Feels like you’re cutting that a bit thin.

In any case, my experience (and - probably - the context of my cultural upbringing) was that the word was used to both denigrate people with developmental disabilities and to degrade those who did not. This wasn’t calling someone a “loser”. This was using an immutable characteristic of someone’s personhood against them and attacking others by asserting a resemblance.

Wait I’m misunderstand you, right? Reading your comment it almost seems like yours saying that the r word isn’t a slur or isn’t that bad of one?! It’s a word that takes a whole class of people and uses them as an insult when talking about other people.

Are you seriously going to try to pull some narrow technical originalist definition to argue that in this specific edition of this specific dictionary it defines “slur” as being about ethnicity and thus that word can’t be a “slur” bc it effects a class of people that isn’t a specific ethnicity?

If retarded is a slur, then so is moron, idiot, imbecile, cretin and other past accepted medical terminology for the cognitively disabled that were adopted by the public as slurs. If you look up the history, "mentally retarded" was itself coined to escape the negative connotations of those previous terms. It's unfortunate but inevitable that referents to the cognitively disabled will continue to be abused, no matter what they are.

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make; thanks for articulating it well. Idiot was a clinical designation for those with IQs between 0 and 25; imbecile, 26 to 50; and moron, 51 to 70. Stupid originated to refer to retarded people, too. And yet, these words are benign enough for kids to use. Why are these somehow "less offensive" than retard? I use it the same way I would any of the former, and have ever since I was a schoolboy. It doesn't carry any more sting than those others, and is most definitely not a slur.

'mint2: I can't reply to your post, but despite the 'ThrowawayR2 account name, his account is five years old with four thousand points. Ironically, the only way in which he could pacify you is to create a new account and post from that instead.

His account is literally named throw away “r2” in a thread where people are talking about “the r word”. I made the mistake of assuming that account is a throwaway... did you notice what his account was named?

While what you say about the account is true, it’s literally called a throw away. Even with the age, it’s questionable whether it’s an alt account. But yes my bad. I was misled by the misleading name.

Because so many deny it’s a slur, before just defending how you feel about it, please read some material from the effected groups. https://www.specialolympics.org/stories/impact/why-the-r-wor...

Under your definition the word cripple would also be a slur.

When we get to that point, we've lost the forest for the trees.

You could say the same for any pejorative, imagine if xyz was a treated as a slur, we’d have lost the forest for the trees.

And yes, if you said “don’t be a cripple” to your friend and a guy physical disability overheard it, how do you think that would make them feel? Why would you want to arbitrarily hurt someone, twisting a verbal knife, just to razz your friend.

I think it lessons other, more hurtful, words that are used as slurs.

Look, we should be polite and not use offensive words, but be consistent. The referenced word is rude and offensive but in no way the same room as words that have resulted in lynching, genocide, systematic oppression.

If we want to go all polite and ban all “slurs” then we’ll be getting butthurt over calling someone “stupid” or “idiot.” And of course I’ve worked with people who are upset at any foul language and even blasphemy.

Are we going to get to a point that major reporters are thinking it’s attention worthy to say someone says “Goddammit?”

Arguing over whether that’s as offensive as another word just a matter of time and we are experiencing a slippery slope.

Either we’re going to get offended by everything and live in China/Disneyworld where there’s never offense, or we’re going to stop getting hysterical over unimportant things and use that attention to fight real, difficult, systematic problems.

> Just because you’ve heard the word and are used to it, and maybe used it without your bubble caring, doesn’t mean it’s less hurtful than other words.

This is not accurate about how much I’ve heard and am familiar, or used it, or my bubble. It’s kind of astoundingly wrong to the point that it makes me wonder why you would assume that about a stranger.

Also weird how you think to know how hurtful some words are vs others like you have some clue into how to quantify the pain caused by words.

I wish I could achieve such knowledge and confidence as you express here, with some certainty that I wasn’t an idiot.

Also, I wasn’t around in the 50s so not sure how 50s white (or non-white as well I suppose) complained about not being able to say certain words. It seems to me that people in the 50s didn’t limit their speech too much and one of the improvements we’ve made is that there’s less callous and hurtful speech spoken.

> This is not accurate about how much I’ve heard and am familiar, or used it, or my bubble. It’s kind of astoundingly wrong to the point that it makes me wonder why you would assume that about a stranger.

Because your posts are saying/implying the r word is less hurtful or offensive than other now taboo words. That is the reason I infer you are more familiar and comfortable with the word than the other taboo words. Is that really a strange conclusion?

And you say “also weird how you think think you know how some words are vs others”. Isn’t that the core of your argument as well? So you get to judge whether the word is offensive, but I don’t?

And one doesn’t have to be alive during the civil rights movement to know many average Americans found it objectionable they couldn’t use whatever language they grew up using, as if that prior use made terminologies that should never have been acceptable, acceptable

Since when is retard taboo? Stupid, idiot, etc. reference the same thing and aren't taboo. Are those offensive? And if so, how does one insult others by implying that his mental faculties are lesser? I refuse to relegate my vocabulary to such a pathetic, anodyne, bowdlerized version that I cannot insult someone.

Are you dead set in your ways or are you open minded enough to be willing to research a few different perspectives. Please at least research a few more opinions on the term by both groups okay and opposed to it.

Here’s one to start you off: https://www.specialolympics.org/stories/impact/why-the-r-wor...

Your analogy makes no sense. I don’t know what else to say. It flat out makes no sense.

it's not an analogy.

Well it’s clear whatever point you were making was completely opaque, at least to the person you posted it to. Since it’s opaque, why are you surprised I called it something different than you had in mind? instead of clarifying what I very clearly stated did not make any sense, you posted a terse reply that provided no explanation as to what you actually meant.