There’s a clear campaign against the mentally ill with the global rise of fascism. Lots of it shows up in anti homeless rhetoric, but you can see it in the MAHA and anti vaccination movements.
There’s no reason to use the word “r-tarded” to describe someone. As someone who’s worked with the intellectually challenged, it’s an insult to them to compare them with people who are willfully ignorant.
Eh, maybe, but words communicate intent. By stigmatizing certain messaging - which can include both reserving certain words for only certain use cases and also shaming people who express bigotry regardless of what word they happen to choose - we communicate to third party observers that such views are not welcome in our society. Will it change the mind of the person using those words? Probably not, but avoiding hurtful words still has a great deal of positive social utility.
I don’t know, I don’t think the specific word is that meaningful. A new slur will likely be made for mentally disabled people, then it will get pushback and then another one will be made.
If I translated it to hindi or German or swahili it wouldn’t mean anything but if I walked up to you and yelled them at you you would probably be hurt. If I said them lovingly and softly you probably would be comforted.
The problem with having these conversations on the internet is there is no way to express that so… Maybe… I could see the point of banning potentially offensive words in text on the internet.
Well, yeah. There may not be a word in those languages with the same connotations, and yeah, obviously I wouldn’t understand them if there were. But all language is contextual. We’re currently talking about english - and I’m specifically talking about United States English because that is what I speak.
Censorship wouldn’t be my choice - and in any case I believe what’s being advocated for here by the OP is social disapproval - but yeah, in the context of the internet I would refrain from using words that could hurt people when it was not my intention to hurt them.
Around strangers, coworkers, or really anyone you don’t know well a similar policy would tend to apply. Even with friends, I wouldn’t want to encourage a culture of being callous with the words I use.
There are so many other ways to express whatever sentiment you’re trying to express, why would you reach for a word that implies that some people are less than others? I’m referring to it in its use as an insult or derogatory word, of course, since technical language has its place and institutions will generally choose whatever language fits their needs. I can’t assess their situation because I’m not involved.
I think we are arguing the same thing. Don’t be mean or an asshole. Don’t look down on people. People regardless of ability should be treated as people.
Of course you shouldnt use it as an insult or derogatory word. I was totally not arguing for that. I was just saying that if you wanted to be insulting or derogatory the word itself doesn’t matter. The change to r-word doesn’t change anything. The question “are you r-worded?” should be just as offensive.
We have down this many times. Stupid, invalid, ibecil all had similar meanings and then were made offensive and a new word was made up, then that became offensive.
The word itself is meaningless, it’s the context and intent.
One thing I just thought of that I would agree with is changing it from an identifier to attribute. What I mean is a person should not “be r-word-Ed” but should be do you “have r-word-ism?” it shouldn’t define a person, but a description of an aspect is different. Like you may have the flu but your not a “fluer” or you might have epilepsy but you may also be a mechanic or pianist or physicist it’s a part but should not define you.