So far as the word retarded goes - yes there are a lot of uses that are not derogatory. In aeronautical engineering, aviation [being an aviation nut myself ], automotive uses, even to talk about slowing down the pace of something like a game.
Not to go off on a tangent, but this is why I HATE the 'End the R word" campaign that is out there - because it acts so ignorantly to the fact that if you target the BEHAVIOR of using words derogatorily towards others, you're doing something really effective, but if you target the WORD, well, you not only remove all the non-derogatory uses [which don't suddenly cease to exist], and stigmatize those using it in those non-derogatory ways, but those using it derogatorily will only *forehead slap* MOVE ON to ANOTHER word to use derogatorily. After that, if you keep only targeting the word, it is rinse and repeat, and you never get anywhere in actually accomplishing something. You just play this stupid cat-and-mouse game and go in circles.
At some point though doesn't the question of 'But what's the point if another word can be used' become 'so what? I chose to use that word n it's proper non-derogatory use because I felt it fitting'? I mean, if the word is being used in an obviously non-derogatory context that is grammatically correct, who gives a damn if another word can be used? It doesn't change that is being used non-derogatorily, and grammatically correctly too - at some point it has to become a "well, if you are complaining about these uses that are obviously both grammatically correct and not derogatory [like what I mentioned above], you're gonna have to grow a thicker skin" just IMO.
Yeah, I doubt we should allow people to say that a comment is Intellectually Disabled. I mean, it is the new correct term (I teach SpED and I am bombarded with literature about it), but it doesn't make it any nicer.
It's really hard for me to change though, because saying that something is retarded when you dislike it is very second nature because I had been doing it since I was a kid. Even though I am very sensitive to the needs of the Intellectually Disabled and advocate for them often, when I slip and say something is retarded, it is never as a comparison to someone who is Intellectually Disabled, but as its general definition of something negative or unwanted. I can understand how people may take offense at hearing something being described as retarded, but I think when it is being used in that context, it is being used as a more colorful substitute for 'terrible' and I doubt anyone would disagree that Intellectual Disability is terrible, no one would want that for anyone else. It's the equivalent of saying, Your comment was Hitler! Or Your comment was Crap! Or your comment was genocide! It's simply substituting the word 'bad' with something that is 'bad'.
This DSM-V issue of nomenclature, but not much (I lie; there are pretty large implications) of diagnostic criterion/-a, is pretty much trivial but by no means not without its contentiousness. There are issues with the now in vogue 'intellectually disabled', as there are with 'retarded'; but, for God's sake, for the sake of the forums, allow room for stock-standard users and stewards/staffers to appreciate the breadth of language, discretion in choosing words (and which ones to strike out against), and the capacity to exercise sound judgment.
I haven't heard retarded used in a clinical context to describe mentally handicapped people in a LOOONG time. That term has been relegated to slang status since at least the 80's.
I myself have never heard, or am yet to hear, that term in practice except in non-professional contexts or unprofessionally but this depends from place to place.
Part of the purpose of the DSM-V change in the term was to have things fall in line with the international community, or parts of it, as well as US federal legislation. (:teach:)
Edit: To follow on with the For What That's Worth, simply, psychiatrists and other physicians aren't drones that must or even should use the DSM words. It does not dictate the language that professionals can or may use and it certainly should not be interpreted or used as though binding law. Respect and compassion for the disabled is a better guide than the document.
If physicians find DSM but a guide and to follow it unthinkingly, with a margin of appreciation or discretion, is absurd, it is also absurd for a web forum that has absolutely nothing to do with medicine to rule against the use of a word according to a tome that isn't even followed by those that you might use it in that manner.
Seriously, don't rely on the censor/filter. It only seems to be great for complacency or apathy because I know sure as hell censor evasion happens and staff or others don't pick up on it.
So far as the word retarded goes - yes there are a lot of uses that are not derogatory. In aeronautical engineering, aviation [being an aviation nut myself ], automotive uses, even to talk about slowing down the pace of something like a game.
Not to go off on a tangent, but this is why I HATE the 'End the R word" campaign that is out there - because it acts so ignorantly to the fact that if you target the BEHAVIOR of using words derogatorily towards others, you're doing something really effective, but if you target the WORD, well, you not only remove all the non-derogatory uses [which don't suddenly cease to exist], and stigmatize those using it in those non-derogatory ways, but those using it derogatorily will only *forehead slap* MOVE ON to ANOTHER word to use derogatorily. After that, if you keep only targeting the word, it is rinse and repeat, and you never get anywhere in actually accomplishing something. You just play this stupid cat-and-mouse game and go in circles.
At some point though doesn't the question of 'But what's the point if another word can be used' become 'so what? I chose to use that word n it's proper non-derogatory use because I felt it fitting'? I mean, if the word is being used in an obviously non-derogatory context that is grammatically correct, who gives a damn if another word can be used? It doesn't change that is being used non-derogatorily, and grammatically correctly too - at some point it has to become a "well, if you are complaining about these uses that are obviously both grammatically correct and not derogatory [like what I mentioned above], you're gonna have to grow a thicker skin" just IMO.
The most intelligent and sensible post in this thread.
People need to grow a set. Not everything is about you.
If you get offended by a word I used that was clearly not used in an offensive manner, that's all on YOU. Instead of telling that person, "We'll ensure your irrational sense of offendedness is respected!", it should be explained why that person shouldn't be offended by the word.
And we wonder where individuals get "special snowflake" syndrome. You do something wrong, we validate you, and then you're shocked to learn that, in fact, your **** DOES, in fact, stink, just as bad as everyone else's.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Now playing Transformers: Legends. 27-time top tier finisher and admin of the TFL Wikia site.
Not to go off on a tangent, but this is why I HATE the 'End the R word" campaign that is out there - because it acts so ignorantly to the fact that if you target the BEHAVIOR of using words derogatorily towards others, you're doing something really effective, but if you target the WORD, well, you not only remove all the non-derogatory uses [which don't suddenly cease to exist], and stigmatize those using it in those non-derogatory ways, but those using it derogatorily will only *forehead slap* MOVE ON to ANOTHER word to use derogatorily. After that, if you keep only targeting the word, it is rinse and repeat, and you never get anywhere in actually accomplishing something. You just play this stupid cat-and-mouse game and go in circles.
At some point though doesn't the question of 'But what's the point if another word can be used' become 'so what? I chose to use that word n it's proper non-derogatory use because I felt it fitting'? I mean, if the word is being used in an obviously non-derogatory context that is grammatically correct, who gives a damn if another word can be used? It doesn't change that is being used non-derogatorily, and grammatically correctly too - at some point it has to become a "well, if you are complaining about these uses that are obviously both grammatically correct and not derogatory [like what I mentioned above], you're gonna have to grow a thicker skin" just IMO.
It's really hard for me to change though, because saying that something is retarded when you dislike it is very second nature because I had been doing it since I was a kid. Even though I am very sensitive to the needs of the Intellectually Disabled and advocate for them often, when I slip and say something is retarded, it is never as a comparison to someone who is Intellectually Disabled, but as its general definition of something negative or unwanted. I can understand how people may take offense at hearing something being described as retarded, but I think when it is being used in that context, it is being used as a more colorful substitute for 'terrible' and I doubt anyone would disagree that Intellectual Disability is terrible, no one would want that for anyone else. It's the equivalent of saying, Your comment was Hitler! Or Your comment was Crap! Or your comment was genocide! It's simply substituting the word 'bad' with something that is 'bad'.
[Clan Flamingo]
FWTW, though.
This DSM-V issue of nomenclature, but not much (I lie; there are pretty large implications) of diagnostic criterion/-a, is pretty much trivial but by no means not without its contentiousness. There are issues with the now in vogue 'intellectually disabled', as there are with 'retarded'; but, for God's sake, for the sake of the forums, allow room for stock-standard users and stewards/staffers to appreciate the breadth of language, discretion in choosing words (and which ones to strike out against), and the capacity to exercise sound judgment.
I myself have never heard, or am yet to hear, that term in practice except in non-professional contexts or unprofessionally but this depends from place to place.
Part of the purpose of the DSM-V change in the term was to have things fall in line with the international community, or parts of it, as well as US federal legislation. (:teach:)
Edit: To follow on with the For What That's Worth, simply, psychiatrists and other physicians aren't drones that must or even should use the DSM words. It does not dictate the language that professionals can or may use and it certainly should not be interpreted or used as though binding law. Respect and compassion for the disabled is a better guide than the document.
If physicians find DSM but a guide and to follow it unthinkingly, with a margin of appreciation or discretion, is absurd, it is also absurd for a web forum that has absolutely nothing to do with medicine to rule against the use of a word according to a tome that isn't even followed by those that you might use it in that manner.
Seriously, don't rely on the censor/filter. It only seems to be great for complacency or apathy because I know sure as hell censor evasion happens and staff or others don't pick up on it.
People need to grow a set. Not everything is about you.
If you get offended by a word I used that was clearly not used in an offensive manner, that's all on YOU. Instead of telling that person, "We'll ensure your irrational sense of offendedness is respected!", it should be explained why that person shouldn't be offended by the word.
And we wonder where individuals get "special snowflake" syndrome. You do something wrong, we validate you, and then you're shocked to learn that, in fact, your **** DOES, in fact, stink, just as bad as everyone else's.
The MirroCube - 420 card Mirrodin themed cube
And if I've offended you, I'm sorry, but maybe you need to be offended. But here's my apology and one more thing...