
Idk, it's a dirty topic I suppose - but necessary.
The other day, I was watching a game at a bar and one of the players on screen made a huge mistake. One guy I was watching the game with shook his head and said, "that'd be right - the retard we all knew him to be". Immediately when this guy said "retard," another guy turned around to him, noticeably offended, and confronted him about his use of the word. The offended guy's complaint was based upon the fact that he "works with special needs children" and that he is always offended when he hears that word being used. The guy apologised and said to offended guy that he never intended to use the word to offend anyone.
Now, I have an enormous respect for language and love flexible use of the English language so this altercation left me puzzled. After briefly looking at the etymology and considering the past and present uses of the word, I'm still at a loss about this offended guy's reaction.
First off - apparently this was a term that was widely accepted with medical connotations and used as a means to refer to people with mental disabilities as an alternative to being called things like "idiot" or "moron". This was apparently up until the last 15 years when people started deciding that "retard" should be considered an insult. Secondly, the word is used so liberally today to refer to so many different things in literally infinite contexts that to avoid the word would probably only cripple expression.
Considering the above paragraph, it's obvious to me that there needs to be a term that distinguishes people with intellectual disabilities for everyone's benefit however it seems as if the very nature of the topic would doom any term that refers to intellectually challenged people to eventually become a term of insult. This almost confirms to me that simply being offended by something does not constitute any form of argument and by assuming that it does stifles progress.
Idk, it's a dirty topic I suppose - but necessary.