The moral case against equity language

Re:The moral case against equity language by ok_dad on Thursday March 02, 2023 @03:39PM (#35001711)

> I causally used the "r-word" and didn't even think anything of it

You casually called someone a "retard" (I assume that's the word) and someone took that wrongly? Of course they did! Even when "retard" was an acceptable put-down, it was still a put-down.

Maybe the way to avoid the "minefield" you speak of is to not put others down? Even deservedly! Just try to be nicer to everyone, even if they are not, themselves, nice.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The moral case against equity language by sertsa on Thursday March 02, 2023 @11:18PM (#35005759)

I've never thought of retarded as a putdown, it was just the sound used to describe a certain group of people. Be careful assuming you are in possession of the one true way.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The moral case against equity language by SyzygistSix on Friday March 03, 2023 @06:54AM (#35008357)

There is a difference. Retarded was used to describe a person's condition. It means slow. Retard the noun was more a slur or put down.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The moral case against equity language by ok_dad on Friday March 03, 2023 @02:24PM (#35013889)

> I've never thought of retarded as a putdown

You may be one of the few, in that case. Good! Other people might not understand that about you if you used that word around them.

[ Parent | on HN ]