"Not Acceptable" is a powerful and compelling
30 second television PSA which gives voice to a variety of diverse communities each of whom expresses that it i...
Nick JamesThe entire world would be a better place if everyone stop being so offended by what
OTHERS are doing and start being offended by what they do. All you need is love. For all you ever need to do is love yourself
and if you truly love yourself you will see that all others are just a part of you and how can you not love them if you love
yourself for they are you.
Political Correctness is an attempt to convey this message but it does so by telling people
what to think and how to behave but only in pre-chosen ways. That is bullshit and something I will always oppose. When
someone says not to say or do something simply because it offends someone I always deliberately do the opposite. You can't
force respect. Videos like this are forcing you to believe a certain way not by choice but by guilt. Guilt is fear of
others not loving you by choosing an opposing belief or action. Fear is always the worst course of action. If the video
had a message of love and not forced guilt I would like it. But it doesn't.
June 7 at 11:19pm ·
Elizabeth NealI am not commenting on the main argument here, but I do think that getting the facts
straight about words is important, especially if they are getting pulled out as a support for an argument, but have nothing
to do with the terms being argued about. "Niggard" or "niggardly" have not ever had anything to do with that particular racial
slur. They are very old words. Here is the reference.com page:
Cicely Rodgers@nick--what does the word retarded mean, then, in common usage?
June 7 at 11:44pm ·
Cassidy BarnesInteresting angle, Elizabeth. This absolutely has to do with this issue because
I'm talking about the real effects of word choice, regardless of intention. The result of using the word niggardly still encourages
using the word nigger because most people don't know the difference and people who do know the difference realize that most
people don't know the difference. Why do you think it fell out of general use?
Nick, saying something is politically
incorrect is sooooo 90s. I like "unconsciously oppressive," or "unconsciously encouraging oppression" if you want to be even
more indirect and non-confrontational. :-) The ad shows people targeted by these words saying that the measurable, current
(not pre-chosen or arbitrary) common usages of these words are not okay. It is up to the viewer to decide whether they want
to do what the ad encourages. If I hear people targeted by hate speech saying it's not okay to use that hate speech, my response
is not guilt, but empathy. Love = empathy = being conscious with one's speech, thus sayeth the Buddha. :-) I am very familiar
with guilt trips. I go several every day! If you feel guilt-tripped by watching this ad, I encourage you to get past its after-school-special
style and listen to the content. Because guilt just snowballs.
Cicely, I believe that word meaning evolves through
the creation of each written, spoken or thought word (based on understood, implied and improvised meanings). Certain contexts
spread certain meanings more powerfully and for longer than others. I think creation and evolution work hand in hand. It's
the whole "created without a creator" paradox of natural selection. Also, do you know a good book on reclaiming?
June 8 at 12:31am ·
Cassidy BarnesAnd David Gallic, while I appreciate your sentiment, as long as we're talking about oppressive consequences of word choice, I'm sure you realize
the irony of using the word motherfucker in this context?
Nick James"Unconsciously opposive" is the means the same as Policially Incorrect just
a different phrase. And by the way Cassidy saying something is "so..." followed by a date is so 2001. If you look up the
word retard the slang definition for mentally challenged person is the fourth definition. Look go out and ask anyone if
they would ever call a mentally challenged person a retard. It's going to be difficult. Then ask them when they use the word
retard do they mean "a stupid or idiotic action committed by oneself or another." That is going to be much more common. That
video is 10 or 20 years too late in its message. You could say it is sooo 1990's.
June 8 at 6:35am ·
Cassidy BarnesThe video deals with both definitions and this discussion has always been about
the "stupid or idiotic action" definition, which is inseparable from the definition for a mentally challenged person because
using the word at all keeps it alive.
"Simply put, the great "PC" cliché, as commonly deployed in mainstream discourse,
is cultural propaganda designed to befuddle and misdirect while defending the current power structure."
Simply put,
the great "PC" cliché, as commonly deployed in mainstream discourse, is cultural propaganda designed to befuddle and misdirect
while defending the current power structure.
June 8 at 8:29am ·
Cicely Rodgers@cassidy--certainly there's a creative act that may lead to evolution which
may in turn lead to a word being known to have various meanings. what i meant was this: if there's a word that has a whole
slew of meanings, like, oh, say, nigger, meditating on that word with love isn't going to change those meanings. not even
if everyone did it. cuz that's not how language works. so, we can't wake up today and decide that black means white and expect
that tomorrow everyone will a)know we decided that and b) decide they agree.
David GallicOh yeah, I see the irony. And since I added nothing to the conversation in my last
post, let me recommend a documentary which touches on this discussion of language: The N Word. Enjoy!
June 8 at 8:40am ·
Cicely Rodgersmy favorite quote from that article: "In this context, the conceit that "political
correctness" constitutes a violation of free speech is particularly zany; as though society's marginalized groups wield oppressive
power over the dominant mainstream. Actually, as far as I'm concerned you're free to call me "chink" and I'm free to call
you "moronic racist loser" (and more if necessary, but I'll leave that aside for now in the interest of false civility). Free
speech is the straw man of choice for intellectual bums of all stripes too fragile and vacuous for critical engagement. Calling
someone who says or does bigoted things "a bigot" isn't censorious, it's descriptively accurate, like calling a bad movie
"a bad movie", even if the bigot didn't intend to come off as bigoted and the movie didn't intend to come off as bad."
June 8 at 9:30am ·
Nick James@Cassidy. I still have to disagree. I don't think that the word retarded
is inseparable from a mentally challenged person. I feel that today the common use of it is in no one connected to a mentally
challenged person. However videos like this do keep it connected by having a mentally challenged person say "Don't call
me retarded." Words do evolve and this word is evolving out of the definition meaning mentally challenged person but its
evolution will always be hindered by these types of videos.
June 8 at 10:12am ·
Nick James@Cicely I do agree with you that mediating on a word will not change its
meaning, but activity using that word with a different definition attached in social, political, and entertainment forums
will.
June 8 at 10:16am ·
Cicely Rodgers@nick--basically, from a linguistic standpoint, that's not necessarily how
it works. meaning is coded in language--in the composition of works, in the composition of sentences and phrases. even if
folx were trying to change the meaning of a word, it takes an incredibly long time for senses of words to become less central
to the meaning (and i dunno if it can be done purposely), and it takes even more than just time for meanings to become obsolete.
how you gonna attach your desired meaning to the word? how you gonna insure that everyone present completely buys
into your new definition? how are the people who do buy into your definition going to be able to keep their brains from calling
up the old meaning of the word? these are real questions, and i'd be interested to hear your real respones.
June 8 at 10:39am ·
Shane Leiwow. thanks for a thought-provoking discourse, everyone. i'm more inclined to agree
with Cicely & Cassidy - as someone who volunteered with mentally challenged individuals for a decade while concurrently
hearing classmates referring to each other as retards, I can guarantee you it was not until they were shamed into taking on
the "p.c." usage that they meant it that way; and, of course, the meaning was still shadowed by their real intent (you are
stupid, you are no smarter than someone seriously mentally challenged). Though they 'grew up a bit' and dropped body language
and intonation that suggested the former meaning was their chosen one, as Cecily suggests, that gloss of meaning was still
there. Read up on Mirror Neurons & it will clue you in a bit more about why we can't simply decide to have a meaning no
longer apply in word usage (just as I may 'decide' I want to do x, y & z to improve my health, but implementing x y &
z are much more complicated than making a mental decision).
June 8 at 1:06pm ·
Cassidy BarnesNick, I just don't see this common usage of retarded not connected to mentally challenged
people you speak of. Since the meanings are virtually the same and oppression of mentally challenged people has gone on for
so long, I don't see this secondary meaning taking over now or any time soon. Instead I see people using it and pretending
that the context they're using it has nothing to do with its primary meaning. Nor do I see mentally challenged people reclaiming
it. I do, however see mentally challenged people internalizing this oppression and using the word against each other--as Shane
points out--pretty much the opposite of reclaiming.
Truth, Cicely, truth. The Live Oak Institute, a big leader
in elder care medical-model-to-social-model culture change, says effective advocacy
(with the intention of community development) means love not just for the person, group or cause being advocated for, but
also for the advocacy audience. Of course results matter more than intentions, especially if the results are violent, but
remembering intentions when telling someone they did something bigoted can be a way to continue dialogue. Plus simply calling
someone a bigot without explaining why their choices were bigoted lets them off easy, as Jay Smooth says:
Shane Lei7-17, Cass. They tried to stick me in some classes while my sister volunteered
& I said I didn't want to take them, but could I help participants with their art projects? Lol, that was me at 7.
I found the section "A Cyberspace Lenin?" particularly illuminating: "Political “extremism” or “excessive
radicalism” should always be read as a phenomenon of ideologico-political displacement: as an index of its opposite,
of a limitation, of a refusal effectively to “go to the end.”" and "Perhaps, then, the time has come to render
problematic the standard topos, shared by practically all the “postmodern” Leftists, according to which political
“totalitarianism” somehow results from the predominance of material production and technology over the intersubjective
communication and/or symbolic practice, as if the root of the political terror resides in the fact that the “principle”
of instrumental reason, of the technological exploitation of nature, is extended also to society, so that people are treated
as raw stuff to be transformed into a New Man. What if it is the exact opposite which holds? What if political “terror”
signals precisely that the sphere of (material) production is denied in its autonomy and subordinated to political logic?"
In other words, these are all Noble Sentiments, but kind of the wrong fight.
Hey Nick, why don't you give this
a shot: come on down to Chicago and call the first african american you see "nigga." Feel free to explain to them how you're
'infusing the word with love' and see what happens.
June 8 at 5:29pm ·
Nick James@Peter what purpose would that serve? The first one? Now if we became close
friends and I said that in respect and love then it would be a different story.
@Cassidy we would need to define soon.
As no, in a week the secondary meaning would not dissipate or in a month or a year, but over time yes. When I look at words
changing I don't look at such a short time frame. I look at time in terms of decades, but it has to start somewhere and it
can be now and here. Indeed it already has or we would not be having this lengthy back and forth. I also do say secondary
as the primary definition of retard has never been and never will be in reference to a mental challenged person. The slang
term for it yes, but not the primary definition. Retard has its origins from the 15th century. Retarded in reference to a
child wasn't used till the late 1800's and as an insult till the 1970's. Just look at the term "fire retardant." That clearly
doesn't mean a mentally challenged person on fire.
Look I never mind admitting fault and I could be wrong in this
discussion. I apparently have no one on my side, but that alone doesn't mean I am wrong.
My primarily stance is that
using the word retard with no intended reference to a mental challenged person is not offensive. It may be to others, as it
appears to be to everyone else posting here, but again that doesn't mean it is.
I simply ask if I call a friend retarded
with no part of it meaning in anyway that they are a mental challenged person, and they understand this and do not infer that
I am associating them with a mentally challenged person, and there is no mentally challenged people around to hear said comment,
what offense can there be?
And I know the first thing someone is going to say is "Well Nick why don't you replace the
term mentally challenged person with any other racial slur and tell me it is not offensive." And no there is still no offense.
If someone called me a chink or spick what offensive could I take from that as I am not either of those thing. I believe,
and again I could be wrong, that offense originates in the listener not the speaker.
The Speaker may attempt to elicit
offensiveness, but the listener has to decide if it is offensive or not.
When I hear the word retard I take no offensive
as I do not associate it with a mentally challenged person, and when I utter the word retard I speak it only to a person with
a similar thought process. How others, outside of myself and the people I speak the word to, interpret the word and any offensive
they take from it is up to them and not something I can, or want to, control.
June 8 at 8:32pm ·
Cicely Rodgersway to not respond to my questions, nick. your primary stance is bullshit.
June 8 at 8:41pm ·
Nick JamesI like your Cicely. It is your best argument yet. Since you are incessant that answer
your questions from 10 hours ago I will attempt to. But really Cicely, there are so many things being said here and I am the
only one on this side of the argument you can't expect me to answer every question. In fact I don't know if you've answered
any of the questions I posed.
Now you have to keep in mind that I am only an average man who sells insurance and likes
to write and produce plays on the side. I don't have all of the answers and don't claim to. I know what I know and I don't
that I know nothing. If I claimed to know anything besides myself I would be lying. I am not a Politician. I am not God. I
am not Omnipotent. If my real answers are not to your liking I advise you to ask someone else. Someone who may be able to
give you the answers more to your liking.
How you gonna attach your desired meaning to the word?
I would create
a YouTube video with a random celebrity telling people to change the way they use the word. I would also contact Oxford Dictionary
and have them eliminate all other definitions.
How you gonna insure that everyone present completely buys into your
new definition?
I would create a nice marketing campaign. The best way would be to put it on the side of Coke cans.
Everybody buys Coke, so obviously they would buy this.
How are the people who do buy into your definition going to
be able to keep their brains from calling up the old meaning of the word?
That's the easiest one of them all. Obviously,
put a microchip in their brain that would prevent them from recalling it. Duh.
Honestly, Cicely what kind of answers
did you expect me to give here. I am just one person how would you expect me to do any of these things. How would you do them?
Now that I would like you to answer. Since you haven't answered any of my other questions, answer that one.
"My primarily stance is that using the word retard with no
intended reference to a mental challenged person is not offensive. It may be to others, as it appears to be to everyone else
posting here, but again that doesn't mean it is."
The critical thing here is "may be to others." No one has a private
language, you always use words in relation to 'others.' And those 'others' demand that you respect them.
So you like
to use the word retard, but you have this double standard for other words that you aren't able to explain.
Nick JamesYes, but you can't live life concerning what others think may be offensive. I
maintain that my primary stance is not offensive. If you find it offensive then you find it offensive that doesn't mean it
is offensive to everyone.
You smoke pot Peter. That is offensive to some people. I don't believe Christ existed. That
is offensive to some people. But just because some people find it offensive doesn't mean it is actually offensive to everyone.
And I am not simply going to admit I am wrong because you tell me too. Frankly, I think everyone else here is wrong
and I am in the right, but that is a difference of opinion, one we will not resolve here.
June 8 at 9:32pm ·
Nick JamesSo since everyone like adding links here are some of my own
The first one
has at the bottom of the page a vote Is the word 'Retarded' offensive? According to the vote 71% of people think "No,
politcal correctness is going to far."
Cassidy BarnesPeter, since it seems like you've been studying Zizek lately, can you give us a
clue what the article you posted has to do with this? It kinda went over my head.
Nick, we were talking about reclaiming
earlier and it seemed like you agreed that the group targeted by a word can reclaim it. That line of reasoning seems a lot
more likely than the microchips and coke cans--because it deals with real people and not fantasy magic wand methods. Maybe
developmentally disabled people could have a reality show and one of the catch phrases could be something like, "I'm not retarded
because retarded means stupid!" This kid would be on lunchboxes and music videos and through sheer charisma and a heart of
gold, the kid would convince people to use the new definition...then at last, we forget that it was used pejoratively.
Until
someone becomes afraid of the vulnerability that mentally challenged people inspire by drawing us away from the idea that
we can fix everything with intellect. In a moment of anger they want revenge on the person who seemingly caused this discomfort
so they pick a word that means slow or stupid (a common word so the victim will be re-traumatized every time they hear it).
Thus we have a new word that is used like retarded is used today. And the debate starts over again.
As long as people
are insecure and project that insecurity on people different from themselves, we'll have coded hate speech. We can't erase
those words, nor do I want to. We can, however, choose where and when to use them though. The more hateful a connotation a
word has, the more I want to reserve it for a time when I'll really need it: to give examples of what a harmful action looks
like and why it is harmful. Like keeping the n-word in Huck Finn to educate kids about where it comes from and what it was
used for.
Are you afraid of being less clever by censoring yourself? I think I agree with your general sentiment that
worrying about offending other people all the time can make you paranoid. But I believe in revising my writing (after freewriting)
and in listening at least as much as I talk in conversations with other people. In truly listening during a conversation,
empathy eventually happens at some level. Empathy not just for the other person in the conversation, but also for the people
being talked about, referred to and represented, whether or not we are trying to refer to those people or not, because, like
Peter said, there is no private language and word have meanings we can't control. Of course no one's perfect. But we can choose
words more or less consciously and empathetically.
June 8 at 10:44pm ·
Nick JamesCassidy that is the best argument for your side yet. Am I afraid of censoring
myself? No, as I just don't do it. I don't believe in censoring myself, especially by the whims of our 30 second attention
span culture. I am not calling this debate a whim mind you.
However, Cassidy I must ask in the below context, in your
opinion, it is still offensive? If I call a close friend retarded, with no intended references to them as a mentally challenged
individual, and they understand said intentions and don't infer said intentions on their own, and no mentally challenged individuals
are present.
For me, intentions are more important than societial accepted definitions of words.
June 8 at 11:30pm ·
Nick JamesI also do like your reality TV show idea. Although if there is a catch phrase involved
I feel it should be more sitcom originated.
Whatever the side of the argument someone sits on this whole debate has
brought this issue to probably someone who has not thought about it much or at all. I hadn't put much thought in to it before.
I feel that this discussion has been about many topics, not just the proper use of the term "retard." It has shifted back
and forth, but has kept that as a central theme.
I maintain in a discussion like this no one can ever be truly right
or wrong. All anyone can do is express their opinion. Discussions like this do bring us, as people, closer to accepting everyone
as equals or seeing that we are all parts of the same whole.
It has gotten heated and emotional, but what discussion
like this doesn't?
June 8 at 11:49pm ·
Cicely Rodgers@nick--you posed questions? i went back and read the thread and couldn't
find any....
June 9 at 7:12am ·
Nick JamesIn the below context, in your opinion, it is still offensive? If I call a close
friend retarded, with no intended references to them as a mentally challenged individual, and they understand said intentions,
and they don't infer said intentions on their own, and no mentally challenged individuals are present.
June 9 at 8:24am ·
Cassidy BarnesNick, I find it hard to believe you don't censor yourself. Do you say whatever you
feel like saying to customers? Do you say whatever you want to in an argument with your girlfriend? I like walking around
the house naked but I don't go outside naked because there are social norms against it. My intention to liberate the beautiful
human body is not really the issue. It's the results that happen when I go outside the social norms, however much I tell my
neighbors that I'm showing them my junk with love, they are probably not going to take it that way. Communication is a two-way
street. I can go to Cock Rock or Burning Man and be naked outside. It's a lot more within the social norm, therefore it's
easier for me and the people around me to be comfortable with it. You can say whatever you want in private with friends
who have gotten used to the benign definition of retarded (good luck finding someone who doesn't think of the oppressive definition
at all when they hear it). The whole point of this is to think about how using it in common, casual use like LeBron James
and Will Farrell type movies keeps it alive for oppressive use.
Woah, you just said, "I think everyone else here is
wrong and I am in the right." Of course everyone has opinions. Some are wrong and some are right. Some are destructive when
put into practice and some are trying to help social justice.
June 9 at 12:51pm ·
Cicely Rodgerswell, i wouldn't talk about it as offensive, but yeah, i do. i think it's ableist
and i think it's fuckedup.
June 9 at 12:52pm ·
Peter Ashthanks for those statistics Nick, they really enforce the point that PSAs like this
are sadly necessary
June 9 at 2:56pm ·
Peter Ash"You smoke pot Peter. That is offensive to some people. I don't believe Christ
existed. That is offensive to some people. But just because some people find it offensive doesn't mean it is actually offensive
to everyone. "
I know what it's like to be sober and not smoke weed. I vaguely remember what it's like to believe in
Christ. I don't know what it's like to wake up every day and go to school and get beat up because I'm a 'retard' or have my
parents look at me every day as though I am a miserable symbol of their inadequacies and failures because I am a 'retard'
or to be unable to find any means of supporting myself because I'm just a 'retard' or be thrown into a river by a drunk mob
because I'm some 'retard' or thrown into the street and shoved into the margins of society because I'm a 'retard.' I don't
know what it's like to be lynched or dragged on a chain behind a pick-up truck. I don't know what it's like to work 15 hours
a day and have to choose between buying food or medicine for my sick child. I don't know what it's like to be raped and told
it's all my fault and that I should just avoid my attacker.
This is why I choose what words I use and don't use.
Peter Ash@Cassidy It's cool, what Zizek is saying here is that the 'Left', as it were,
is overly fixated on "political correctness" due to basically an unwillingness to address underlying politico-economic issues.
Basically he's saying that "Postmodern Leftists" have seen political totalitarianism (Mao, Stalin, etc) as the result of the
"predominance of material production and technology" (think Pol Pot, we only need 6million people to build socialism so lets
kill everyone else type stuff) over "intersubjective communication and/or symbolic practice" (society itself basically, but
also things like repression of Gays and Lesbians, etc). The radical idea that Zizek proposes, and he expounds on this further
in "Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism? 5 Essays on the (mis)use of a notion" a book I highly recommend, is that Mao and so
forth failed because they did not "go far enough" and the "sphere of (material) production is denied in its autonomy and subordinated
to political logic"- so by not freeing the "sphere of (material) production" these Mao/Stalin types became just as bad as
the old rulers, often worse. Zizek is bringing this up because it reveals a repressed truth about the 'postmodern leftists'-
they are guilty of mirroring the very thing they analyzed in the totalitarian regimes, that is, elevating "intersubjective
communication and/or symbolic practice" i.e. political correctness, over "material production and technology."
What
does this mean for us today? An example Zizek gives in another excellent book of his "Living in the End Times" is that of
the upper-middle class GLBT community in the Netherlands and the poor and working class Muslim immigrants. Apparently there
has recently been a rash of violence by members of the Muslim community against the GLBT community. The response has been
mainly directed towards the Muslims, with the onus on them to tolerate and accept the GLBTs, which is technically correct-
stop the violence, accept GLBT people, etc. What it ignores is that these immigrants come from countries with brutally repressive
regimes, oftentimes with nothing but the clothes on their back, they're in a foreign land having to work difficult working-class
jobs and now they're being told they have to reject their culture further by the epitome of the infidel. So the upper-middle
class GLBTs sit in their ivory towers, applauding each other's moral courage while working-class Muslims have to be trained
in 'sensitivity' or whatever. Zizek dares the GLBTs of the Netherlands to reach out to the Muslim community and actually build
real connections with people and solidarity in the face of oppression rather than sit in their ivory towers issuing easy moral
pronouncements.
There's a similar situation developing here in Chicago. Flash mobs of poor and working class, predominately
young african american and latino males have been appearing in the wealthy Gold Coast neighborhood and "terrorizing" residents
with violence and unruly behavior. Mayor Rahm Emanuel has promised widespread police crackdowns while the gap between rich
and poor increases....
Do you see that in both instances there is a totalitarian force misguidedly working on curing
the symptom while cynically exacerbating the root cause? In the first, it is the Noble (and correct) impetus of equality and
acceptance. In the second it is good old fashioned police violence any reader of Howard Zinn should be familiar with. The
lesson to take home here is to remember to work harder on good old fashioned community organizing, organizing in solidarity
with labor, talking to people, listening and breaking down oppressive barriers between people.
I think this also kind
of explains where Nick is coming from. I think this whole 'will ferrel bro culture' is in *some* respects a response to the
misguided ineffectiveness of the "Politically Correct Left." I mean, Nick's a good guy n all, I don't see him as some quasi-racist
hold out or whatever, so where does he get these backwards ideas of his? Maybe he sees the totalitarian nature of excessive
political correctness.
June 9 at 6:41pm ·
Nick JamesI thought it was be easier to just copy and paste your postings and respond to them.
So here we go. It will be long.
@Cassidy Nick, I find it hard to believe you don't censor yourself.
Have
you meet me Cassidy? I always say what I think and I don't censor my thoughts before they come out.
Do you say whatever
you feel like saying to customers?
Yup. Some of the things that I say to customers shock even me, but they always laugh.
IT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAY IT'S HOW YOU SAY IT. That is something I don't think you 3 are getting about my side of this discussion.
You can say anything to anyone, so just have to know how to say.
Do you say whatever you want to in an argument with
your girlfriend?
You should probably ask her that, but she will probably say yes. I don't think you could ask Jackie
as we never get in fights, but you could ask my ex-girlfriends and they will probably say yes. It's a fight, of course you
are going to say whatever you want to win, or you are going to say something that will make them win, but will end the argument,
which really makes you win.
(good luck finding someone who doesn't think of the oppressive definition at all when they
hear it)
I don't think it's that hard. I have been asking a lot of people lately if I called them retarded when they
did something stupid if they a) found that offensive and b) thought I was inferring they were a mentally challenged person.
The answer in both cases always came back as a no.
I am not alone in this viewpoint. I am alone in this posting though.
The ones that have viewed this that are on my side said they have not commented because they either were not friends with
you and could not (to which I tell them they should be friends with you Cassidy as you are a nice guy) or as one put it "They
didn't want to start being "unconsciously encouraging oppression" by you 3. He felt that your views were actually oppressing
him.
The whole point of this is to think about how using it in common, casual use like LeBron James and Will Farrell
type movies keeps it alive for oppressive use.
And that's our whole main discussion, except that I don't feel that
the word retard when not used as derogatory term is not offensive.
@Cicely well, i wouldn't talk about it as offensive,
but yeah, i do. i think it's ableist and i think it's fucked up.
And that does back to an earlier statement where I
said that would be hyper-sensitivity. I don't know you Cicely, so I cannot make those judgements.
I feel it is ridiculous
to be offended when it is used by people who do not use it in a derogatory manner and who are not using it in the presence
of someone who could interpret as derogatory.
But that is one of the main points I am trying to make and one that is
being lost on you 3. To be fair a lot of your points are being lost on me. So c'est la vie.
I personally feel that
this discussion has ingrained our previous beliefs on this subject even further and no matter what any of us say we will not
convince the other that they are wrong. So from this point on it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying
nothing.
But I must press on as I have not responded to all of your carefully well thought out postings
@Peter I
don't know what it's like...
What decade are you talking about? This isn't the 1950's or 70's or 90's this is the 2010's.
Yes this stuff still does happen, but on an ever decreasing level and it is not because of not using words that have other
meanings besides a derogatory fashion.
My point word in regards to the word retard is that is does have alternative
meanings that do not have a derogatory meaning associated with them and if you use the word without derogatory meaning attached
to it, it should not and does not cause offensive.
so where does he get these backwards ideas of his? and thanks
for those statistics Nick, they really enforce the point that PSAs like this are sadly necessary
I get these ideas
from the belief that we are free and no one can tell us what to do and how to behave. That PSA, in particular, reconnecting
two different definitions of the word when they have been separating from each other in association. So that video is retarded,
in that it is making a delay in the cultural development of the word.
Now here is where we can start arguing again.
I
feel that by be using the word retard in the fashion that I do I am actually helping the mentally challenged community than
those you say don't use the word at all. For I am encouraging the development and use of a different definition of the word,
one that has a historical association, but not a current association with the mentally challenged community in a derogatory
fashion. By encouraging people to use the word retard in reference to a stupid action and not in an indirect manner referencing
a mentally challenged person you help distance that community from that derogatory term.
Conversely, by constantly
telling people that they cannot use that word at all, not only are you actually oppressing the people using the word, but
you are strengthening the bond between mentally challenged people and the image of them being stupid, which they are anything
but. For the action will always connect them to this word in a negative fashion. As you are hindering people from allowing
them to distance the word from it's previous negative connotation.
Fearing the word will only increase it's power.
Using the word in a different fashion will distance itself from its derogatory past.
And I would like to challenge
all 3 of you to ask anyone when was the last time they called a mentally challenged person retard to their face. I bet it
will be difficult.
Then when you do that ask them if they have ever used the word retard when they are someone they
know did something stupid. And when they say yes, you will see that the word is distancing itself from its previous negative
incarnation.
And you will know I was right all along. :)
June 9 at 7:49pm ·
Peter Ash"What decade are you talking about? This isn't the 1950's or 70's or 90's
this is the 2010's. Yes this stuff still does happen, but on an ever decreasing level and it is not because of not using words
that have other meanings besides a derogatory fashion."
This "stuff" as you call is it happening at an ever decreasing
level in part because of comfortable white people like you and me simply choosing not to use certain words.
"My point
word in regards to the word retard is that is does have alternative meanings that do not have a derogatory meaning associated
with them and if you use the word without derogatory meaning attached to it, it should not and does not cause offensive."
Again,
you have this idiotic notion that other people don't matter when you speak and that whatever "feelings" you decide to put
behind your words is what counts. You have to speak to other people and those other people are deeply affected by the words
you choose in ways that you and I cannot imagine. ACTUALLY STOP AND THINK about the LOGIC you are employing here. In your
world you feel X(warm fuzziness), everytime you say Y. Person A hears Y and feels Z(gloomy badness). Every time you speak
to a Person A, they feel Z when they should feel X and it's somehow their fault?? And this happens every time you speak to
a Person A or someone related to or knows or even fucking cares about a Person A?? DO YOU SEE THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR FUCKING
LOGIC HERE??
"I feel that by be using the word retard in the fashion that I do I am actually helping the mentally challenged
community than those you say don't use the word at all"
You're not.
"For I am encouraging the development and
use of a different definition of the word, one that has a historical association, but not a current association with the mentally
challenged community in a derogatory fashion. By encouraging people to use the word retard in reference to a stupid action
and not in an indirect manner referencing a mentally challenged person you help distance that community from that derogatory
term."
I can make a kite and call it a kike and walk around all day long patting myself on the back for solving the
problem of anti-semitism. Too bad Elie Wiesel and and Anne Frank never thought of that one.
"Conversely, by constantly
telling people that they cannot use that word at all, not only are you actually oppressing the people using the word, but
you are strengthening the bond between mentally challenged people and the image of them being stupid,"
That's simply
not true. By throwing around words like 'kike' and 'retard' you put these groups into a big, amorphous 'Other' category, one
you don't have to deal with or think about. This is the type of thinking that allowed rich Victorians to give to charities
benefiting poor Londoners, but were all for slaughtering Zulus and it's the type of thinking that kept the mentally challenged
locked in closets and beaten.
"For the action will always connect them to this word in a negative fashion. As you are
hindering people from allowing them to distance the word from it's previous negative connotation."
Absolutely incorrect.
You want to distance us from words with previous negative connotations? "Never Forget" was the supreme lesson of the holocaust.
When
I was 16 I spent two weeks on what's called a Camphill community. The residents were both "normal" people like us and mentally
challenged folk. We lived side by side and worked on the farm to the best of each of our abilities. I learned so much about
what it means to be human from these people.
Your logic is hollow, pathetic and utterly self serving Nick. All that
we are asking for on your part is a small piece of action on behalf of people who have had experiences that you can never
and will never experience. You said you admit when you are wrong, but I know this is utter bullshit. Open your fucking eyes
for the love of god.
June 9 at 8:42pm ·
Peter AshOkay, my keyboard's fixed, I got my polemic fix, I'm not going to feed into Nick's
bullshit any more.
June 9 at 8:42pm ·
Nick JamesI feel like we all are just spinning our wheels. We will never see the others side
and we will never feel that the other is right.
One of my points is that you don't go around calling people retard.
I think we can all agree on that.
Where we differ is that the word retard doesn't have to have an association with
the mentally challenged person, and in that context it is not offensive.
And I could say that your argument is oppressive
and self serving on your end as well. I do say when I am wrong, but I am not wrong in this situation. I wish you would open
your eyes to the clarity and understanding I am trying to present, but you won't as we will never see each others side.
And
yes I actually do know what it is like to be around mentally challenged people myself. For the longest time I was considered
to have a learning disability and I do have someone in my family who is mentally challenged. SO you cannot say I do not know
the pain and suffering of a mentally challenged person as I do.
June 9 at 8:43pm ·
Nick JamesIt's not bullshit Peter. It's the truth and the truth will set you free.
June 9 at 8:43pm ·
Peter Ashfuck alright you got me, i will say one last thing
"I feel like we all are
just spinning our wheels. We will never see the others side and we will never feel that the other is right."
This is
the entire crux of the thing Nick James. You are choosing to turn off your brain and just go with whatever you perceive is
your gut instinct. Again, actually THINK and LOOK at the LOGIC that you are using.
June 9 at 8:54pm ·
Nick JamesI have thought about this and it is logically. If offensive is taken from the below
statement the individual is either being hyper-sensitive to a group they probably don't belong to or they are not realizing
that a word can have more than one meaning, and when you use a word you are not using it for all of it's meanings just your
chosen one. Open your mind to that logic.
If I call a close friend retarded, with no intended references to them as
a mentally challenged individual, and they understand said intentions, and they don't infer said intentions on their own,
and no mentally challenged individuals are present to infer offense, it is not offensive.
June 9 at 9:00pm ·
Nick JamesSo far the best logical defense the other side has given to counter that above statement
is basically "ut ah."
June 9 at 9:01pm ·
Cassidy BarnesPeter, thanks for the Zizek stuff. I think I'll stick to Zinn for now, which I'm
just now getting into. I think the main glaring point of "intersubjective communication and/or symbolic practice" over "material
production and technology" in the context of this debate is that WE ARE ON FUCKING FACEBOOK.
Nick, the oppressive definition
continues by thinking of the oppressive definition, not by inferring someone is a mentally challenged person. That is what
matters when calling someone retarded in an intended (and received) benign way. I still contend that it's going to be mighty
hard to find someone who doesn't think of mentally challenged people *however* the word retarded might be used. Until the
word stops being used oppressively, it has oppressive power. And I really don't think people who use it casually are trying
to reclaim it as a word that doesn't oppress mentally challenged people. They are trying to sound edgy. That edge comes from
the oppressive definition.
"ut ah"?
June 9 at 10:44pm ·
Nick JamesCassidy I realized something. This is in essense a Political Debate. We both share
the same view.
The word retard should not be used in a negative way towards mentally challenged people.
Can
we at least agree on that? After that our difference arises on how to accomplish it. Our views are diametrically opposed
which is causing the heated debated.
Your side feels that the word should not be used at all.
My side is that
an alternative definition should be encouraged.
In this context we are both right because our intentions are the same.
We just differ on how effective the others view is.
I feel this idea here may be the best way to resolve our conflict.
June 9 at 11:05pm ·
Cassidy BarnesNo, our intentions aren't the same because you intend to still use the word retarded
and I don't. But I do want to stop arguing. Thanks for the stimulating conversation. I assume you won't be at the 24 Hour
play tomorrow night?
June 9 at 11:13pm ·
Nick JamesWhat? I didn't even know that was happening. I am very much out of the PCC loop
nowadays. I want to but I have to wake at 5am. I can't stay awake that long. From 5am Friday to 11pm Saturday. Dang it.
June 9 at 11:24pm ·
Peter Ashok maybe my rhetoric can get a little heated. im sorry.
June 10 at 9:24pm ·
Peter Ash@cassidy yeah.... he uses big words and phrases because it's all kind of
complicated im still learning about this stuff... zizek has a lot to say about the internet and how it affects the private
ownership of the means of production
June 10 at 9:26pm ·
Nick JamesPeter it is a hot topic. We all got emotional. I have known you all to long to change
the way I think of you just because we disagree on one subject and I hope the same is felt by you.
But it was probably
the longest thread of comments I have ever been a part of. Good job us and ay least that.
So lets all put down the
hate and start picking up some love.
Political Correctness is an attempt to convey this message but it does so by telling people what to think and how to behave but only in pre-chosen ways. That is bullshit and something I will always oppose.
When someone says not to say or do something simply because it offends someone I always deliberately do the opposite. You can't force respect. Videos like this are forcing you to believe a certain way not by choice but by guilt.
Guilt is fear of others not loving you by choosing an opposing belief or action. Fear is always the worst course of action.
If the video had a message of love and not forced guilt I would like it. But it doesn't.