There’s a clear campaign against the mentally ill with the global rise of fascism. Lots of it shows up in anti homeless rhetoric, but you can see it in the MAHA and anti vaccination movements.
There’s no reason to use the word “r-tarded” to describe someone. As someone who’s worked with the intellectually challenged, it’s an insult to them to compare them with people who are willfully ignorant.
Well, yeah. There may not be a word in those languages with the same connotations, and yeah, obviously I wouldn’t understand them if there were. But all language is contextual. We’re currently talking about english - and I’m specifically talking about United States English because that is what I speak.
Censorship wouldn’t be my choice - and in any case I believe what’s being advocated for here by the OP is social disapproval - but yeah, in the context of the internet I would refrain from using words that could hurt people when it was not my intention to hurt them.
Around strangers, coworkers, or really anyone you don’t know well a similar policy would tend to apply. Even with friends, I wouldn’t want to encourage a culture of being callous with the words I use.
There are so many other ways to express whatever sentiment you’re trying to express, why would you reach for a word that implies that some people are less than others? I’m referring to it in its use as an insult or derogatory word, of course, since technical language has its place and institutions will generally choose whatever language fits their needs. I can’t assess their situation because I’m not involved.
I think we are arguing the same thing. Don’t be mean or an asshole. Don’t look down on people. People regardless of ability should be treated as people.
Of course you shouldnt use it as an insult or derogatory word. I was totally not arguing for that. I was just saying that if you wanted to be insulting or derogatory the word itself doesn’t matter. The change to r-word doesn’t change anything. The question “are you r-worded?” should be just as offensive.
We have down this many times. Stupid, invalid, ibecil all had similar meanings and then were made offensive and a new word was made up, then that became offensive.
The word itself is meaningless, it’s the context and intent.
One thing I just thought of that I would agree with is changing it from an identifier to attribute. What I mean is a person should not “be r-word-Ed” but should be do you “have r-word-ism?” it shouldn’t define a person, but a description of an aspect is different. Like you may have the flu but your not a “fluer” or you might have epilepsy but you may also be a mechanic or pianist or physicist it’s a part but should not define you.
This feels pointlessly pendantic. I don’t think anyone here has argued in favor of using a censored version of the word in place of an uncensored one in speech as an insult but has been talking about using it all versus not using it, so in that context, yes, the word very much matters. Choosing to use a censored version of the word is still choosing to use the word.
Well then I think we’re pretty far off topic from what the OP was talking about. Lots of people use the r word, and other similar words, as general insults or derogatory words. And that’s not OK, since it implies that it’s bad to have a condition you couldn’t control and didn’t choose.
As for clinical settings, I’m sure they have their own rules about how to talk both to and about people. I can’t speak to that, as I’m not in any of those settings.
And when in my personal life I refer to people with mental disabilities, I’m sure there are both kinder and more specific ways to describe someone’s situation.