Don't necessarily disagree with you, but seeing as "the r word" is no longer used to refer to mentally disabled people it seems a little late to be campaigning to end its use as a pejorative _now_. If anything, these efforts should be directed towards ending the use of "autism" in a pejorative context, as if that trend isn't stopped then that term is up next on the euphemism treadmill.
I also wonder if perhaps these sort of concerted efforts to treat certain words as unacceptable to say might actually be giving those words _more_ power than they otherwise would have. After all, "idiot" used to refer to mentally disabled people and few would consider that word to be particularly offensive today.
I wonder if this is an age thing? Up until very very recently, “retarded” did mean what we now refer to as mentally disabled. It was a slur that people pushed back on just like the words that preceded it, but the pejorative figurative use won out. But it’s too recent to say that’s definitively not what it means anymore. It’s hard to date these kinds of things, but the first document I found was the social security administration changing their terminology in just 2013.
It seems pretty clear cut that while maybe “retarded” has a different meaning for younger people than it does for my age group, the phrase “literally retarded,” is clearly contrasting against the figurative use. It seems clear that it’s pointing right back to mental disability, even if “literally” is figurative here.
Maybe the lesson here is that for quickly shifting words that mean something different to different generations, sensitivity is a worthwhile thing in a forum whose users span a few generations.
> the phrase “literally retarded,” is clearly contrasting against the figurative use.
There is a current fashion to use "literally" as an intensifier, rather than to mean "not figuratively". Google "literally misuse" for a wealth of hand-wringing articles.
I'm pretty sure RicoElectrico is using "literally" as an intensifier - after all, companies don't have thoughts or minds, cannot be IQ tested, and therefore cannot have intellectual disabilities.
I would like to point towards urban dictionary and different definitions of literally [1] that I found quite amusing, please excuse the language.
> a word with no meaning in today's USA.
Person 1: I am literally going to have a stroke if I see another tweet about fake news.
Person 2: Are you really? Should I call 911?
---
> Who fucking knows anymore? First, it meant factual, and now it means fictional. What the fuck, internet... what the fuck?
---
> a much misused adverb, often for emphasis
> "I literally died of embarrassment."
> "Really? How was reincarnation, you fucking illiterate dipshit?"
---
> A good way to show that you are a total drama queen twit is to use the term 'literally' to describe every mundane thing that you do in life
---
All of this begs the question, when does a definition of a word change? I suppose it happens when we collectively agree on it, or perhaps when a large enough segment of the population agrees. Perhaps at this point, literally can mean figuratively if we consider the misuse, in the same way we accept irregardless and regardless as being one and the same. But I suppose then a new word would be necessary to literally mean literally and avoid confusion.
> All of this begs the question, when does a definition change of a word change?
(This is a perfect context for “begs the question”)
I think that form of the question isn’t a useful one and that’s the issue in the broader discussion. A definition is a useful yet leaky abstraction. If you
take the viewpoint that a dictionary is merely descriptive, then “the” definition isn’t really a thing. “A” definition is more appropriate. If a definition is an attempt to capture one of the common ways people use and understand a word, your question becomes this:
When do the ways people use and understand a word change? At what point is there close enough to nobody left using a word in a given way?
The distinction is crucial here because a word can mean many things, and it can mean different things to different people. I’d answer your question by pointing to that phrase about science: It progresses one funeral at a time.
> I suspect that you've got your arrow of causality backwards.
I think there are two arrows of causality here actually, and they form a cycle. A word is offensive, therefore it's taboo. The word is taboo, therefore it's offensive. Why is "shit" vulgar, but "feces" not? Language is weird like that.
Think through the usage of a few other slurs. I think you'll find many of them are used both as a slur /and/ to describe some negative stereotype of the targeted group as it arises anywhere else. The 'generality' is just reinforcement of the stereotype, and doesn't make the slur acceptable.
Finally, the 'r-word' has been on the outs for /decades/ now. I tend to associate it with clueless teenagers - the same ones typically spewing lots of homophobic slurs - and anyone I hear using it will typically get a BIG discount in my perception.
It is still used as both a slur and a legitimate term.
But even if #1 is false it's not up to neuro-typicals to decide if that word is 'fair game.' It is up to that community.
And if they do reclaim the term like BIPOC we still have to understand and listen and not inject ourselves. Just like BIPOC use racist pejoratives - for many complex cultural reasons - it is not up to me/us a white guy to dictate or judge.
> After all, "idiot" used to refer to mentally disabled people and few would consider that word to be particularly offensive today.
Sure, if your friend lovingly jokes that you're an "idiot" you won't be offended, but the same can be said for most insults or slurs.
However, insults that previously were medical terms can carry particular heft for some people. Try telling the women in your life they are being "hysterical" when they are unhappy with you. Both law and medicine stopped using those words for a reason.
Personally, I wouldn't like being called an idiot, and I would take issue with that word being used to describe my loved ones.
In those examples it's the statement that's offensive, not the individual words used to express it. If I'm having an argument with someone and they imply I'm mentally deficient, it doesn't matter what words they use to say that; the statement itself is inherently offensive.
Here however it's not the statement people are objecting to (most even seem to agree with that part), but one particular word that was used in expressing that statement. That's a different thing entirely, and it's what I mean here when I talk about a _word_ being offensive.
The word “idiot” predates the brief medical use for a mentally disabled individual.
Originally an ancient greek insult, suggesting that someone doesn't understand politics. Such was life debating at the agora. At least it was one example given by several teachers on English, Swedish.
Returning to the use in medicine; I imagine the label was used verbatim to mean “lacking comprehension” or “ability”, so also describe a condition.
We can attend to more than one abuse of language at once.
"Idiot" and other discourse-terminaring slurs have no place on HN.
It's not the word that's the problem, it's the intended meaning. The euphemism treadmill is when people keep changing words instead of communicating better.
Except GP didn't use the word "retard" to terminate discourse, or to shortcut debate or insult anyone in this thread. The word was purely descriptive, and this context, quite appropriate and illustrative. I can think of no other single word that better describes the behavior of the E-Ink patent holders.
> I can think of no other single word that better describes the behavior of the E-Ink patent holders.
This is the central point of this issue.
This person uses a word that used to mean "person with a mental health problem" to describe a situation where a company "lacks intelligence and awareness".
People who have been and still are the victims of this insult do not want to be associated with the concept of "lack of intelligence".
Write the same sentence without using the slur as a crutch. "The company that holds the patents for electronic ink has an [intellectual disability]".
In this format, it is very clear that this wording is problematic.
In any case, it is simply bad writing. There are many other ways to describe what this company does without using a word that comes with a heavy medical and social history.
No, the description "lacks intelligence and awareness" is not at all what the poster wanted to convey. Not even close. As I said elsewhere, "extreme, inexplicable, self-destructive foolishness" might be an adequate substitute, but I think simply "retarded" is also effective and concise, uttered not in a spirit of wanton bullying, but rather for the purpose of vivid illustration of behaviour that is, in fact, profoundly stupid.
The word is only "problematic" to people like you who want to emphasisze its historical baggage. I suspect that there are a whole lot of other words you place off-limits. The words "stupid" and "dumb", for example, are used just as often to bully people with mental handicaps and illnesses.
If all such problematic words are to be policed out of circulation, we might actually be left with such dry descriptions as "lacks intelligence and awareness". I personally appreciate the emphasis and efficiency of the stronger phrasing.
You are clearly missing the essence of this conversation as "foolishness", "stupid" and "dumb" are all words that are considered ableist.
What you are saying is that the use of the word "retarded" is viable because it means "foolishness". However, the word "foolishness" shares the same baggage as "retarded".
You use another synonym to mean that the company does not have the intelligence and awareness required to monetize its invention properly.
Reread this sentence that you wrote: "I think simply "retarded" is also effective and concise, uttered not in a spirit of wanton bullying, but rather for the purpose of vivid illustration of behaviour that is, in fact, profoundly stupid."
Now ask yourself what the vivid illustration you are painting is.
In the end, it boils down to a simple fact. The use of these words will hurt some people and discourage others from interacting with you.
Trying to justify their uses does not come off as mature but as resentful and bad-tempered. Especially in a professional setting.
Imagine talking to a business leader who has a child with special needs that is called "retarded" on a daily basis. You may be in a job interview where the interviewer happens to be on the austim spectrum and regularly has to deal with people who call them "retarded". What about a CEO who is struggling with bipolar disorder and whose actions are described as "foolish"?
In all of these cases, you are hurting or discouraging someone with your choice of words.
It may not be in the spirit of gratuitous bullying, but the words still carry meanings. They stigmatize an already marginalized population. They carry meanings you may not be familiar with yourself but that others are very intimate with.
You know what, I actually agree, and I should note that I myself would never use such words outside of theoretical discussions.
However, by using the phrase "lacks intelligence", you have shown that you also have issues with ableism. Are you aware of how offensive that phrase could be to someone who has struggled with a learning disability, or to someone whose child is mentally disabled?
I know you mean well, but by saying that a person or group of people are unintelligent or that they "lack intelligence" (as you did in your previous comment), you are using hurt language that is perhaps only marginally less offensive and hurtful than "stupid" or the r-word. For example, take the bipolar CEO from your comment above... imagine how hurt they might be if you described their actions as "lacking intelligence".
I suggest you take some time to understand and address your latent ableism. Ask yourself this question: "how can I use only positive language in every situation, so as to completely eliminate the possibility of ever offending anyone?"
I also wonder if perhaps these sort of concerted efforts to treat certain words as unacceptable to say might actually be giving those words _more_ power than they otherwise would have. After all, "idiot" used to refer to mentally disabled people and few would consider that word to be particularly offensive today.