does anyone on this forum have aspergers syndrome?

FinsburyParkCarrots

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)."

angelica

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

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.

angelica

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

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.

Restless Soul

angelica wrote:

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"

Well, that's the media for you! Whoever said the media was the bastion of all that is right and good in the world?!

angelica

Restless Soul wrote:

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.

Jeanwah

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.

PaperPlates

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

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.


This whole freaking thread is kinda retarded.

angelica

Jeanwah wrote:

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.

Jeanwah

angelica wrote:

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.

angelica

Jeanwah wrote:

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.

sponger

I guess it's just hard for some people to imagine that a person can use the word "retarded" without prejudice or hatred. It's so hard to imagine that it causes some people to immediately come down on anybody who uses that word as though that person were deliberately trying to ridicule and belittle.

I don't personally know anyone who ridicules the mentally retarded. In fact, the word retarded does nothing but invoke a sympathy that I've felt ever since I was in elementary school when I used to pause in front of the mentally retarded classroom on my way to and from the bathroom, wishing there was something I could do for their situation. It's the kind of sympathy that I felt when I used to tutor the "slow" kids in math and reading in my spare time.

But, that's not to say that I'm some kind of philanthropist volunteer worker or anything in that regard. But, to just outright jump to the conclusion that I am insulting mentally retarded people because I refer to them as mentally retarded is a level of closed-mindedness that even the most retarded of individuals could not possibly possess.

harmless_little_f***

PaperPlates wrote:

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.

That is NOT all that sponger was doing. Have you even read the whole thread?

I'm finishing in here. I've said my piece.

sponger

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

That is NOT all that sponger was doing. Have you even read the whole thread?

I'm finishing in here. I've said my piece.

So, we're in agreement that my use of the word "retard" to clarify my question to sadscaryguy was justified and not offensive.

That being said, the only remaining problem is my use of the word "retarded" to describe individuals who literally fall into that category as far as US mental health doctrine is concerned.

Obviously, I was not literally trying to offend anybody. Yet, look at the reaction I got, most notably:

jeanwah wrote:

it really pisses me off! So quit using it and show some respect to sadscaryguy!

I don't know about you, but I don't see how this resembles civility in any regard. Basically, it's "Don't piss me off and show some respect."

I think it's hard for any rationale person to conclude that this person is genuinely looking for consideration for his feelings. And, of course, the barrage of near admonishments that followed from others don't exactly resemble the most cordial attempts to resolve an obvious misunderstanding.

I think there is such a thing as a person using the leverage of political-correctness to unnecessarily exert control over another human being. And that's a far cry from simply asking for some consideration. I personally know what it's like to be offended by another person's unintentional meanings, and for some reason I don't find myself using that as an excuse to begin verbally assaulting someone. Maybe that's just me.

harmless_little_f***

sponger wrote:

So, we're in agreement that my use of the word "retard" to clarify my question to sadscaryguy was justified and not offensive.

What makes you think any of what I said above means I'm in agreement with you? Did you read it?

sponger

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

What makes you think any of what I said above means I'm in agreement with you? Did you read it?

Paperplates was explaining to you that your use of the word nigger is similar to my use of the word retard. Your response was, "That's not all sponger was saying."

But, it is part of what I was saying, and it was a part that you apparently disagreed with when you said, "Jeanwah was right."

So, now we're in agreement on that one point. Your second point was that I was illegitimately using the word "retarded" as though it was "some sort of scientific label." In the US, it is. So, I'm waiting for your acknoweldgment on that one.

harmless_little_f***

sponger wrote:

Paperplates was explaining to you that your use of the word nigger is similar to my use of the word retard. Your response was, "That's not all sponger was saying."

But, it is part of what I was saying, and it was a part that you apparently disagreed with when you said, "Jeanwah was right."

So, now we're in agreement on that one point. Your second point was that I was illegitimately using the word "retarded" as though it was "some sort of scientific label." In the US, it is. So, I'm waiting for your acknoweldgment on that one.

To be fair on you, I have since learned that it IS a scientific label in the US. I find that sickening, but it isn't your fault, sponger, no.

sponger

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

To be fair on you, I have since learned that it IS a scientific label in the US. I find that sickening, but it isn't your fault, sponger, no.

awwwe.

harmless_little_f***

sponger wrote:

awwwe.

Can we also agree that most of the world has come up with better descriptors for certain disabilities than the commonly-accepted-in-the-USA 'retard'? Or can we at least agree that such a better word might be found if we looked for it?

Skitch Patterson

harmless_little_f*** wrote:

Can we also agree that most of the world has come up with better descriptors for certain disabilities than the commonly-accepted-in-the-USA 'retard'? Or can we at least agree that such a better word might be found if we looked for it?

No such word exists. Retard means to slow.. disability means not able, so can i assume by your use of the word disabled that you are implying that these people are not able?

anyword, when used long enough to describe something percieved as negative, is ultimately going to be considered an insult.. some always have been, others evolved into it.

negro- insult
nigger- insult
colored- insult/dated
black- unPC
african american- Currently accepted

fag- insult
fairy-insult
sissy-insult
gay-unPC
queer- was an insult, now marginally accepted for self description
homo- insult
homosexual- preferred

slow- insult
retard-unPC
disabled- accepted?

Restless Soul

angelica wrote:

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.

Oh I must apologise because I didn't fully explain myself which was stupid of me. When I said "people" I was actually referring (in my mind) to the people in the UK disability "sector" that I'd spoken with, such as youth workers, social workers, disability advocates, therapists etc. I was thinking of them as more "ahead" in comparison to the organisations that sponger linked to such as the AAMR. (I'm glad to see that they are changing their policy on the word too though which is promising). I should have explained that properly instead of flippantly. I did not mean to come off as condescending to you or anyone.