Redundant terminology

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

"hm" and "ha" all you wish, piss-ant. You've managed to drill yourself into a hole... now pull the rock back over-top.

This used to actually be the sig of a prominate poster here. I dont remember there being any greif about it then, but maybe I have forgotten.

Is that a fact? I don't recall seeing it, but if I had I would have brought them up on the carpet for it as well. I call a spade a spade, wherever they are. You're working from a deficit with several of us regarding your dismissals of FAQ and Etiquette; now you've managed to finally say something insulting enough to warrant a warning from an Admin (which you quickly argue against and dismiss as well).

Strike three.

So I am insulting retarded people by infering that being retarded is a negative trait?
...
By using the above reasoning one could never make an analogy to anything bad in the world, because it would in turn insult who ever has effected.

Analogies are dangerous things. They should be chosen with care and due attention, with a definite understanding of one's audience. Of course, you don't feel that respect for the audience is necessary at all, do you (FAQ or Etiquette be damned). I don't have a personal friend that qualifies as "retarded", nor have I personally known of someone who's participated in the Special Olympics. That doesn't change the fact of your negative connotation. It is the equivalent of racism. Saying "Arguing on the internet is like being a Black American" would have been the same damned thing. It's insulting. It's degrading. It's inflammatory.

Strike four.

BTW (since you seem to enjoy "btw's"): Your atrocious spelling is giving my spellchecker heartburn. I had to hit "Ignore" 7 times just out of quoting you. Now THAT'S sad.

[Obi2Kenobi]

Did you even read a certain previous post? You couldn't put arguing on the internet is like being a Black Amercian, because the next part is "Even if you win, you're still retarded."

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

Obviously it's not an extremely "nice" message, but not all-together that demeaning to anyone. (And, if taken lightly, has a good point)

"Not all-together that demeaning", eh?

Jew, Wop, Spic, Honky, Squarehead, Nigger, Jap, Kike, Fag... Retard.

ANYTIME you use a degrading term towards a group based upon a percieved commonality, you are degrading them. To indicate anything less is a gross expression of one's lack of education, empathy and human decency. Hatred is a slippery slope... and thinking that these terms are to be "taken lightly" is the equivalent to throwing yourself headfirst down the hill.

I hit Ignorance in the face when I see it. I don't pull punches. The internet is rife enough with hatred that it is folly to simply let it go.

I suggest you either reconsider your words, or seek education to back up your own weak position. The Admins just banned a user from the Lurker Lounge a week ago for his usage of a questionable German phrase and an Iron Cross graphic linked from a hate site.

Moral of the story: You don't let this shyte go unanswered.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

Sit down, shut up and read. You might learn something about the world beyond your goddamn basement.

[Guest]

You dont treat me politely. True you dont have to. But I thought I would note it.

Why do people always bring race into unrelated issues. Being retarded is an unfortunate problem for some people that in it limits what a person can do. Being black is something to be proud of, and hurts no one(but racism causes huge problems.)

The person who used that sig was before your time I think, but it really was used.

[Guest]

Calling a one legged man "one legged man" is not degrading - its being accurate.

Calling a retard a retard is not degrading either.


However, if you are addressing somebody directly in most cases it would be rude and calous to call attention to their diability.



I find it disturbing that you equate ethnic groups with disabilities.

All people deserve respect for their humanity, but disabilities are a negative point. Ones ethnicity is not a negative point.

[Chaerophon]

Listen, in many, PRIVATE circles, the joke is considered funny. However, I've worked extensively with the handicapped at a school level and some of the most inspiring people that I have ever met were "retarded" in one way or another and while at one time, when I was quite a bit younger, I would have laughed. I don't find it particularly funny anymore and even at the time, I wouldn't have tried to argue that the joke wasn't hurtful or insensitive.

On certain levels, as you argue, the joke contains an element of truth - winning at the special olympics is like being the best among "substandard" competition. However, if you understood how hard these people have worked and the struggles and trials that they have undergone in order to be where they are, maybe you would understand the upheaval a bit better. The joke IS insensitive and not particularly well suited to a PUBLIC forum where many may be offended by its content. I am not "offended", per se; however, I understand why others are, and a simple maxim applies. If you don't want to get burned (flamed even), don't play with fire.

You can't possibly argue that the joke is inoffensive, that is the root of its "humour". It's somewhat shocking and intended to belittle the handicapped. You should stop trying, simply state that you find it humourous on the surface but acknowledge that it lacks sensitivity and is even cruel and belittling. Many jokes are. You'd probably still offend some people, but at least they would respect your manner of dealing with the issue.

[Chaerophon]

I find it disturbing that you equate ethnic groups with disabilities.

No you don't, but it makes for a good distraction from your other inferior arguments, doesn't it? Nico hasn't equated ethnicity with disability; he has merely pointed out the reason that your argument is offensive. The joke could be transformed into this - "what's better than winning a gold medal in the "negro games"? (which don't actually exist) You're still black." How is that not offensive? The joke can be used in many ways. Nico pointed that out. The argument is belittling. It can't be denied. He DIDN'T say that black people were disabled.

[Nystul]

You are right that the race example doesn't really work here. How about this: Arguing on the internet is like being HIV+. Even if you win, you still have AIDs.

Granted, having AIDs is not at all related to arguing on the internet, but it's clearly something negative. Being mentally retarded is not really related to arguing on the internet either. You wouldn't find many Special Olympians who would use a bunch of rhetoric or circular logic to make an argument. You wouldn't necessarily find someone who is mentally handicapped more likely to troll internet forums, spam emails, or get into flame wars.

So yeah, I'd say that choosing to use these conditions in an analogy as a putdown is probably insulting to those who have the conditions. It's common enough in our society though that it usually doesn't stir up this kind of a fuss. If you had said "People who argue on the internet are idiots," it would have been almost the same analogy and probably would have gone uncontested, as the term has been used as a putdown for so long that most don't know what it means.

[Guest]

Its not belittlling. But it is drawing attention to a a disability. Personally I dont have a problem with that - unless I was dealing with a person who was retarded.

Its like talking about ugly people in a generic way. There is nothing wrong with it, but I wouldnt do it in front of an ugly person.



And you are out of line saying what bothers me and what doesnt. I dont make up stuff about you, you should have the manners to do the same.

And I find it sad that you also dont see a differnce in denting someone for a disability and denoting them for ethnicity.

[Griselda]

This has gone past the debate phase, and nothing useful is likely to come from this thread at this point.

This thread is locked.

-Griselda