That's Retarded

[NumberCruncher]

From my view:

(1) "retard" or "retarded," when used as a casual insult, is offensive to some people, often those with specific mental disabilities (and family members of those individuals).

(2) I do not intend to offend people in general

(3) I don't use that word as an insult

Yes, language is changing. There are many words in the English language that have stopped being used because they were offensive to minority groups. There are many words that have been reclaimed. The group behind each word has the choice. I'm not a part of the group that is closely associated to the word "retard." I therefore defer to the social consensus of that group. They've spoken: http://www.r-word.org/

I don't think it's counter-productive to point out words or phrases that are considered offensive, hoping people will change. I have seen people change.

[mgreczyn]

Acting holier-than-thou, telling someone they can change and here's their chance, etc. shuts down discussion.  We're having an intellectual, partly theoretical, partly practical discussion.  We're not better than each other in such a discussion.

I'm sorry, but I don't think we are.  I have this person telling me that calling someone a "retard" is the correct English use of the word and that popular culture's imprimatur is all that it takes to make something unoffensive.  I'm not being "holier than thou", I'm pointing out to the thread the actual correct uses of the word in the English language and taking the position that everyone who defends this use case as acceptable is missing the point about who is offended by it.  It doesn't matter if someone uses the word and offends me.  It matters that it offends a group of people who  40 years ago were routinely medically diagnosed as mentally retarded.  I think your position is somewhat ridiculous.  Adults defending the usage of a word that in a manner that is offensive to one of the most vulnerable populations in the world:  Where is the intellectual value in that?

[mgreczyn]

I'm not a part of the group that is closely associated to the word "retard." I therefore defer to the social consensus of that group. They've spoken: http://www.r-word.org/

I don't think it's counter-productive to point out words or phrases that are considered offensive, hoping people will change. I have seen people change.

Thank you.

[dragoncar]

I used to be a child, and am therefore offended when people use the word "childish" in a derogatory manner.  Will you stop using that word, particularly around the vulnerable group of children in this country?

[grantmeaname]

Adults defending the usage of a word that in a manner that is offensive to one of the most vulnerable populations in the world:  Where is the intellectual value in that?

It's not about defending the usage of the word. Neither I nor arebelspy use the word that way, and he already said as much (and that he works with developmentally disabled children, for fuck's sake!) earlier in the thread. This is not about how we choose to speak, it's about censoring others based on declaring things "offensive" for all of society. You're deliberately misunderstanding the issue.

[arebelspy]

Many have argued it can be used perfectly cromulently to describe something as stupid without being derogatory.  If you mean calling something (say, a lawn) stupid is derogatory, yes, clearly.  Every use of the word stupid is derogatory in that manner of speaking.

We all agree, I think, that the use of it in a pejorative manner is different.

I completely disagree with this thinking.

That's fine, but do you understand that not everyone agrees with you?  In fact, I'd say the majority disagree with you, as evidenced by the fact that (I believe, but am not 100% sure) more people use the word "retarded" to mean stupid than get offended when someone does.

Sure, OK.  Here you go: I have zero respect for people who use the word "retarded" as a synonym for stupid knowing that it offends people with mental disabilities.  I think doing so makes someone a shitty person.

Okay.  We fully 100% understand your point of view.

Thanks for sharing.

I think your position is somewhat ridiculous.

Pray tell me, what exactly do you think my position is?  Or are you attributing things to me that you think are bad in general?

It seems to me you aren't getting much out of this discussion, and in fact are doing exactly what I pointed out earlier as a potential problem with trying to silence: being counter productive.

Your anger and attacks certainly don't make me inclined to see your point of view.  Even though it's already close to what I think, it's causing me to rethink it!

On the other hand, sheepstache's comments made me go "hmmm" and consider some things.

What exactly are you getting out of this thread, besides some venting?  (Which, again, is not necessary -- we 100% understand your position, thanks.)

[DoubleDown]

Adults defending the usage of a word that in a manner that is offensive to one of the most vulnerable populations in advanced economies:  Where is the intellectual value in that?

Because an alternate choice is to conclude that "that word" might get used by people whether or not any of us like it, intentionally using it offensively or not, and it is up to the individual whether s/he allows themselves to be offended by it (especially for a word like "retarded" which did not originate as any kind of insult). So, I could teach my daughter that there will always be people who unintentionally say things that might hurt us, and there are outright assholes that will purposely try to get a rise out of us using the most hurtful things they could dream up. The best thing for our own well-being is to pay them no mind. I could find offense everywhere I look if I was inclined to do so. Rather than having my daughter be outraged, I would rather she take a "so what" attitude.

I'm guessing your young daughter has little or no understanding of the history of the word "retarded" or how it might have been routinely used in education or medical circles 50-100 years ago. Meaning, she would not naturally draw offense at the word, she would only do so because she's been taught to do so. If she is instead taught not to be offended, she won't likely be offended.

Should I get outraged and "correct" an old man who uses the word "dame" because it might offend my wife or daughters of the oh-so-fairer sex to hear such an outlandish, outdated, and obnoxious term?

Would you stridently defend a feminist who told you that anyone's use of the term "woman" is offensive, period, and that anyone who claimed otherwise is just a jerk that misses the point?

Disclaimer: I don't generally call people bad names and frown upon it.

[mgreczyn]

Alright, I'll cop to an unhealthy dose of anger here.  My apologies to arebelspy for attributing a position to you that you don't occupy.  You know where I'm coming from, and I grant you that I'm in the minority.  I think using the word in that manner is wrong and I wouldn't hesitate to say so to someone's face were they standing in front of me. If it happened in my house I would show them the door.  If it happened in someone else's house I would leave.  It's not a matter of censorship, I just wouldn't tolerate it.

I don't think it's for society or popular culture to say whether something is offensive or not.  I think it's for the affected group.  And I agree, they've spoken.

[arebelspy]

Alright, I'll cop to an unhealthy dose of anger here.  My apologies to arebelspy for attributing a position to you that you don't occupy.  You know where I'm coming from, and I grant you that I'm in the minority.  I think using the word in that manner is wrong and I wouldn't hesitate to say so to someone's face were they standing in front of me. If it happened in my house I would show them the door.  If it happened in someone else's house I would leave.

I completely understand and respect your position and the amount you stick to it. 

I have a similar amount of personal issues around the topic of censorship.  ;)

It's not a matter of censorship, I just wouldn't tolerate it.

I agree, that individual case (you asking someone to not use that word, or you leaving someone's house) is not necessarily censorship.  But too many censorship problems start with a slippery slope of someone being offended and wanting to stop others from saying particular things.

If I were offended by a certain race, or religion, for example...

It's something one has to be ever vigilant about.

I don't think it's for society or popular culture to say whether something is offensive or not.  I think it's for the affected group.  And I agree, they've spoken.

I think I can agree to that.  But it brings us back to a few questions we've been discussing: when does something like free speech override one group's (even an "affected" group) preferences?  Is it counter-productive for that group, or people speaking for that group to vehemently and angrily defend that point of view?

[mgreczyn]

If I were offended by a certain race, or religion, for example...

It's something one has to be ever vigilant about.

Certainly

I think I can agree to that.  But it brings us back to a few questions we've been discussing: when does something like free speech override one group's (even an "affected" group) preferences?  Is it counter-productive for that group, or people speaking for that group to vehemently and angrily defend that point of view?

I think it's ineffective to take that as an opening position.  But if the non-angry, non-vehement path is not working... 
It strikes me that MLK made some pretty angry, vehement speeches.  It's hard to argue that he was ineffective or counterproductive.

As far as free speech goes, I would never take a position banning a word or a even a particular use of the word.  Notice I never called for a ban.  I just said that I believe it's wrong.  It speaks volumes to me about the user.  I favor completely free speech; for example even as a veteran from a family of veterans, I would never call for censoring the Westboro Baptist Church, as disgusting as I think they are.  I just wouldn't ever grant them the slightest thought.  They've made it clear they can't be swayed, and I take them at their word.  It's the same for the "r" word.  Someone who can't be convinced that the use is wrong isn't worth my time. 

[grantmeaname]

But it's also easy to argue that Malcolm X did things that were counterproductive. The dichotomy ain't that simple.

[mgreczyn]

I used to be a child, and am therefore offended when people use the word "childish" in a derogatory manner.  Will you stop using that word, particularly around the vulnerable group of children in this country?

Yeah, but you grew up.  Find me one person who used to have Autism or Down Syndrome.

[arebelspy]

I think it's ineffective to take that as an opening position.  But if the non-angry, non-vehement path is not working... 
It strikes me that MLK made some pretty angry, vehement speeches.  It's hard to argue that he was ineffective or counterproductive.

Ah, now we're getting into the more fun theoretical discussion beyond this particular word.

I would posit that it's always counter-productive to changing people's minds to angrily force your point of view.

The only benefit it does is rile up people already on your side, possibly to take action.

If there were some company that offensively used the word "retarded," it might be beneficial to angrily shout about it to rile people up about the issue and force action (a boycott, in this case).

But does getting angry and offended about it help change anyone's mind?  I'm skeptical that it does.

MLK, for example, use more passionate, thoughtful speeches to change minds.  Do you think his angry rhetoric was more effective?

[mgreczyn]

But it's also easy to argue that Malcolm X did things that were counterproductive. The dichotomy ain't that simple.

It is, sure.  But the question was whether defending something vehemently and angrily is necessarily counter-productive.  One example of it not being counterproductive is enough to say that it's not.  It CAN be, and Malcolm X is a great example.  But he chose to be VIOLENT, which is a different point entirely.

[mgreczyn]

Ah, now we're getting into the more fun theoretical discussion beyond this particular word.

I would posit that it's always counter-productive to changing people's minds to angrily force your point of view.

The only benefit it does is rile up people already on your side, possibly to take action.

If there were some company that offensively used the word "retarded," it might be beneficial to angrily shout about it to rile people up about the issue and force action (a boycott, in this case).

But does getting angry and offended about it help change anyone's mind?  I'm skeptical that it does.

MLK, for example, use more passionate, thoughtful speeches to change minds.  Do you think his angry rhetoric was more effective?

I think it depends entirely on whose mind you are trying to change.  Opinions fall on a spectrum.  For someone 180 out from you, you're not going to change their mind.  For a bystander who hasn't given the issue much thought, or who is undecided, an angry, vehement, passionate defense of a point of view can make all the difference.  Especially if the opposition responds in kind and occupies a weaker moral or intellectual position.

MLK wasn't giving his angry, vehement speeches to rile up his base.  Well, not entirely to rile up his base; I think they were probably pretty riled up already.  And he certainly wasn't hoping to change the minds of southern politicians.  He was appealing to the better nature of people, trying to get them off the sidelines and into the fight on his side.

[mpbaker22]

Many have argued it can be used perfectly cromulently to describe something as stupid without being derogatory.  If you mean calling something (say, a lawn) stupid is derogatory, yes, clearly.  Every use of the word stupid is derogatory in that manner of speaking.

We all agree, I think, that the use of it in a pejorative manner is different.

I completely disagree with this thinking.  The test is whether you would use the word "retarded" to describe something as stupid in the presence of someone with a mental disability. Clearly people with Down syndrome are deeply offended by this. Would you use that word in front of someone who you know would be deeply hurt by hearing it?  Say you were my neighbor.  We're standing there griping about our stupid lawns.  I'm holding my daughter in my arms, and you can see she has Down syndrome.  Would you refer to your lawn as "retarded"?  Would you expect me not to say anything?  If you think it's perfectly OK, even after I explain the issue, I really don't want to associate with you because to me it indicates a complete lack of empathy and consideration.  I would seriously think there is something wrong with you.

I've already provided this scenario ... I agreed that I would not use the word retarded in front of someone who has mental difficulties, say down syndrome.  This would be out of respect of the fact that they don't know the difference between a good and bad use of the word, specifically due to their mental challenges.
 You, on the other hand have no excuse and should know the difference!

[mgreczyn]

Many have argued it can be used perfectly cromulently to describe something as stupid without being derogatory.  If you mean calling something (say, a lawn) stupid is derogatory, yes, clearly.  Every use of the word stupid is derogatory in that manner of speaking.

We all agree, I think, that the use of it in a pejorative manner is different.

I completely disagree with this thinking.  The test is whether you would use the word "retarded" to describe something as stupid in the presence of someone with a mental disability. Clearly people with Down syndrome are deeply offended by this. Would you use that word in front of someone who you know would be deeply hurt by hearing it?  Say you were my neighbor.  We're standing there griping about our stupid lawns.  I'm holding my daughter in my arms, and you can see she has Down syndrome.  Would you refer to your lawn as "retarded"?  Would you expect me not to say anything?  If you think it's perfectly OK, even after I explain the issue, I really don't want to associate with you because to me it indicates a complete lack of empathy and consideration.  I would seriously think there is something wrong with you.

I've already provided this scenario ... I agreed that I would not use the word retarded in front of someone who has mental difficulties, say down syndrome.  This would be out of respect of the fact that they don't know the difference between a good and bad use of the word, specifically due to their mental challenges.
 You, on the other hand have no excuse and should know the difference!

So we're both clear, are you acknowledging that the use is offensive yet stating that you would go ahead and use it when the offended party isn't present?  Or rather claiming that the use isn't offensive but you would avoid using it in front of someone with a disability because, you know, they're just not smart enough to know the difference?

"retarded" in any way shape or form as a synonym for "stupid" being the offensive case.

[footenote]

I would not use the word "dickhead" in front of someone who has male difficulties, say ... being a man.  This would be out of respect of the fact that they don't know the difference between a good and bad use of the word, specifically due to their testostorone challenges.

I would not use the word "nigger" in front of someone who is African American, say ... them being Black. This would be out of respect of the fact that they don't know the difference between a good and bad use of the word, specifically due to their skin color  challenges.

I would not use the word "cunt" in front of someone who is female, say ... them being a girl. This would be out of respect of the fact that they don't know the difference between a good and bad use of the word, specifically due to their estrogen challenges.

I would not use the word "Wop" in front of someone who is Italian-American, say ... them being an Italian. This would be out of respect of the fact that they don't know the difference between a good and bad use of the word, specifically due to their Southern Medittaranean origin challenges.

I would go on (because I have lots of examples!), but I have to go help dickhead start dinner.

[dragoncar]

I used to be a child, and am therefore offended when people use the word "childish" in a derogatory manner.  Will you stop using that word, particularly around the vulnerable group of children in this country?

Yeah, but you grew up.  Find me one person who used to have Autism or Down Syndrome.

Growing up is irrelevant.  The term still affects me, and you said its forthw affected group to decide whether something is offensive.  So you see the power you give to everyone?

Other things you can no longer say derisively because I am a member of an affected group:
Ridiculous
Lazy
Smart (eg "don't get smart with me mister")

I also don want to hear a single lawyer joke out of you.

[footenote]

I would not use the word "shyster" in front of someone who is dragoncar, say ... them being a lawyer. This would be out of respect of the fact that they don't know the difference between a good and bad use of the word, specifically due to their legal training challenges.

[mgreczyn]

I would not use the word "dickhead" in front of someone who has male difficulties, say ... being a man.  This would be out of respect of the fact that they don't know the difference between a good and bad use of the word, specifically due to their testostorone challenges.

I would not use the word "nigger" in front of someone who is African American, say ... them being Black. This would be out of respect of the fact that they don't know the difference between a good and bad use of the word, specifically due to their skin color  challenges.

I would not use the word "cunt" in front of someone who is female, say ... them being a girl. This would be out of respect of the fact that they don't know the difference between a good and bad use of the word, specifically due to their estrogen challenges.

I would not use the word "Wop" in front of someone who is Italian-American, say ... them being an Italian. This would be out of respect of the fact that they don't know the difference between a good and bad use of the word, specifically due to their Southern Medittaranean origin challenges.

I would go on (because I have lots of examples!), but I have to go help dickhead start dinner.

Hey, I am totally willing to keep being a dickhead about this.  It's interesting to note that by inference you would:
Use the word "n&*^&%" in front of someone who may not be black but might have dear African American loved ones or friends
Use the word "c*&^" in front of men with mothers, wives, sisters, etc.
Use the word "W&^" in front of people who don't aren't Italian-American, but served with one in the Army

[mgreczyn]

I used to be a child, and am therefore offended when people use the word "childish" in a derogatory manner.  Will you stop using that word, particularly around the vulnerable group of children in this country?

Yeah, but you grew up.  Find me one person who used to have Autism or Down Syndrome.

Growing up is irrelevant.  The term still affects me, and you said its forthw affected group to decide whether something is offensive.  So you see the power you give to everyone?

Other things you can no longer say derisively because I am a member of an affected group:
Ridiculous
Lazy
Smart (eg "don't get smart with me mister")

I also don want to hear a single lawyer joke out of you.

People keep thinking I'm offended by this use case.  I'm not, I'm disgusted with it because it offends a vulnerable group who has pointed out their offence only to have hordes of snarky typicals answer back "it's mainstream so it's not offensive.  I can say it if I want wah wah wah".  I never said you couldn't say it.  All I have ever said is that it's offensive to a vulnerable group to do so.  And I'll keep saying it.  If someone wants to show the world what an asshole they are, more power to them.  I will continue to be happy to point that assholishness out, loudly and publicly.   

[grantmeaname]

Yes, clearly you have chosen to be offended by it. We get that. Thanks for sharing, and feel free to move on with your life. Door's over there ->

[mgreczyn]

Funny, I don't see a door.  Quit trying to censor me.   

[footenote]

mgreczyn - I apologize for the failure of my attempt at satire. I'm in your corner and trying to expose the hypocrisy by modeling other examples where people would (I hope!) be embarrassed to admit "limiting" their use of language that would be patently offensive to many other people.

I hope I am not alone in supporting you. Don't leave.

[mgreczyn]

Oops, sorry footenote.  Thanks for the support.  However, grantmeaname finally made a good point.  I'm out to spend friday evening with my family. 

[mpbaker22]

I would not use the word "dickhead" in front of someone who has male difficulties, say ... being a man.  This would be out of respect of the fact that they don't know the difference between a good and bad use of the word, specifically due to their testostorone challenges.

I would not use the word "nigger" in front of someone who is African American, say ... them being Black. This would be out of respect of the fact that they don't know the difference between a good and bad use of the word, specifically due to their skin color  challenges.

I would not use the word "cunt" in front of someone who is female, say ... them being a girl. This would be out of respect of the fact that they don't know the difference between a good and bad use of the word, specifically due to their estrogen challenges.

I would not use the word "Wop" in front of someone who is Italian-American, say ... them being an Italian. This would be out of respect of the fact that they don't know the difference between a good and bad use of the word, specifically due to their Southern Medittaranean origin challenges.

I would go on (because I have lots of examples!), but I have to go help dickhead start dinner.

Attack an argument I didn't make in order to make me look like a dichead ... totally classy dude.

All of your examples are of words that are inherently offensive because the words themselves are offensive.  The word retard is only offensive because a small number of people use it offensively, and another small amount of people aren't able to differentiate between a non-offensive and offensive use of the word.
All the words you gave are always offensive, even if not directed at someone.

So keeping making non-arguments against arguments I haven't made, see how it works for you.

[arebelspy]

Let's try not to make, or take, things offensively, though this is obviously a touchy subject. :)

All of your examples are of words that are inherently offensive because the words themselves are offensive...All the words you gave are always offensive

Are they?  What makes them offensive?

I don't find the word dickhead always offensive.  If someone says "my boss is a dickhead" I understand it's an insult, but in the same way "jerk" is an insult.  Is "jerk" always offensive?  How about stupid? Is that always offensive?  How about its less tame cousin, retarded?  ;)

I bet some will argue that retarded is always inherently offensive in the same way "dickhead" is.

What, to you, makes those other ones always offensive?

[sheepstache]

Cunt is not inherently offensive.  It's just slang for vagina (or rather, the external genitalia which we frequently incorrectly refer to as the vagina).  Read some erotica and you will know there are plenty of nice uses of it.  Likewise s/he could have talked about the word "dick" rather than "dickhead."  The point was the condescension that, by virtue of being part of the insulted group, an individual wouldn't be able to grasp the linguistic subtleties of whether they were being insulted or not.

To be fair, I think it is broadly recognized that, by definition, people with mental handicaps have greater difficulty processing information, so the examples are not really parallel, but I still thought it was funny. 

You go on to talk about a

small amount of people aren't able to differentiate between a non-offensive and offensive use of the word.

but this is kind of icky.  I'm sure these people understand the distinction you are making, but they still disagree with you.*  The argument you are making that footnote was responding to is that you claimed anyone who didn't agree with you simply wasn't smart enough to understand the issue.  Perhaps that's not what you intended.

*Actually, re-reading your statement I see the first problem with it is that it is tautological.  Obviously no one believes that a non-offensive use is offensive.  I mean that they grasp the distinction between using the word to describe a person and using it to describe a lawn but they still have an argument for why the latter is offensive.

[footenote]

"The point was the condescension that, by virtue of being part of the insulted group, an individual wouldn't be able to grasp the linguistic subtleties of whether they were being insulted or not."

Thanks for getting the point. I do know that the parallel is imperfect. But the condescension is the point, not strictly speaking whether or not the person is capable of understanding. Glad you thought it was funny; we need a little humor (IMO) as we are all taking ourselves a wee bit seriously on a topic that can simply be common sense and civility-driven.

(And, having seen other "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" arguments here, I'm happy to lurk on the continuing hair-splitting.)

[arebelspy]

(And, having seen other "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" arguments here, I'm happy to lurk on the continuing hair-splitting.)

I don't care what you think... the answer is six!

[footenote]

I would agree because I actually do think the answer is six.

But that would be no fun, would it?  ; )

[pbkmaine]

Not fond of the word "cunt", myself. I have personally experienced it used as a way to dismiss and demean me.  There are more elegant ways to express disapproval than any of the words we are discussing here, methinks. Having said that, It seems to me that people get crazy about political correctness. A friend of mine, in charge of the personnel manual for her organization, actually quit her job after months of wrangling over the "correct" terms one should use to describe certain groups. There were hours upon hours of heated discussions about the simplest terms. Members of groups could not agree among themselves what they wanted to be called. My husband has gotten so fed up with it that he refuses to hyphenate himself when he describes his ethnic group. "I'm not a hyphenated anything. I am a citizen of this country."

[dragoncar]

(And, having seen other "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" arguments here, I'm happy to lurk on the continuing hair-splitting.)

I don't care what you think... the answer is six!

It's gotta be way more than six.  If Angela have the power to shrink themselves from human size to pinhead size, then they can probably continue down to pinpoint size (ie a few more orders of magnitude).  So I'd say at least 10-100, but more likely much higher, limited only by the Planck length (divided into the width of a n average pinhead).

Apologies to all the people with abnormally shaped heads, who are offended by the word pinhead.

[Crash87]

Maybe we should all just have a little thicker skin and not get all butt hurt about this type of stuff.

[oldtoyota]

I used to be a child, and am therefore offended when people use the word "childish" in a derogatory manner.  Will you stop using that word, particularly around the vulnerable group of children in this country?

Yeah, but you grew up.  Find me one person who used to have Autism or Down Syndrome.

Growing up is irrelevant.  The term still affects me, and you said its forthw affected group to decide whether something is offensive.  So you see the power you give to everyone?

Other things you can no longer say derisively because I am a member of an affected group:
Ridiculous
Lazy
Smart (eg "don't get smart with me mister")

I also don want to hear a single lawyer joke out of you.

People keep thinking I'm offended by this use case.  I'm not, I'm disgusted with it because it offends a vulnerable group who has pointed out their offence only to have hordes of snarky typicals answer back "it's mainstream so it's not offensive.  I can say it if I want wah wah wah".  I never said you couldn't say it.  All I have ever said is that it's offensive to a vulnerable group to do so.  And I'll keep saying it.  If someone wants to show the world what an asshole they are, more power to them.  I will continue to be happy to point that assholishness out, loudly and publicly.   

I agree with you. =-) I do not see the point in using words that would offend others. At the same time, I'm not calling for censorship. I think people who use "retarded" are idiots. =-) And it hurts my friends who have children with down syndrome. I am sure I'll be attacked for this view point. Waiting. Waiting.

[GuitarStv]

I agree with you. =-) I do not see the point in using words that would offend others. At the same time, I'm not calling for censorship. I think people who use "retarded" are idiots. =-) And it hurts my friends who have children with down syndrome. I am sure I'll be attacked for this view point. Waiting. Waiting.

Interesting choice of words to be OK with . . . considering that 'idiot' was a medical term used in the 1900s to describe someone with severe mental retardation and an IQ below 30.  :S  Everyone seems fine with usage of that word though . . . which seems pretty arbitrary to me.  I suspect than given another 50 - 60 years, everyone will be OK with use of the word 'retard' and will instead be outraged at the usage of some other term currently used to describe the mentally handicapped.

[oldtoyota]

I agree with you. =-) I do not see the point in using words that would offend others. At the same time, I'm not calling for censorship. I think people who use "retarded" are idiots. =-) And it hurts my friends who have children with down syndrome. I am sure I'll be attacked for this view point. Waiting. Waiting.

Interesting choice of words to be OK with . . . considering that 'idiot' was a medical term used in the 1900s to describe someone with severe mental retardation and an IQ below 30.  :S  Everyone seems fine with usage of that word though . . . which seems pretty arbitrary to me.  I suspect than given another 50 - 60 years, everyone will be OK with use of the word 'retard' and will instead be outraged at the usage of some other term currently used to describe the mentally handicapped.

The "idiots" was a bit of a joke since everyone had been using offensive terms earlier. Not funny? Okay.

[CanuckExpat]

If you so desire you can just replace "faggot" with "retarded" and you have a way of dealing with the problem: