I know some of you are ticked off, but can't we retire the "R" word?

[hedgehog]

A lot of us are offended to see people we disagree with compared to the mentally handicapped in a disparaging manner.

[slackmaster]

1. Republican?

:shrug:

[LaurenG]

2. Thats exactly what I thought. nt

[Posteritatis]

5. Pretty sure that kind of thing's exactly what the OP's talking about. (nt)

[hedgehog]

7. I've seen several posts today referring to people as "retards" or

to a statement as "retarded". It's lazy and offensive to use those terms.

[slackmaster]

13. I just use 'tards as a general term

It goes equally well with bas- fuck- or re-.

[backscatter712]

108. What about freep- ?

It seems to go especially well there.

[piratefish08]

46. Rahm started it.

tell him.

[Uncle Joe]

12. No "retire," they're trying to gut Social Security.

Seriously I agree with the O.P. it's an offensive word against a disadvantaged group of people.

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. And if we all stop using it maybe people will forget that it is the word

Rahm reserves for progressives.

[Xenotime]

69. That word is already dead.

[Touchdown]

3. Rickshaw?

:shrug:

[LAGC]

4. I'll retire it when Rahm retires it. (n/t)

[bunkerbuster1]

6. my first thought as well.

[hedgehog]

9. But M-o-o-o-o-m, all the other kids are doing it!

:eyes:

[spoony]

11. Yep, if they stop calling us retarded and it will disappear. nt

[Nite Owl]

+++++1

that's the only way I have seen it used actually, just repeating Rahm. And it's a reason why he needed to apologize.

[LanternWaste]

45. I imagine that for many people...

I imagine that for many people, their own ethics are actually predicated on the ethics of others-- doing (or not doing as the case may be) only what others do, saying only what others say, believing only what others believe...

[backscatter712]

107. This time, it wasn't Rahm that said it.

It was Jon Stewart that said it, in reference to John Boehner and his simultaneous advocacy of deficit hawkery AND extension of the Bush tax cuts.

Yeah, as much as I agree with the sentiment in regards to Boehner's statement, comparing the GOP to the intellectually disabled is an insult to those with mental disabilities.

The truth is that Boehner, and the rest of the GOP are actually ethically retarded.

[Stoic]

8. Just quoting Rahm. Take it up with him. n/t

[hedgehog]

10. And if Rahm uses the "C" word, the "B" word or the "N" word, are

you going to jump off those bridges after him too?

[jgraz]

55. Seriously, you think he *doesn't* say that shit in private.

I'd love to hear the names he uses on the Palestinians.

[sandnsea]

16. Rahm never called anybody a retard

He said particular behaviors were "fucking retarded", and then apologized for it.

Since then, the loving left have lied about what he said and continued to use the word despite his admission that he was wrong to use it.

I know who I think is the bigger person.

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. So saying progressives are fucking retarded is not the same as

calling them retards?

Try again.

[sandnsea]

40. That is not what he said

He said it was fucking retarded to run ads smearing Democrats. That's an action, not an attack on any individual.

Who lied about what he said? And continues to lie without any regard for the offensiveness of the word or the fact that they're lieing?

[Kerrytravelers]

14. Go ahead and send an alert when you see it.

[hedgehog]

21. Thanks - I didn't want to jump the gun over a single word.

[Stoic]

22. Quoting Rahm or even using the word tangentially is not a violation of rules.

Only using the word in reference to a person or group is a direct attack would be.

[Kerrytravelers]

24. I am aware of the rules.

When the alert is sent, the Mods will look at the post in context and see if it is a rule violation or not.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cleanhippie]

15. No, because when used correctly, it can be the correct word.

When used to disparage the mentally handicapped, its wrong, but when used to describe someone who is otherwise "normal", but seems to have lost the ability to think reasonably, logically and critically, its exactly perfect.

How about instead we start a movement to get that word reassigned to mean "someone willfully ignorant"?

[hedgehog]

19. We already have that word, it's "fool".

[cleanhippie]

25. Maybe, but "fool" doesnt seem specific enough.

Certainly not strong enough to describe willful ignorance.

[Maru Kitteh]

26. It is always disparaging to the mentally handicapped and it is NEVER the right word.

And the people who use it are being total fucking assholes when they do.

And P.S., "somebody else said it first" is a snotty little child's excuse for those of you hitching your wagon to that little gem.

[cleanhippie]

28. Well, I guess you are the final authority on this then?

You may be surprised to find that not everyone agrees with you.

[Maru Kitteh]

31. Yeah, that's pretty much how people defended the use of the N word and all kinds of bigoted

ignorant fucking hate speech.

[cleanhippie]

32. Is it? Is it really? Is that what I am doing?

Please, do elaborate.

[Maru Kitteh]

35. You are, and I'm sure that no resonable investment of my time in educating you or anyone else

who stridently defends the reprehensible use of bigoted, discriminatory hateful speech will be met with any satisfactory result.

My time is valuable so I shall waste no more of it with you beyond the reminder that life has a cruel kind of irony now and again, so if you should find yourself with a child or grandchild who faces these kinds of challenges in the future, I hope you will remember your vehement stand in defense of cruel and bigoted speech here.

Good day.

[cleanhippie]

37. At least you are good for a laugh.

I'm sure you have some good points and a reasonable argument, but your poutrage and vitriol shuts down any chance of discussing it like rational adults.

Good day, indeed.

[LostinVA]

43. "poutrage" -- niiice

:eyes:

[cleanhippie]

50. Thanks

[Dorian Gray]

57. Meh...

she sounds right and reasonable in this regard.

[cleanhippie]

81. I can see how you agree with that

and Im ok with it. Lets move on.

[uppityperson]

59. "when used to describe someone who is otherwise "normal", but seems to have lost the ability to thin

"when used to describe someone who is otherwise "normal", but seems to have lost the ability to think reasonably, logically and critically, its exactly perfect."

Right, like calling someone of dark skin a N* because, after all, that just means black and is exactly perfect. Like calling someone a c* because, after all, it is exactly perfect.

Using a disparaging term and defending that use as "its exactly perfect" is hate speech.

[cleanhippie]

80. Sorry, I disagree.

While all of the other examples you cite are quite valid, I stand my my assertion on the original word and do not feel it is analogous with the other words you described at all.

Nonetheless, as I was told by a mod, the word is unacceptable here and I am ok with that. No problem, lets move on.

[LostinVA]

42. Yes, she is -- it is never the right word, ever

[cleanhippie]

49. Well, now I know where to go for the difinitive answers on what is right and wrong.

No further need for debate, I guess.

[Kerrytravelers]

54. You don't even have to worry about debating the rules. They are already laid out for you!

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Skinner/363

Specifically:

LIST OF RULE VIOLATIONS

{ } Personal Attack - When discussing individual DU members, the following are considered personal attacks:
- Personal attacks, name-calling, or other insults.
- Telling someone to "shut up," "screw you," "go away," "fuck off," or the like.
- Calling someone a liar, or calling a post a lie.
- Calling someone a conservative, disruptor, or similar.
- Calling someone a bigot.
- Belittling someone for being new or having a low post count.
- Negatively "calling out" someone who is not participating in the discussion.

{ } Broad-brush or Extreme Group Attack - When discussing groups of DU members, the following are considered broad-brush group attacks:
- Broad-brush attack - intended to paint all people belonging to a particular group in a negative light. (The word "all" can be explicitly stated or implied.)
- Name-calling - Referring to any group of DU members by names intended to paint them in a negative light.
- Suggesting that any group of DU members are conservatives, disruptors, or similar.
- Belittling people who are new or have a low post count.
- Suggesting that any group of DU members are not Democrats, liberals, or progressives.
- Suggesting that a particular point of view is required in order to be a Democrat, liberal, or progressive.
- Note: As a general guideline, if it is possible to identify specific individuals who are being attacked, then it is against the rules. But if the attack is against a vaguely defined group of "some but not all" people, then it might be permitted.

{ } Insensitive - Includes bigotry, hate, ridicule, stereotyping, or insensitivity based on:
- Race or ethnicity.
- Gender (women or men).
- Sexual Orientation.
- Religion or lack of religion (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Agnostics, etc.).
- Geographic region or place of origin.
- Disability (mental or physical).
- Weight or other physical characteristics.
- Use of insensitive terminology ("cocksucker," "cunt," "bitch," "whore," "retard," etc.).

{ } Inflammatory, inappropriate, or over-the-top
- Any post which is, in the consensus of the moderators, too rhetorically hot, too divisive, too extreme, or too inflammatory.
- Advocating violent overthrow of the government, or harm toward high-ranking officials.
- Broad-brush smears toward law enforcement or military service members.
- Advocating the defeat of the US military, attack against the US, or other overtly anti-American sentiment.
- Sexually explicit content.
- Graphic violence, gore, pain, or human suffering (except with a legitimate political purpose, and with a clear warning in the subject line).
- Asking for medical advice.
- "Gravedancing" or "gravemourning" when someone is banned.
- Signature line/avatar image violates DU rules, is controversial, or is likely to cause discussions to go off-topic.

{ } Inappropriate attacks against Democrats
- Insults against prominent Democrats, such as "Fuck Obama."
- Name-calling against prominent Democrats. Calling Barack Obama "Barry" or some other name.
- Repeating Republican partisan attacks against Democrats.
- Broadly suggesting that there is no difference between Barack Obama and George W. Bush, or that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. (Arguing that specific policies are the same would be permitted.)
- Suggesting that President Obama has perpetrated a "con job" or "fraud," or similarly over-the-top assertions of bad faith.
- Advocating voting against Democrats, or in favor of third-party or GOP candidates.
- Broad-brush smears against Democrats generally. Broad expressions of contempt toward Democrats generally.

{ } Harassment or threats
- Any type of threat against another member of this community, either explicit or implied.
- Any action intended to harm another person -- physically, mentally, emotionally, or otherwise.
- A sustained or organized effort to demean, belittle, bully, or ostracize another person.
- Digging up or posting personal information about any private individual, on DU or elsewhere.
- Stalking someone across discussion threads or forums.

{ } Rule enforcement issues
- Publicly complaining about rule enforcement.
- Publicly accusing the moderators/administrators of bias.
- Publicly "calling-out" the moderators/administrators over specific enforcement action.
- Continuing an argument from a locked thread or from a thread you have been blocked out of.

{ } Spamming
- Posting the same message repeatedly.
- Personal fundraising, for-profit advertising, or selling products or services (except in the DU Marketplace forum, or if given explicit permission from the DU administrators).
- Posting entirely in capital letters.

{ } Off-topic/Wrong forum
- Any discussion thread or post that is off-topic for the forum or group in which it is posted.
- Non-news items posted in the Latest Breaking News forum.
- Highly speculative "conspiracy theory" topics outside the September 11 forum.
- Discussion of the Arab/Israeli conflict outside the Israel/Palestine forum.
- Discussion of purely religious topics outside the Religion/Theology forum.
- "Rallying the troops" in a forum or group to disrupt elsewhere on the website.

{ } Inappropriate source
- Websites with a focus on disrupting Democratic Underground and/or smearing DU members.
- Websites with bigoted content (Holocaust skepticism, Jewish conspiracies, and the like).
- Note: Linking to right-wing websites is usually permitted, provided the intent is to expose their agenda rather than agree with it.

{ } Copyright violations
- Excerpt exceeds 4 paragraphs, or does not have a link to the source.

{ } Other (Please explain)

In regards to the OP, the word "retarded" may violate the following:

{ } Insensitive - Includes bigotry, hate, ridicule, stereotyping, or insensitivity based on:
- Disability (mental or physical).
- Use of insensitive terminology ("cocksucker," "cunt," "bitch," "whore," "retard," etc.).

When the Moderators receive an alert, it is reviewed in context and a group consensus is reached before action is or is not taken.


If you have any questions regarding the rules, please feel free to contact Admin. Contact information: http://www.democraticunderground.com/contact.html


Welcome to DU!
:hi:



kt
DU Moderator

[cleanhippie]

58. I think the MAY is the key to this.

I understand the rules as I also understand the OP's original point. However, the OP, and the subsequent discussion I have had with other posters seems to indicate that there are certain words, the one in question being "retarded" I assume, that there is NEVER an appropriate use, ever, and on that point I disagree.

Context and intent is everything, especially when using words that can be insulting or disparaging, but telling someone that a certain word can never be used, under any circumstance seems to be contrary to the whole INTENT of a discussion board.

But maybe I am wrong......

[Kerrytravelers]

60. We see the use of the word "retarded" that violates the rules.

I believe that is what the OP is objecting to, which is why I responded the way I did above. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8916430&mesg_id=8916484 Using the word within the rules is fine.

If you ever believe that something is a rules violation, go ahead and alert. That is what the Moderators are here for.

[sui generis]

101. but this IS DU and we can discuss the rules. That's the point.

Otherwise we should better call the site authoritarianunderground.com or something more suitable.

Discussing the rules is not a violation of the rules. Addressing the appropriateness of enforcing a rule is the nuance that's lost here - and appropriately I agree that should be taken up with the admins.

And my aside on this thread is god I hate authoritarians. I certainly hope parents of authoritarian children everywhere are deeply offended.

[sui generis]

72. disagree

it seems like we keep have the same positions on the same arguments week after week.

People should be sensitive enough and aware enough to make their own choices about USE of language, not be "told". Certainly we make choices about who we respond to or listen to or engage with. Outside of DU it IS the right word in certain cases. Not to a public official. I draw the line at "retard", but liberally use "retarded", and now use it with great glee because NOT USING language is a social norm that should be questioned.

Saying "that's mentally challenged" is not banned by the DU rules, incidentally.

It's an inconsistency that points out that you have to INTEND to offend. Anyone who CHOOSES to be offended by a term on behalf of someone else isn't really offended at all, just seeking attention.

[lumberjack_jeff]

78. "Anyone who CHOOSES to be offended by a term on behalf of someone else isn't really offended at all"

The ability to take offense on behalf of others is a good definition of empathy.

And I guarantee that the offense I take at the term is genuine.

And describing a purple velvet hat as "african-american" (to use an example of the way you are trying to skirt the fundamental issue) is no less bigoted.

[sui generis]

85. I'm sure you believe you are offended

just as I'm sure you believe you accused me by proxy of being "bigoted", antisocial and a sociopath. Noted, you intended to offend using non-offensive terms and language. However outrage and offense are subjective. Your use of incomplete sentences is offensive to me and I alerted on you. Not. So what's worse, the intent to offend, as you attempted, or the "offensive" words, which you didn't use?

I don't need other people telling me what their rules for my use of language needs to be, any more than I should need to tell other people what proper grammar they need to use or else risk being deleted. It is that simple. IF I am a worthy person and IF I am a person with empathy, I will choose my own rules and use them appropriately or not, and if I am intentionally inappropriate (which I like to do occasionally), then let the chips fall where they may.

If I accidentally or unintentionally use language that causes you to choose to be offended and your offense at my language is still genuine, then you're an ass who really doesn't have empathy for a mistake (and without further evidence I do NOT believe that to be true at this time). If I intend to offend, you will certainly know, and you will exercise your own choices about whether to continue talking to me or not. It's about choices, not about rules, at least among adults, and that is both my opinion and my system of values.

I am not swayed by social approval or arguments based on some idea of the wisdom of the collective.

My point is, the world works better when people choose their language and context than when they are "told" what language and context to use, and you'll know which assholes to ignore if they run around intending to offend, and which ones to forgive.

[lumberjack_jeff]

86. I didn't say you were antisocial or a sociopath.

But you DO intend to offend.

[sui generis]

87. well the moderator here certainly believes that to be the case.

When I am telling you that I don't intend to offend your belief has nothing to do with reality.

I am trying to be fair and explain MYSELF and MY values, not tell you which values you need to have. Unlike the crapfest here.

[lumberjack_jeff]

89. Your belief and your values is that no one who is offended has any standing.

It's like saying you don't intend to hurt based on your belief that your victim is only pretending to feel pain.

You're the worst kind of bully. The sanctimonious kind.

[sui generis]

91. that was judgmental and name calling and an ad hominem attack

I did no such thing to you - so I'm wondering why you believe you have a point to make after that.

Since I know I'm not a bully, and I hate "sanctimonious" people, especially the blanket-rules-for-everyone people on this thread, your description of me as a sanctimonious bully carries zero weight.

It's simply "wrong".

Just as if you had called me a retard. DOUBTLESS parents of sanctimonious bullies everywhere are outraged and offended, but I am not.

Also there is a difference between being sure of my opinion and being "sanctimonious".

[lumberjack_jeff]

76. Yes. She is.

And no, we'll never be surprised that assholes walk among us.

[cleanhippie]

103. No, she isnt.

The mods are in here, and IRL, its a free for all. But you are right about one thing, I am never surprised either about the assholes among us.

[Dorian Gray]

56. Exactly right.

[Posteritatis]

29. "Stupid" is a perfectly useful word in that latter case. (nt)

[cleanhippie]

34. Yeah, thats a pretty good word.

But there are a lot of stupid people, and stupid is typically used as an adjective, not a noun.

[Caliman73]

96. Use the term "dullard" then...

That is a term not associated with the developmentally disabled and means: a stupid, boring, or unimaginative person.

[SidDithers]

44. No, it's still offensive, even in that context...nt

Sid

[lumberjack_jeff]

75. So let's "reassign" the N word to mean something bad...

... but not in a way that it disparages hypersensitive people of color. It could be the "exactly perfect" word to describe several stereotypes. :sarcasm:

I really don't understand why people are so unwilling to get this? "Retard" used in any way other than a verb should have no place here.

[Caliman73]

95. You just proved why it is never appropriate for anything other than a clinical description.

I have worked with developmentally disabled individuals for the last 11 years. The word "retarded" is innocuous in and of itself. It means delayed or slowed. It is applied clinically to people who have IQ scores lower than 70 and other significant impacts on a person's ability in receptive and expressive communication, skills of daily living, and other functional skills. People do not come into life hoping to be retarded. It is not a choice. It is a serious impediment to living in our society.

The problem with the word being used as an insult is that you cannot separate the term from the people that it has been used to describe clinically for the last several decades. It is quite okay to say that some one is mentally retarded when you are talking about the developmental condition. You don't tell someone who is mentally retarded that they are retarded. You certainly do not tell someone who is not mentally retarded, but is acting in a willfully ignorant manner that they are retarded, or flig the word around as an insult.

How about rather than starting a movement to reassign the word, yet again, we become more aware of why we choose to disparage someone by drawing a comparison to the condition, and we think before we speak or write. The terms Idiot, Moron, and Imbecile were also clinical terms that once described mentally retarded people, but were abandoned and are now used to describe people of average or higher intelligence who do not always use common sense, have attitudes, or make choices that we approve of.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HillbillyBob]

18. Reprehensible?

Repressive, Reptilian, Ridiculous, Rotten, Robbers?

[LargeGreenSpider]

20. Red Sox?

I agree ... screw that.

[zipplewrath]

23. It is basically a quote

An allusion is probably more accurate. But it is to highlight how the administration "treats" one section of the party. The offensiveness is sorta parta the point. As someone else said, it will disappear when the reference does.

[Touchdown]

30. Rainbow?

[MajorChode]

33. Refudiate!

[End Of The Road]

36. Ruh roh.

[Octafish]

41. People who use it have no clue, hedgehog.

Lucky them.

[SidDithers]

47. +1...

couldn't agree more :thumbsup:

Sid

[eppur_se_muova]

48. How about "factually challenged" ? nt

:shrug:

[LWolf]

51. A lot of us are offended to be the target of juvenile name-calling

on the part of the FUCKING WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF that compares us to the mentally handicapped in a disparaging manner.

Do you really think we're going to forget?

Please remember that when Rahm's apology was issued, he apologized to the mentally handicapped for using a term disrespectful of THEM.

He didn't apologize to those of us he was calling retarded.

[Poboy]

63. Exactly LWolf. -nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

92. "He didn't apologize to those of us he was calling retarded. "

FUCK!!!

I work with people with developmental disabilities daily. I guarantee that none of them suffer the complete inability to understand even this simplest of concepts... that you and others demonstrate here.

I can only conclude that you don't get it because you don't want to. You cling to your distorted sense of superiority.

OF COURSE HE APOLOGIZED TO THE HANDICAPPED FOR USING A TERM DISRESPECTFUL OF THEM. THEY ARE THOSE WHOM HE INSULTED.

[LWolf]

97. He used the term to insult

the left wing of the Democratic party opposing the administration. Not to insult the handicapped. That was the goal. TO INSULT US.

The result? He insulted both. He apologized, though, to only one.

Simple fact, easily understood by all but those who don't want to.

[lumberjack_jeff]

99. If he'd expressed his opinion of our intelligence/education/social standing by calling us n*ggers,..

... he'd never have gotten a chance to apologize, but in any case that apology wouldn't be directed at us.

And we wouldn't be whining; 'We are not, so take it back!'

[LWolf]

104. I haven't seen anyone whining "we are not, take it back."

It doesn't matter what term he used. The offense is a deliberate, public, insult. The fact that he used a bigoted, derogatory label to deliver that insult says more about him than it does about the cognitively disabled or about those he was insulting.

That's probably why you are still hearing about it. Because it points out the COS' despicable character and bad judgement.

And perhaps because the insult stands; it has nothing to do with the faux apology offered to the cognitively disabled.

[peacebaby3]

52. The term is still used in the medical, psychological, and legal fields.

It's in the DSM IV and is used often in all of these professional fields. A person is considered mentally retarded if he or she meets a certain criteria. It falls under the Axis II in the DSM IV. At some point this may change and I would be supportive of that change, but it will take a long time for it to be considered a taboo term in these fields. It's too bad some people turned the word into a disparagement. I only bring this up because I have been verbally attacked by some people for using a word that is completely appropriate in my work and is the only recognized term for a certain diagnosis in which a person has intellectual impairment and deficits in other areas such as personal-care and interpersonal skills. There will soon be a version V, but I haven't heard there will be a change in the use of the term "retardation." There has been a great deal of discussion over the disappearance (really just a change) of Asperger, Rhett, etc. in this version. They will now all fall under Autism Spectrum Disorder just in case someone on here is interested.

[cleanhippie]

61. .

[backscatter712]

106. It's also used by auto mechanics...

as in "I've got to retard the spark timing."

[MellowDem]

53. Retard is going the way of "stupid" and "idiot"...

Just like the use of idiot isn't meant to disparage the mentally handicapped anymore, retard isn't either. It almost always refers to the non-mentally handicapped. Just the evolution of language.

[sui generis]

67. Yes, DU is a bit slow on this point

although I disagree with DU's intent to enforce this rule as silly and nanny-ish, I understand that it is less the word itself and any made up social bullshit and feigned outrage behind it, than the tenor of conversation that follows the use of the word.

And personally I don't care if the moderators don't want an essay on the topic. A tight three paragraph essay with a topical subject, exposition and conclusion does NOT break the rules, I'm happy to point out.

[Xenotime]

70. I was offended when I heard it used in the movie The Hangover.

[MellowDem]

74. It will still offend people, for sure...

and in certain instances the word may be used in fact to disparage the mentally handicapped. The instance you are referring to in The Hangover doesn't seem to be making fun of the mentally handicapped. IMHO, it is definitely poking fun at the bearded guy.

[lumberjack_jeff]

79. It SHOULD go the way of "n*gger".

The fact that, as you observe, it's going the opposite direction is a really spectacular example of the fundamental problem. People with cognitive and intellectual disabilities will always be an easy target.

[MellowDem]

84. Well, n*gger hasn't gone away....

in fact, it is still pretty commonly used, though the meaning has changed drastically depending on the context. It has also become a word that only black people can say and still be deemed somewhat socially acceptable. But, it is socially acceptable to many, given the right context. So, in that way, retard has gone the same way in that, depending on context, its use is socially acceptable.

I'm not sure retard is going the other way. Retard used to be a scientific term to describe the mentally handicapped, much like idiot. I suppose the mentally handicapped could try to claim the word retard, so only they could say it, but from what I've seen, there isn't much of a problem of people disparaging the mentally handicapped with the word retard. So claiming the word seems rather irrelevant.

Personally, I don't like the use of the word retard, because of its disparaging meaning, and I just generally don't like disparaging words regardless, unless it is comedy.

Maybe I'm being very optimistic, but from my experience, our society treats the mentally handicapped with respect. There are instances where they don't get the care they need, but that is more a problem of our healthcare system than our society disrespecting the mentally handicapped specifically. Indeed, that seems to be more a problem of class than anything else, since the mentally handicapped whose parents have lots of financial resources have among the best treatment there is. If anything, society is still too sensitive in many cases towards the mentally handicapped, treating them with pity rather than animosity, and that seems to be the main problem.

[lumberjack_jeff]

88. This makes me want to club a seal.

I'm not sure retard is going the other way. Retard used to be a scientific term to describe the mentally handicapped, much like idiot.

"Retard" is ONLY a scientific term when used as a verb. It was invented as a slur by maladapted bullies to try to make their pathetic selves feel superior. It has failed spectacularly in that regard.

[sui generis]

93. agreed it is an ugly word

my point on the deleted post below was that there is no real difference between saying something is mentally challenged than saying it's retarded, and yet "retarded" is the less acceptable phrase.

Somehow that was too offensive an idea to leave standing for discussion. It really is sad on a progressive forum when pointing out irony is considered bullying, offensive, and insensitive, but I guess blanket rules are made for people who have no sense of nuance whatsoever.

Hey where in Washington? I have family in Moses Lake.

[Poboy]

62. I have changed my signature, just for you.

Up until just now it read "Member of the 'fucking retarded' progressives".

Even though I STILL think using it is COMPLETELY justified, I have changed it.

[LWolf]

65. I like the new sig line. nt

[sui generis]

94. oh lordy

parents of crazy children everywhere are now offended.

:P

[Catherina]

64. Tell it to the White House. n/t

[jillan]

66. This mom of a special needs girl says thank you for this thread.

That word has become as offensive as any other ugly word used to describe a group of people that is different than themselves.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stinky The Clown]

71. I understand the reason for your post, nd am on your side. I also know you know the source .....

..... of the current usage. I think you need to direct your anger at him/them.

As to the merits of your plea, it is justified and should be honored. I promise to try. I can't make that an absolute statement as I am human and have and will again make mistakes.

[lumberjack_jeff]

82. I think most of us understood your intent.

I didn't like it, but I thought it deserved some slack.

[TransitJohn]

73. Ruh Roh!!

:hide:

[edbermac]

77. RickRoll?

Hell yes!

[bvar22]

83. Take it up with Rahm

--bvar22
Proud member of the "Fucking Retards" wing of the Democratic Party,
Proud member of the FDR/LBJ/Wellstone wing of the Democratic Party,
Proud Member of the fringe wing of the Democratic Party that wants "Canadian Style Health Care".
.
.
.
.
No, Mr. Gibbs and Mr. Emanuel,
Fuck YOU!


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[Individualist]

90. Place blame where blame is due.

Write a letter to the DLC asshole who publicly used it to refer to progressives.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hobbit709]

102. Exactly.

I once was told by someone that he didn't want to hear me cussing all the time and then asked what was my problem.
I replied "It's my birthday and I'm so fornicating happy I could just defecate"

[Laelth]

105. Tell that to Rahm. n/t

-Laelth

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[backscatter712]

111. Serious question:

Is this thread in response to Jon Stewart's smackdown of John Boehner last night, in which he used the R-word?

Or did Rahm call liberals the R-word again? I thought Rahm's foot-in-mouth incident was old news.