You mean you didn't know that retardation is used to describe people with an IQ below 70? That physicians have to make this distinction to determine the proper care for said individuals?
That and bits of some other posts makes me think you've been looking up Wikipedia again!!!!!
I agree with you 100% sponger, that it boils down to context. I saw that you were validating the original posters experience with your usage of the word. Your intent was clear to me and I did not see it as insulting. Therefore I can understand you finding it offensive that others were chastizing you for what they were obviously not understanding.
I also see that you got yourself into trouble beyond that by being insensitive to the feelings of others. That's why sensitivity is an important issue--when it's not being practiced, the subject matter gets very muddled.
Ultimately, I agree with you, sponger. Despite the ugly stigma of the word, retarded is a valid word in many scholarly sources, because behind the stigma, the word is a word that describes something validly, no matter how offended people are. People's value judgments of the word are SUBJECTIVE, and therefore cannot effectively change the objective meaning of the word. Granted, it can colour and distort the meaning, and has done so.
Dictionary.com alone has numerous valid meanings of the word that were not mentioned in this thread:
ie: To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede.
To be delayed.
Occurring or developing later than desired or expected; delayed.
A slowing down or hindering of progress; a delay.
slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development : characterized by mental retardation
characterized by retardation: a retarded child.
–noun
(used with a plural verb) mentally retarded persons collectively (usually prec. by the): new schools for the retarded.
—Synonyms backward, disabled, handicapped.
If people have a personal judgment on this word saying it is "bad", I respect that. I also expect others to respect that I don't have that judgment and no amount of grandstanding or crying "bad" or "wrong" can implant an intention upon me that I do not have. BOTH "sides" require sensitivity and respect, or else both sides fight a losing battle.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Otherwise, we'll end up in this horribly inefficient and impractical situation where we have to keep changing words or even just not have a word.
Evolution of the language... that's what it is.
Tell me Sponger...if you had a child with an IQ lower than 70... would you go around saying he is retarded (with all its connotations and the reactions you may get from people like sadscaryguy has to deal with on a daily basis) or would you rather say he has difficulties (or any other more sensible word)...?
That link that you provided does not subscribe to your notion of using "sever" learning impairment, only using "learning disability" instead. So, why post a link that you do not share your views with?
Besides, there are varying levels of retardation, so under your suggestion, we would have to say "severe severe learning disability" or "mild severe learning disability".
Again, impractical. But, I appreciate the opportunity to illustrate this to you.
You are nitpicking for the sake of it! I talk to people such as youth workers and disability charities about disabled young people for work and these are the terms they use, including severe. They would NEVER use the word retarded, spastic or anything. The link was not satisfactory enough I know because it was just an outline of the terms that are not acceptable anymore. A lot of it is based on what disabled people themselves feel about the terms and what they'd prefer to be called or used. But the people I speak to are what informs my views, and I happen to agree with them.
Tell me, what informs YOUR views? I do not accept the AAMR as a source because of their use of the word. Post me some links from the medical world where professionals describe people with severe learning disabilities as "retarded".
"We have to change the concept of patriotism to one of “matriotism” — love of humanity that transcends war. A matriarch would never send her own children off to wars that kill other people’s children." Cindy Sheehan --- London, Brixton, 14 July 1993 London, Wembley, 1996 London, Wembley, 18 June 2007 London, O2, 18 August 2009 London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012 Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 06 June 2017
At any rate, "nigger" is not a technical term. Nor has it ever been. It is perfectly possible to give reference to a black person without using the word "nigger"
I'm not sure you're completely correct. When this word was used, it was commonly accepted as a way of categorising people who were black. It was a technical term used by scientists, layfolk, the religious and the slave trade to describe people who these figures in authority saw as 'different' and displaying impairment. Our attitude changed, and so the word had to.
Your argument that it is impossible to describe these learning difficulties as anything else but 'retarded' is just weak. All you have to do to find out what words people use for these types of learning impairments is read.
As a sidenote, it is very easy to lump everyone with a learning disability in together as 'retarded'. It is a LOT harder to learn about every individual disability as distinct from one another; they all have different names and descriptions, sponger. Ah who cares, 'retarded' just about covers 'em.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
I'm not sure you're completely correct. When this word was used, it was commonly accepted as a way of categorising people who were black. It was a technical term used by scientists, layfolk, the religious and the slave trade to describe people who these figures in authority saw as 'different' and displaying impairment. Our attitude changed, and so the word had to.
The word nigger was replaced with terms more specific, and therefore more practical. "Black" and "African-American" are even more descriptive than "nigger", so the analogy still does not liken to the situation with "retarded". A more specific term is not in use.
Your argument that it is impossible to describe these learning difficulties as anything else but 'retarded' is just weak. All you have to do to find out what words people use for these types of learning impairments is read.
Currently, there is no other word that describes a person with an IQ below 70 that isn't also used for people who have IQ's above 70.
As a sidenote, it is very easy to lump everyone with a learning disability in together as 'retarded'. It is a LOT harder to learn about every individual disability as distinct from one another; they all different names and descriptions, sponger. Ah who cares, 'retarded' just about covers 'em.
I'm not the one lumping everyone with a learning disability together as being "retarded". I'm referring to retardation as a term used to describe a specific set of criteria that goes beyond what the term "learning disability" can describe.
I'm not the one lumping everyone with a learning disability together as being "retarded". I'm referring to retardation as a term used to describe a specific set of criteria that goes beyond what the term "learning disability" can describe.
OK, so have we found the crux of the issue? I would really like to know how 'retarded' is a better and more accurate descriptor than 'learning disability' please. Educate me.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
Tell me Sponger...if you had a child with an IQ lower than 70... would you go around saying he is retarded (with all its connotations and the reactions you may get from people like sadscaryguy has to deal with on a daily basis) or would you rather say he has difficulties (or any other more sensible word)...?
OK, so have we found the crux of the issue? I would really like to know how 'retarded' is a better and more accurate descriptor than 'learning disability' please. Educate me.
A "learning disability" is apparently what you seem to have. "Retarded" might be too much of a stretch.
Im glad to see that you guys managed to turn this thread into a pissing match about use of the word retarded. and someones going to quote this and get pissed off because i dared to even type the word retarded.
Inoffensive use...
There is nothing wrong with using the word in discussion, especially when the afflicted used the word as well. "They make me feel retarded"- "well, are you retarded". That goes for stupid, funny, goofy or drunk... repeating the word should not be considerded offensive, and anyone who is offended in that situation is just looking for something to whine about.
A "learning disability" is apparently what you seem to have. "Retarded" might be too much of a stretch.
You didn't answer my question. Nice. Can you answer my question?
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
You didn't answer my question. Nice. Can you answer my question?
I did answer your question. When making an assessment about a person's mental facilities, you don't deem it important to know if whether or not that person is either suffering from a "learning disability" or is mentally retarded?
In the case of you needing my point of view repeated to you over and over and over, one can come to the conclusion that you just have a learning disability. With that in mind, I can reasonably assume that enough explanation will eventually lead to your understanding.
On the other hand, if your responses were just outright incoherent and lacking almost completely in relevance, I would not even bother trying to explain. Instead, I would say, "OK, whatever you say. You're probably right." I would assume that you were retarded or maybe really drunk. You would then have my deepest sympathies.
These types of distinctions are important. There is a major difference between someone who has a mere learning disability and who is mentally retarded. Why would you think they should be treated as though they are the same?
ADD is a learning disability. Would you conclude that ritalin is a prescription for retardation? Obviously not. Dyslexia is a learning disability. Does that mean a dyslexic person is going to have an extremely difficult time performing even the simplest daily functions? Obviously not. A distinction has to be made just as a distinction is made between the varying levels of severities that exist between all types of afflictions.
Calling a person a retard=bad=calling someone stupid=insulting =offensive
Mental retardation= a real thing=Mentally handicap=mental disorder meeting certain conditions
I think that it is retarded how non-offensive words get turned into gay terms used by all these bitch mother fucks that act like complete jack-asses as they twist their shit gurgling language into meaning anything offensive that they can think of thus ruining the non-offensive usage of the word completely..........bitches
Well if they all use the same terms its no wonder the term is in such proliferation in the states. One of those links even acknowledges its derogatory aspect! Doesn’t say it should be avoided though, which I consider negligent. And just because they all use it it doesn’t stop it from being a derogatory word because of the way it is used against people with disabilities. Really, organizations like that ought to know better. In Britain I think maybe people are a bit more ahead.
"We have to change the concept of patriotism to one of “matriotism” — love of humanity that transcends war. A matriarch would never send her own children off to wars that kill other people’s children." Cindy Sheehan --- London, Brixton, 14 July 1993 London, Wembley, 1996 London, Wembley, 18 June 2007 London, O2, 18 August 2009 London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012 Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 06 June 2017
I did answer your question. When making an assessment about a person's mental facilities, you don't deem it important to know if whether or not that person is either suffering from a "learning disability" or is mentally retarded?
In the case of you needing my point of view repeated to you over and over and over, one can come to the conclusion that you just have a learning disability. With that in mind, I can reasonably assume that enough explanation will eventually lead to your understanding.
On the other hand, if your responses were just outright incoherent and lacking almost completely in relevance, I would not even bother trying to explain. Instead, I would say, "OK, whatever you say. You're probably right." I would assume that you were retarded or maybe really drunk. You would then have my deepest sympathies.
These types of distinctions are important. There is a major difference between someone who has a mere learning disability and who is mentally retarded. Why would you think they should be treated as though they are the same?
ADD is a learning disability. Would you conclude that ritalin is a prescription for retardation? Obviously not. Dyslexia is a learning disability. Does that mean a dyslexic person is going to have an extremely difficult time performing even the simplest daily functions? Obviously not. A distinction has to be made just as a distinction is made between the varying levels of severities that exist between all types of afflictions.
The same reason people who are black and white should be treated as though they are the same. Equality. We are all humans. We are the same.
You just basically told me I have a learning disability just because I don't agree with you. Symptomatic of an American epidemic. You HAVE to keep the term 'retardation' because your country has this intrinsic need to create categories in which it lumps groups of people together and seperates them.
You're just prejudiced, and you need to hold on to a 'scientific' justification of your prejudice.
You still haven't told me why 'retarded' is any more specific than 'severe learning disabilities'. Have you forgotten?
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
You HAVE to keep the term 'retardation' because your country has this intrinsic need to create categories in which it lumps groups of people together and seperates them.
LOL, What country doesn't do this? Maybe you should say "The world" has this intrinsic need to create categories in which it lumps groups of people together and seperates them. That would be less prejudiced against my country :P
LOL, What country doesn't do this? Maybe you should say "The world" has this intrinsic need to create categories in which it lumps groups of people together and seperates them. That would be less prejudiced against my country :P
OK, fair point Of course this isn't specific to America. I'm using hyperbole.
'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'
Well if they all use the same terms its no wonder the term is in such proliferation in the states. One of those links even acknowledges its derogatory aspect! Doesn’t say it should be avoided though, which I consider negligent. ... In Britain I think maybe people are a bit more ahead.
If people are "a bit more ahead" in England, why does the BBC, the national news source that is internationally well-known, refer openly and unapologetically to "mental retardation"?
http://www.aamr.org/
Note that the link I put up, talks about the need to get away from the term "mental retardation."
"Effective January 1, 2007 AAMR will officially become the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD).
The name change was approved by our members this last year, and we are currently working to develop a new look for the organization that matches the new name. With this change we join other similar organizations who have made the decision to move away fro the term "mental retardation" (MR.) in the organization name, and to replace it with the term "Intellectual Disability" (ID)."
You're just prejudiced, and you need to hold on to a 'scientific' justification of your prejudice.
Do you think I am prejudiced, too? I've openly stated in this thread that, yes, I understand people can find the word "retarded" offensive. They are justified in having whatever subjective opinion and reaction they have and sometimes, maybe many times, it's entirely valid. At the same time, all the personal subjective opinion in the world has not yet changed the numerous objective dictionary definitions of the word.
Therefore, the word still stands as valid, despite people's opinions of it. Reams of people trying to muscle it out of existence is just that. And yet, the word is still objectively valid.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
http://www.aamr.org/
Note that the link I put up, talks about the need to get away from the term "mental retardation."
"Effective January 1, 2007 AAMR will officially become the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD).
The name change was approved by our members this last year, and we are currently working to develop a new look for the organization that matches the new name. With this change we join other similar organizations who have made the decision to move away fro the term "mental retardation" (MR.) in the organization name, and to replace it with the term "Intellectual Disability" (ID)."
I completely agree with what is being done here...moving in a new direction with a new name is a productive measure.
However, that's not even remotely what is happening in this thread. People are actually telling other people to not use the word; they are condescending to America in general for finding the word appropriate in certain situations, etc. And they are confusing their personal interpretations of another person's intent as actually being that person's intent AND then there is the justifying of their own poor behaviour based on their own personal judgments. Partaking in such behaviours is entirely different than productively leading the way by good example. Degrading another person or country in varying ways trying to get one's own preference to "win out", including using social "muscle" to back them up is a far cry from positive leadership. You get what you give.
I think if one expects sensitivity, one must give it out themselves. And if one uses destructive measures, one is actually detrimental to their own cause. Live and learn.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
If people are "a bit more ahead" in England, why does the BBC, the national news source that is internationally well-known, refer openly and unapologetically to "mental retardation"?
"Mental deterioration leading to severe mental retardation"
Well, that's the media for you! Whoever said the media was the bastion of all that is right and good in the world?!
"We have to change the concept of patriotism to one of “matriotism” — love of humanity that transcends war. A matriarch would never send her own children off to wars that kill other people’s children." Cindy Sheehan --- London, Brixton, 14 July 1993 London, Wembley, 1996 London, Wembley, 18 June 2007 London, O2, 18 August 2009 London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012 Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 06 June 2017
Well, that's the media for you! Whoever said the media was the bastion of all that is right and good in the world?!
Maybe you can understand how a sweeping generalization like "In Britain I think maybe people are a bit more ahead." is something easily shown to be highly relative, not to mention condescending, considering one is putting another entire nation "behind" one's own. It's not the best persuasive technique in an argument, imho. And frankly, when people talk down to me (and I'm Canadian, by the way), I recognize that they are coming from an imbalanced rather than realistic and balanced position.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
There is a difference between the word retardation and mental retardation. Mental retardation is still considered to be the medical terminology for those with mental impairment, however, the medical field is beginning to get away from this terminology due to the derogatory use of the word retardation. Retardation is not considered to be a socially acceptable word anymore. So to those who belive that it is, I'm just saying that it's no longer that way. Those who have difficulties mentally would prefer the words "developmentally challenged", "mentally challenged", or "developmentally disabled", among others. "Special Needs" is even now being considered to not being used in a positive light.
So, technically, the medical institutions and the media aren't completely wrong...since "mental retardation" is still deemed technically acceptable. But we're moving in a more appropriate direction.
I feel that persons like Sponger would learn a lot out from a Sensitivity class and it really should be mandatory for all those that think like him.
Not to mention...how do you think PJ feels about those w/ mental impairments? I mean we're all on these forums because we're big fans. They give a lot of their time and money to important causes, children being one of them. I hardly am able to visualize any of those guys using indecent words towards those who are different than the rest of us. And that's what it really boils down to. Respect for those who are different.
Don't turn this into 'You are an enemy of America' crap. You realise how stupid that sounds? I don't hate America, I hate ignorance.
In the UK we stopped using the word 'retard/retarded/retardation' at roughly the same time we all stopped using the word 'nigger'.
But you just used the N word. Without intending any disrespect to anyone. Within THAT CONTEXT, its acceptable, at the very least to you. You have simply proven sponger's original point. He used the word retarded, in reference to someone eles's problems being called that word. And Jean jumped down his throat.
I feel that persons like Sponger would learn a lot out from a Sensitivity class and it really should be mandatory for all those that think like him.
Maybe we should also make it mandatory for those who prefer sensitivity over logic to take logic classes, too, out of fairness. It is not fair to expect someone to understand your perspective and to think like you when you are unwilling to understand theirs. Sensitivity is a two way street. Such issues can be resolved when people show a willingness to meet in a middle. Again, forcing someone to your view doesn't really actually work. And a penchant for using force is a clear sign that one does not have more civilized problem solving methods.
Not to mention...how do you think PJ feels about those w/ mental impairments? I mean we're all on these forums because we're big fans. They give a lot of their time and money to important causes, children being one of them. I hardly am able to visualize any of those guys using indecent words towards those who are different than the rest of us. And that's what it really boils down to. Respect for those who are different.
I don't know about others, but I'd like to think that Pearl Jam supports and values reasoned debate as a means of furthering understanding of a cause. I also like to believe that they support dissention and the right for all groups--liked or not--to have their perspective heard so that true resolution can be found on issues. Although I can't say that I know for sure.
People learn individually in their own unique ways. Some people are "behind" on issues, maybe developmentally, OR perhaps with their sensitivity--it's about how we're wired. Others are advanced in varying ways. If we don't show tolerance and respect to one another for our differences, we will find we are not shown tolerance and respect back. We can blame others all we want, but problem solving takes two sides.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Maybe we should also make it mandatory for those who prefer sensitivity over logic to take logic classes, too, out of fairness. It is not fair to expect someone to understand your perspective and to think like you when you are unwilling to understand theirs. Sensitivity is a two way street. Such issues can be resolved when people show a willingness to meet in a middle. Again, forcing someone to your view doesn't really actually work. And a penchant for using force is a clear sign that one does not have more civilized problem solving methods.
When there's nothing but misunderstanding, and an inability to meet in the middle, there is no resolution, like you said. And unfortunately when one side is unwilling to at least try to understand, then forget it. It's hard for me to understand someone who regards the R word as no big deal, when I hear nothing but hate from it every day. I'm around the disabled every day, so excuse me for being a bit sensitive to their needs. Try to be in their shoes for once. Try being called the "R" word or being picked on by peers, and then tell me that logic is as important as sensitivity. They just want to be treated like everyone else, to be included. Not singled out.
People learn individually in their own unique ways. Some people are "behind" on issues, maybe developmentally, OR perhaps with their sensitivity--it's about how we're wired. Others are advanced in varying ways. If we don't show tolerance and respect to one another for our differences, we will find we are not shown tolerance and respect back. We can blame others all we want, but problem solving takes two sides.
Agreed. I will try to be more tolerant of those not in the know.
When there's nothing but misunderstanding, and an inability to meet in the middle, there is no resolution, like you said. And unfortunately when one side is unwilling to at least try to understand, then forget it. It's hard for me to understand someone who regards the R word as no big deal, when I hear nothing but hate from it every day. I'm around the disabled every day, so excuse me for being a bit sensitive to their needs. Try to be in their shoes for once. Try being called the "R" word or being picked on by peers, and then tell me that logic is as important as sensitivity. They just want to be treated like everyone else, to be included. Not singled out.
I hear and understand why you are sensitive to the subject. I spent about 15 years with severe mental illness, so I completely understand stigma, lack of sensitivity and human ugliness pertaining to what they cannot understand.
Logic and sensitivity both have valid purposes. To put one above the other is like putting one's ears as being more important than one's feet, in my opinion. Both contribute to the whole in their own way. Some people might have a preference to walking, while others prefer their hearing.
Agreed.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
That and bits of some other posts makes me think you've been looking up Wikipedia again!!!!!
I also see that you got yourself into trouble beyond that by being insensitive to the feelings of others. That's why sensitivity is an important issue--when it's not being practiced, the subject matter gets very muddled.
Ultimately, I agree with you, sponger. Despite the ugly stigma of the word, retarded is a valid word in many scholarly sources, because behind the stigma, the word is a word that describes something validly, no matter how offended people are. People's value judgments of the word are SUBJECTIVE, and therefore cannot effectively change the objective meaning of the word. Granted, it can colour and distort the meaning, and has done so.
Dictionary.com alone has numerous valid meanings of the word that were not mentioned in this thread:
ie: To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede.
To be delayed.
Occurring or developing later than desired or expected; delayed.
A slowing down or hindering of progress; a delay.
slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development : characterized by mental retardation
characterized by retardation: a retarded child.
–noun
(used with a plural verb) mentally retarded persons collectively (usually prec. by the): new schools for the retarded.
—Synonyms backward, disabled, handicapped.
If people have a personal judgment on this word saying it is "bad", I respect that. I also expect others to respect that I don't have that judgment and no amount of grandstanding or crying "bad" or "wrong" can implant an intention upon me that I do not have. BOTH "sides" require sensitivity and respect, or else both sides fight a losing battle.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Evolution of the language... that's what it is.
Tell me Sponger...if you had a child with an IQ lower than 70... would you go around saying he is retarded (with all its connotations and the reactions you may get from people like sadscaryguy has to deal with on a daily basis) or would you rather say he has difficulties (or any other more sensible word)...?
You are nitpicking for the sake of it! I talk to people such as youth workers and disability charities about disabled young people for work and these are the terms they use, including severe. They would NEVER use the word retarded, spastic or anything. The link was not satisfactory enough I know because it was just an outline of the terms that are not acceptable anymore. A lot of it is based on what disabled people themselves feel about the terms and what they'd prefer to be called or used. But the people I speak to are what informs my views, and I happen to agree with them.
Tell me, what informs YOUR views? I do not accept the AAMR as a source because of their use of the word. Post me some links from the medical world where professionals describe people with severe learning disabilities as "retarded".
---
London, Brixton, 14 July 1993
London, Wembley, 1996
London, Wembley, 18 June 2007
London, O2, 18 August 2009
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012
Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
I'm not sure you're completely correct. When this word was used, it was commonly accepted as a way of categorising people who were black. It was a technical term used by scientists, layfolk, the religious and the slave trade to describe people who these figures in authority saw as 'different' and displaying impairment. Our attitude changed, and so the word had to.
Your argument that it is impossible to describe these learning difficulties as anything else but 'retarded' is just weak. All you have to do to find out what words people use for these types of learning impairments is read.
As a sidenote, it is very easy to lump everyone with a learning disability in together as 'retarded'. It is a LOT harder to learn about every individual disability as distinct from one another; they all have different names and descriptions, sponger. Ah who cares, 'retarded' just about covers 'em.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
Which is sadscaryguy's point. In his initial post he says "...because i get called names like retard for it."
The word nigger was replaced with terms more specific, and therefore more practical. "Black" and "African-American" are even more descriptive than "nigger", so the analogy still does not liken to the situation with "retarded". A more specific term is not in use.
Currently, there is no other word that describes a person with an IQ below 70 that isn't also used for people who have IQ's above 70.
I'm not the one lumping everyone with a learning disability together as being "retarded". I'm referring to retardation as a term used to describe a specific set of criteria that goes beyond what the term "learning disability" can describe.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Center for disease control?
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dd/ddmr.htm
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry?
http://www.aacap.org/page.ww?name=Children+Who+Are+Mentally+Retarded§ion=Facts+for+Families
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
OK, so have we found the crux of the issue? I would really like to know how 'retarded' is a better and more accurate descriptor than 'learning disability' please. Educate me.
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
It would depend on who I am talking to.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
A "learning disability" is apparently what you seem to have. "Retarded" might be too much of a stretch.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Inoffensive use...
There is nothing wrong with using the word in discussion, especially when the afflicted used the word as well. "They make me feel retarded"- "well, are you retarded". That goes for stupid, funny, goofy or drunk... repeating the word should not be considerded offensive, and anyone who is offended in that situation is just looking for something to whine about.
offensive use:
This thread is retarded.
(and it is)
You didn't answer my question. Nice. Can you answer my question?
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
I did answer your question. When making an assessment about a person's mental facilities, you don't deem it important to know if whether or not that person is either suffering from a "learning disability" or is mentally retarded?
In the case of you needing my point of view repeated to you over and over and over, one can come to the conclusion that you just have a learning disability. With that in mind, I can reasonably assume that enough explanation will eventually lead to your understanding.
On the other hand, if your responses were just outright incoherent and lacking almost completely in relevance, I would not even bother trying to explain. Instead, I would say, "OK, whatever you say. You're probably right." I would assume that you were retarded or maybe really drunk. You would then have my deepest sympathies.
These types of distinctions are important. There is a major difference between someone who has a mere learning disability and who is mentally retarded. Why would you think they should be treated as though they are the same?
ADD is a learning disability. Would you conclude that ritalin is a prescription for retardation? Obviously not. Dyslexia is a learning disability. Does that mean a dyslexic person is going to have an extremely difficult time performing even the simplest daily functions? Obviously not. A distinction has to be made just as a distinction is made between the varying levels of severities that exist between all types of afflictions.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Mental retardation= a real thing=Mentally handicap=mental disorder meeting certain conditions
I think that it is retarded how non-offensive words get turned into gay terms used by all these bitch mother fucks that act like complete jack-asses as they twist their shit gurgling language into meaning anything offensive that they can think of thus ruining the non-offensive usage of the word completely..........bitches
Well if they all use the same terms its no wonder the term is in such proliferation in the states. One of those links even acknowledges its derogatory aspect! Doesn’t say it should be avoided though, which I consider negligent. And just because they all use it it doesn’t stop it from being a derogatory word because of the way it is used against people with disabilities. Really, organizations like that ought to know better. In Britain I think maybe people are a bit more ahead.
---
London, Brixton, 14 July 1993
London, Wembley, 1996
London, Wembley, 18 June 2007
London, O2, 18 August 2009
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012
Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
The same reason people who are black and white should be treated as though they are the same. Equality. We are all humans. We are the same.
You just basically told me I have a learning disability just because I don't agree with you. Symptomatic of an American epidemic. You HAVE to keep the term 'retardation' because your country has this intrinsic need to create categories in which it lumps groups of people together and seperates them.
You're just prejudiced, and you need to hold on to a 'scientific' justification of your prejudice.
You still haven't told me why 'retarded' is any more specific than 'severe learning disabilities'. Have you forgotten?
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
OK, fair point
- the great Sir Leo Harrison
If people are "a bit more ahead" in England, why does the BBC, the national news source that is internationally well-known, refer openly and unapologetically to "mental retardation"?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4355355.stm
"A host of nasty diseases and disorders sit on the human X chromosome, including haemophilia, autism, muscular dystrophy and mental retardation."
or here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A577046
"Mental deterioration leading to severe mental retardation"
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Note that the link I put up, talks about the need to get away from the term "mental retardation."
"Effective January 1, 2007 AAMR will officially become the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD).
The name change was approved by our members this last year, and we are currently working to develop a new look for the organization that matches the new name. With this change we join other similar organizations who have made the decision to move away fro the term "mental retardation" (MR.) in the organization name, and to replace it with the term "Intellectual Disability" (ID)."
Do you think I am prejudiced, too? I've openly stated in this thread that, yes, I understand people can find the word "retarded" offensive. They are justified in having whatever subjective opinion and reaction they have and sometimes, maybe many times, it's entirely valid. At the same time, all the personal subjective opinion in the world has not yet changed the numerous objective dictionary definitions of the word.
Therefore, the word still stands as valid, despite people's opinions of it. Reams of people trying to muscle it out of existence is just that. And yet, the word is still objectively valid.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I completely agree with what is being done here...moving in a new direction with a new name is a productive measure.
However, that's not even remotely what is happening in this thread. People are actually telling other people to not use the word; they are condescending to America in general for finding the word appropriate in certain situations, etc. And they are confusing their personal interpretations of another person's intent as actually being that person's intent AND then there is the justifying of their own poor behaviour based on their own personal judgments. Partaking in such behaviours is entirely different than productively leading the way by good example. Degrading another person or country in varying ways trying to get one's own preference to "win out", including using social "muscle" to back them up is a far cry from positive leadership. You get what you give.
I think if one expects sensitivity, one must give it out themselves. And if one uses destructive measures, one is actually detrimental to their own cause. Live and learn.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Well, that's the media for you! Whoever said the media was the bastion of all that is right and good in the world?!
---
London, Brixton, 14 July 1993
London, Wembley, 1996
London, Wembley, 18 June 2007
London, O2, 18 August 2009
London, Hammersmith Apollo (Ed solo), 31 July 2012
Milton Keynes Bowl, 11 July 2014
Maybe you can understand how a sweeping generalization like "In Britain I think maybe people are a bit more ahead." is something easily shown to be highly relative, not to mention condescending, considering one is putting another entire nation "behind" one's own. It's not the best persuasive technique in an argument, imho. And frankly, when people talk down to me (and I'm Canadian, by the way), I recognize that they are coming from an imbalanced rather than realistic and balanced position.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Mental retardation is still considered to be the medical terminology for those with mental impairment, however, the medical field is beginning to get away from this terminology due to the derogatory use of the word retardation.
Retardation is not considered to be a socially acceptable word anymore. So to those who belive that it is, I'm just saying that it's no longer that way. Those who have difficulties mentally would prefer the words "developmentally challenged", "mentally challenged", or "developmentally disabled", among others. "Special Needs" is even now being considered to not being used in a positive light.
So, technically, the medical institutions and the media aren't completely wrong...since "mental retardation" is still deemed technically acceptable. But we're moving in a more appropriate direction.
I feel that persons like Sponger would learn a lot out from a Sensitivity class and it really should be mandatory for all those that think like him.
Not to mention...how do you think PJ feels about those w/ mental impairments? I mean we're all on these forums because we're big fans. They give a lot of their time and money to important causes, children being one of them. I hardly am able to visualize any of those guys using indecent words towards those who are different than the rest of us. And that's what it really boils down to. Respect for those who are different.
But you just used the N word. Without intending any disrespect to anyone. Within THAT CONTEXT, its acceptable, at the very least to you. You have simply proven sponger's original point. He used the word retarded, in reference to someone eles's problems being called that word. And Jean jumped down his throat.
This whole freaking thread is kinda retarded.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
I don't know about others, but I'd like to think that Pearl Jam supports and values reasoned debate as a means of furthering understanding of a cause. I also like to believe that they support dissention and the right for all groups--liked or not--to have their perspective heard so that true resolution can be found on issues. Although I can't say that I know for sure.
People learn individually in their own unique ways. Some people are "behind" on issues, maybe developmentally, OR perhaps with their sensitivity--it's about how we're wired. Others are advanced in varying ways. If we don't show tolerance and respect to one another for our differences, we will find we are not shown tolerance and respect back. We can blame others all we want, but problem solving takes two sides.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
When there's nothing but misunderstanding, and an inability to meet in the middle, there is no resolution, like you said. And unfortunately when one side is unwilling to at least try to understand, then forget it. It's hard for me to understand someone who regards the R word as no big deal, when I hear nothing but hate from it every day. I'm around the disabled every day, so excuse me for being a bit sensitive to their needs. Try to be in their shoes for once. Try being called the "R" word or being picked on by peers, and then tell me that logic is as important as sensitivity. They just want to be treated like everyone else, to be included. Not singled out.
Agreed.
Logic and sensitivity both have valid purposes. To put one above the other is like putting one's ears as being more important than one's feet, in my opinion. Both contribute to the whole in their own way. Some people might have a preference to walking, while others prefer their hearing.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!