The problem is how you're using that word. You're using a word that is used to describe actual people in your search for a "vicious" word. Would you feel as comfortable swapping that word out for a different slur targeting a different demographic?

Your anger at Stripe is reasonable, why are you belittling an entirely unrelated set of people in your attempt to express that anger?

For what it's worth, when I was a kid, I objected to the idea that I was legally compelled to attend public school, I did and do believe it is unconstitutional on a number of grounds and thus I refused to participate. In retaliation they placed me in special education classes and I spent my time in school being called a retard by the other kids on a daily basis. I'm not offended.

It seems like you're saying "people used to incorrectly think I was part of a marginalized community, but I wasn't, so it doesn't really bother me".

Isn't the whole problem with being in a marginalized community that people treat you differently? If people ran around calling you the N word on a daily basis would it be a comfort to you that you aren't actually black?

That's certainly not the "whole" problem, no.

Even if it were though, it seems obvious being on the receiving of that slur would have significantly less impact on you, as it didn't actually target anything you saw as part of your identity. I don't see how your experience puts you in a position to absolve others for their use of the term.

Personally, I think we should give significantly more weight to folks who are actually in the impacted community (those with intellectual disabilities, their loved ones, etc). The vast majority of whom _do_ object to the use of the word as a derogatory slur.

To be fair at no point have any of the educational experts or administration ever claimed that I am not retarded. It was never retracted I simply left school when I was older. If we trust the experts on this I'm severely handicapped. Who's to say I'm not a retard?

> as it didn't actually target anything you saw as part of your identity

The parent comment already covered this. You don't believe you are, based on how you've talked about this experience. At no point do you say you identify with the word, just that it was used against you.

By this logic, wouldn't people the state labeled as felons, who don't believe they are guilty, be unable to speak about discrimination against felons, even though they personally experienced it at both a institutional and societal level?

A felon is someone who's been convicted of a felony, so you're still a felon even if you're (really) not guilty of the crime.

They replied to a comment that mentioned the word by explaining their experience, so they identified in some capacity.

> I spent my time in school being called a retard by the other kids on a daily basis

> If we trust the experts on this I'm severely handicapped.

I mean they themselves basically said they do not identify with it:

> If people ran around calling you the N word on a daily basis would it be a comfort to you that you aren't actually black?

Special education you got is not reserved for those diagnosed with retardation. You did not even said that you was diagnosed with retardation.

The other kids who called you retard are not experts in this particular diagnosis.

I get your frustration here, but keep in mind: your use of that word is not harming Stripe any more than alternatives you could use, but it does harm an unrelated and oppressed group.

What harm does it do?

People with developmental disabilities should not be accused of acting like cold-hearted shareholder maximizing sociopaths?

How would you define adult humor? Surely we have some latitude to be a little off color without being straight up racist, (blank)phobic, and vile? We aren’t kids, we have somewhat of a sophisticated ability to be at another level of sarcasm, humor and dark humor.

Re-read my comment. You may be missing something

People who are overweight should not be accused of being similar to corporations that misallocate and overspend (i.e. fat corporation, bloated spending, etc.).

Anemic, impotent, bald, and on and on.

Language is abstract. Some conditions are generally disfavored. Referencing that disfavor abstractly can be meaningful.

Come now. At the root of all of this is an ableist, patronizing assumption: People with mental disabilities must have the language used around them carefully policed because they can't handle the implied disfavor and emotional harm that language may communicate via their own agency, not like the rest of us.

You can’t please everybody but it would take you literally 5 seconds to go in and change that word, and you knew going into it that it was inflammatory and disrespectful to a swath of people and yet still chose to use it.

And it’s not like you didn’t fix another thing someone pointed out, either.

In any case, be better.

He's fine. Perhaps you shouldn't police people's language whether it takes 5 seconds or not.

This always cracks me up. Handicap, disabled, retard, and on and on. The origins of the latest epithet in vogue are harmless. But as soon as a term gets co-opted as an insult, we all agree to ditch it. And why? From what I can tell it's just to placate folks that would like to pretend Darwin doesn't exist. Reminds me of my two favorite quotes from The Office:

"There is one person in charge of every office in America, and that person is Charles Darwin..."

"You don’t call retarded people retards. It’s bad taste. You call your friends retards when they are acting retarded."

> the latest epithet in vogue

These don't happen because they're fun fashion choices. They happen because people are becoming aware. The dynamics may resemble whimsy, but it's more than aesthetics underlying.

Can we abstractly use the terms "bald," "stupid," "fat," "anemic," or "impotent" abstractly and negatively?

All describe generally disfavored conditions folks don't have much control over. Referencing that disfavor abstractly doesn't bring it into being. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

This isn't about awareness in my opinion. We're pretending status doesn't exist. We're assuming folks with some condition will be offended and won't be able to handle those emotions with their own agency, so we're patronizing them by carefully policing language. That is, in my opinion, as ableist as it gets.

"The origins of the latest epithet in vogue are harmless." The origin of the word is irrelevant. Words mean things and can be harmful, regardless of the origin of the word. The meaning and context of words can change over time, regardless of the origin of the word.

Bringing Charles Darwin into the conversation does not help your point.

"Is it worse to have some condition of your birth used as a casual insult -- a reminder of your misfortune? Or is it worse to be constantly patronized, often behind your back by throngs offended on your behalf?"

This is a false trade-off. The whole conversation started because someone used a harmful word, knowing full well it was harmful. If they refrained from using the offensive word they knew was offensive neither condition would have happened (casual insult or patronization).

Are the terms "bald," "stupid," "fat," "anemic," or "impotent" harmful when used abstractly and negatively?

Come now. At the root of all of this is an ableist, patronizing assumption: People with mental disabilities must have the language used around them carefully policed because they can't handle the implied disfavor and emotional harm that language may communicate via their own agency, not like the rest of us.

It's hypocritical virtue signaling.

Who are you to say they're fine or not?

It's clearly controversial, and the commenter very well knew it would be before they commented, and after they got the replies they did.

It takes less time than it took for them to reply justifying their choice. As I said, be better.

Who are you to say to be better? Policing people's language doesn't make you better, it just makes you feel better. Entirely performative just like woke people using "Latinx" when 90% of Hispanic people preferring they didn't[0].

[0] https://archive.ph/UONL2

I’m officially an adult, not a young adult, definitely not a kid. I’d be a little careful around kids with that word, and certainly parents with children that may be dealing with it. Kids struggling with a shortcoming and having other kids attack it can be hard.

I like to think we’re not kids here, and some level of off color talk can be somewhat interpreted as humor at best, sardonic, sarcastic, dark humor, and at worst, appropriately inappropriate - as in, we aren’t kids, and I hope you got me.

So for example, let’s not worry that I used the word, because those who are truly retarded are actually retarded enough to not be offended. Imagine if you took what I just literally. Or did I say it to make a point?

What is adult levity, I guess, is my question? What is non pc, non safe for work (within reason) conversation, among adults? Is it a constant “watch what you just said, but I won’t even consider the context of it”.

Adults also know what tact is and what is considered socially appropriate and not. You don't have to be a kid to not be needlessly insulting to a wide swath of people just to show it to a company who isn't going to read or care about what you said.

Use of terms like “be better” or “do better” arouses far more resistance in people than the original use of slurs. What leads you to believe you’re endowed with moral authority to tell strangers to be better?