US Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage

[FireIceTalon]

They should be called out as such, by those in the targeted group and outside of it alike.

I'd rather people call out people who are hateful, regardless of what words they might use than people who use the term 'retarded' in general conversation.

And for the record, I'm one of the 'retarded.' I have autism. I actually use the term myself sometimes, when I'm using a poorly designed system for example, and it's frustrating me, I'm very likely to say something along the lines of "Arrgh, this is so retarded."But I can assure you I'm not trying to put myself or anyone like me down by doing so. The word has been in general usage long enough that it's just a word. Yes, it can be used in a derogatory manner, but so can any word, so should we not say anything?

The problem is not words, but the people who choose to use them as weapons. I'd rather focus on eliminating them.

You are not one of the 'retarded'. You simply have a cognitive disability - there is a huge difference which I will explain below. I commend you, btw, on having the bravery and confidence to be able to express that you have a disability here (not that I think anyone would openly discriminate against you here, but still). I sure as hell wouldn't have that confidence, if I did have such a condition.

I suppose any word can be used in a derogatory context if you put your mind to it, however, not all but some of them have negative historical context associated with them - which is what I am trying to get at. The word "retarded" falls into that category. You may not intend it to be that way when you use it, but the bottomline is, the word "retarded" has an inherently negative historical meaning in its usage. This is due to the past (and present!) discrimination and the all-too common view that mentally disabled people are somehow lesser (or viewed as an "other"), and thus often treated as such. But because people use these words in common every day language, a dissonance between the use of the word and what its material application means, develops over time. It's a matter of understanding the difference between function and appearance as I told Lemming. It may be used with an innocent intent, but you can never make it mutually exclusive from its negative historical context. Trust me, I am not trying to paint myself as some saint. I am guilty of doing it also (with other words), but I try to make it a point to not use certain words in any conversation, and so far, I think I have been pretty successful. At least, insofar as I have been able to view it from this perspective.

That is why we (should) refer to people with autism and other neurological disorders as having a disability, but not as being retarded. To call something "retarded" is to imply that being "retarded" is a negative, even if you aren't directly referring to a person(s).

Lets put it this way, it is a word I am not comfortable using, and I get uneasy if not straight up offended when that word is used, regardless of its context. Its the same way how we refer to people in other identities, be it race, gender, sexual orientation or whatever, with more politically correct terminology. If we want to refer to something in casual conversation in a negative context, there are much better words out there to choose from imo, than using words such as "retarded", "gay", etc. For instance, if a new rule at my work that I don't like is put into effect, I don't call it "retarded", I say "it sucks", or is "fucked up"

I object to the use of these words based on the same logic as I object to people waving a Confederate flag around, regardless if they claim it is a representation of "states rights" and not slavery (which of course begs the question, why did they WANT those "states rights" to begin with, but I digress). Now, you might think that is a different thing, but to me it isn't, due to the negative history associated with both. The only difference is, is that most people view that flag negatively now (as they should) but have no problem using words that have an inherently negative context to apply it to something else in regular conversation. It just doesn't make sense to me, to reject one, but uphold the other. Some might say "well, they are just words". But language is a very powerful thing! Especially when one considers how it works in legitimizing or maintaining certain power structures and social relations, or ideological narratives. The old cliche (but nevertheless true), "the ruling ideas of any society have always been the ideas of its ruling class", still applies.