Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tristan Jackson on August 5, 2014 at 11:02am

Two things: 1) I respect the fact that you disagree with my use of the word. I could see it the other way. 2) that was an incredibly intelligent and thoughtful reply. Thank you.


Simon Phearson said:

You know, I'm fine with the whole "retarded" taboo; I understand its rationale, I don't feel a "need" to use the word in a way that could potentially hurt others, and I can respect that there are some people who feel very strongly about the hurt that word can cause. 

But I don't feel as strongly about it as I feel about other slurs, whose (hypothetical) use actually makes me feel bad. I'm certainly not inclined to yell about using the word "retarded" online and wish physical harm on people who use the term. It's a rule I'm happy to follow, but not one I'm compelled to defend to the death.

So I've been thinking about why that is. I think it's because it's not hard for me to imagine people using most slurs in a way that corresponds to other hurtful behavior. A racial, homophobic, or sexist slur - I can imagine all the ones I know of being used by people actively trying to hurt someone else with the term, and so I identify that kind of reprehensible action with the word itself. I'm repulsed by the action, and so I'm repulsed by the word. But "retarded" is different - I'm not myself very familiar with instances of people using it to hurt others. The word has almost always been used, in my recollection, by childhood friends, in a joking fashion. 

That's not to say that it's okay to use the word or that it shouldn't be considered a "slur." It's not even to deny that I've been privileged in not hearing the word used that way or not having its harmful use be a part of my life or of the life of a loved one. I'm just talking about why I think I don't feel very strongly about it, concededly, perhaps, as an "outsider."

But you know what I do tend to associate, emotionally, with the "retarded" taboo? It's this kind of shrill, bullying, uncompromising, and ultimately counterproductive rhetoric you've been engaged in. It doesn't make me feel more or less strongly about not using the word, but it does make me feel a little silly for following a rule whose proponents show all of the "sympathy, empathy, [and] critical thinking skills" demonstrated by calling those who use the term "enormous douches" and hoping that they get "slugged" for using it. 

Do you think that Tristan is more likely to learn to be repulsed by the word, because of your advocacy here? Or do you think he's more likely just to learn to expect responses like yours, if he uses it?

Michelle Milham said:

Or, you know, we could just try to have sympathy, empathy, critical thinking skills and the desire not to hurt other people with needless slurs! 

Permalink Reply by Tristan Jackson on August 5, 2014 at 11:27am

I actually partly agree with you. When I hear racist language used in public, it's a morally important to me that I call it out and do my best to shame the other party, even if they weren't speaking directly to me. I think this is something good people should do. I guess where I disagree is that when we start policing so hard we're resorting to threats of violence, then it's going too far, especially when the morality of the offensive language is more open to debate. A well reasoned argument is usually the best way to "police."


h' 1.0 said:

"Not policing each-other" means basically leaving all policing to uniformed police.

Civilized societies are =always= based on people "policing each-other."

There's some sort of warped neo-conservative idea that's been taking hold for the last few decades that 'freedom' means being as much of a pig as you want to be and somehow nobody else having the 'right' to call you on it.

I think a lot of our current societal woes can be traced back to this attitude.

 
Chitown_Mike said:

True, but some of the rebuttals seem over the top.  You (general sense, as in anyone not you specifically) have no right to chide another beyond calling out bad manners, expressing your opinion on word usage, and ending it.

That said, is my opinion.  I don't believe in police others to an extent that make word usage issues moral ones, if someone wants to drop whatever "bomb" the last I checked they can, regardless of what others may think.  I try not to use certain words but I don't always achieve that "moral higher ground", but I am also not going to chase someone around who does.

Michelle Milham said:

Or, you know, we could just try to have sympathy, empathy, critical thinking skills and the desire not to hurt other people with needless slurs! 

Chitown_Mike said:

Tristan, welcome to Chicago, where the only opinion that matters or is right is the one shouted loudest.  You have lost, you're wrong, you deserve to be tied to a bag of rocks and thrown into the lake.  The execution will be live broadcast online for all to see he-who-uses-the-words-not-meant-to-be-used expunged from human record.

For any that start to cry, it is called tongue-in-cheek humor, no one is dying.  If that offends you put on your big boy/girl panties....unless you have a bladder/anal problem which in that case wear your Depends.

Tristan Jackson said:

I started it because I think saying good morning is superior than saying on your left in many instances. I also think, in general, being kind to people, including retarded people, is superior to being mean. I don't see using the word retarded to mean stupid as being mean. Difference of opinion?


David Altenburg said:

Tristan Jackson said:

But, regardless everything else, I'm not going to apologize because I refuse to be bullied into speaking a certain way. ... I like when people speaking frankly, honestly, and passionately. 

Didn't you start this thread in order to request that people talk more politely to each other?

Permalink Reply by Rachel K on August 5, 2014 at 11:52am

Ugghh fine, okay, the dictionary happens to say "usually offensive." But it doesn't say "this is why it's offensive" with a complete rundown of historical context and input from people who do happen to find it offensive. You're nit picking now. And your reply completely neglects to address the rest of what I had to say.

So on that note, I am done participating in this thread, because, as I'm pretty sure we have all established, it's going nowhere. Nobody has any plans to change their minds any time soon.

Tristan Jackson said:

Umm... Dictionaries DO take in consideration cultural and societal understandings. You're just plain wrong on this part. I'm not saying we can use a dictionary as the final judge and arbiter of what's right and wrong. But dictionaries are useful in helping us establish some ground about what the word means to most people. Here's MW on nigger:

noun
1 usually offensive; see usage paragraph below : a black person
2 usually offensive; see usage paragraph below : a member of any dark-skinned race
3 : a member of a socially disadvantaged class of persons
Origin: alteration of earlier neger, from Middle French negre, from Spanish or Portuguese negro, from negro black, from Latin niger.
First use: 1574
Usage: Nigger in senses 1 and 2 can be found in the works of such writers of the past as Joseph Conrad, Mark Twain, and Charles Dickens, but it now ranks as perhaps the most offensive and inflammatory racial slur in English. Its use by and among blacks is not always intended or taken as offensive, but, except in sense 3, it is otherwise a word expressive of racial hatred and bigotry.



Rachel K said:

Did the DICTIONARY cop out really just come up???

Dude.

Seriously?

The reason "retarded" is offensive is because of societal and cultural implications, which, drum roll please! the dictionary doesn't take into consideration! N*gger is in the Merriam Webster dictionary too but we don't say it because it's historically been used to stigmatize people and is now considered offensive and racist as fuck! Regardless if you're saying "retarded" or "mentally handicapped" or WHATEVER, the point is you're still using it negatively and society has and continues to treat people that do have disabilities like shit. When you call someone retarded you by extension are demeaning and dismissing people who really do have whatever type of problems. What you're literally doing is trying to offend someone by reducing them to someone who is mentally handicapped.

I wasn't even going to bring it up when I initially responded because I didn't want to veer off topic but your response to Michelle was absolutely 100% asinine.

Permalink Reply by Tandemonium on August 5, 2014 at 3:30pm

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. With all this internet drama I need to know one thing: how many handicapped people passed you on the right this weekend?

Permalink Reply by Tandemonium on August 5, 2014 at 3:43pm

Also, the stoker honestly gasped IRL when when she read this part of the thread. One thing to throw the R-word out casually, another thing to double down on it when called out, but I'm amazed you would bring it to this level to try and prove a defenseless position.

Tristan Jackson said:

Here's MW on nigger

Permalink Reply by Tandemonium on August 6, 2014 at 1:36am

Things that shock h' 1.0:

->H-Word accidentally used instead of ID

Things that do not shock h' 1.0:

->N-word used to defend use of R-word

Nice to see you've got you priorities straight.

h' 1.0 said:

I am shocked that anyone would use the H-word to describe people with intellectual disabilities.

Tandemonium said:

how many handicapped people

Permalink Reply by Mike Schwab on August 6, 2014 at 1:43am

I am thinking this is about 40 years out of date.  Of course, I came from an almost all white small town so using as a reference to other ethnic groups was not a option. 

I was more in thinking current usage is like in the movie There's something about Mary, were it refers to mentally challenged individuals only, or that the current individual being spoke about might be mentally challenged.

Personally, I did use the term Passing on the right about 2 times.  In both cases the other person was close to the lane divider on the left and I could not pass on that side, and I wanted to make sure they didn't pull right and into the location I wanted to occupy.

Tristan Jackson said:

Umm... Dictionaries DO take in consideration cultural and societal understandings. You're just plain wrong on this part. I'm not saying we can use a dictionary as the final judge and arbiter of what's right and wrong. But dictionaries are useful in helping us establish some ground about what the word means to most people. Here's MW on nigger:

noun
1 usually offensive; see usage paragraph below : a black person
2 usually offensive; see usage paragraph below : a member of any dark-skinned race
3 : a member of a socially disadvantaged class of persons
Origin: alteration of earlier neger, from Middle French negre, from Spanish or Portuguese negro, from negro black, from Latin niger.
First use: 1574
Usage: Nigger in senses 1 and 2 can be found in the works of such writers of the past as Joseph Conrad, Mark Twain, and Charles Dickens, but it now ranks as perhaps the most offensive and inflammatory racial slur in English. Its use by and among blacks is not always intended or taken as offensive, but, except in sense 3, it is otherwise a word expressive of racial hatred and bigotry.

Permalink Reply by Michelle Milham on August 6, 2014 at 3:07am

If anyone is wondering how to PROPERLY address someone with disabilities, it's just that: 

Person first. 

A person with autism. 

A child with Down Syndrome. 

A girl with one arm. 

Not "autistic" "retarted" "one armed." 

It does not define them. 

Permalink Reply by David Barish on August 6, 2014 at 3:20am

Wow.  Since I posted to this thread a few days ago I have received a volume of email indicating that we are no longer talking about passing on the road and how one should or should not warn of  such a pass. I take it that the original poster felt anybody passing on the right was intellectually challenged but he used another term. I did not read an intent to disparage any particular group other than those who pass on the right but still, he used an out of date term that has been seen as offensive to a completely different group that has nothing to do with this thread. Some have compared the use of this term to other terms that have been seen as divisive in our culture. Others have exhibited a thin skin that would be a detriment when riding on a windy day while lashing back at the original poster. I don't know his intent. Perhaps he regrets the use of the term. However, the escalation of the dialogue has created a [hey lets throw out a term that has a lot of loaded meaning here and see what it does :-)] Gaza-esque situation that has made it difficult for anybody to save face and step back. 

My advice to those shooting verbal rockets is to look for alternative word choices and clever ways to say the same thing; to write hot but send cold after you have had a moment or two to reflect.  A poster in this thread has used that tactic very well. James took me to task in another thread. He used his vocabulary and intellect to knock an opinion I had expressed and my reaction was one of appreciation rather than venom. It was never personal. In that regard remember that thing your questioning is the opinion or argument not the person. For example, "X's opinion that blah blah blah is the packed with the intellectual heft of a child held back from advancing past the third grade...for the third time" rather than "X is retarded" or "X is a flaming pile of excrement." Even better, and perhaps leading to a real  discussion might be, "X says blah blah blah but I think dah dah dah because of yada yada yada."

Of course, what do I know? I have been called a re....fuse stocked cranium in the past.

Permalink Reply by Michelle Milham on August 6, 2014 at 3:22am

I suppose it's all about whether you would like cycling to be a place inclusive of minorities or one that would knock them down. 

Had I said "Wow, gee wilikers, you really shouldn't use that word" ... I would have been ignored.

Also, regarding the use of slurs: it's still a harmful microaggression, regardless of whether or not you intended its use to be offensive. 

Also I love that calling someone a piece of shit is apparently considered MORE OFFENSIVE than using an ableist slur here. 

Way to go Chainlink!

Permalink Reply by Jonathan Quist on August 6, 2014 at 4:01am

Thanks, Michelle.

I had started thinking to myself "I was raised in a time when it was not offensive", which is a bit of a slippery slope towards mediocrity.

But you sparked a memory... Within my own family, in casual conversation with no outside observers we always referred to "Aunt Jean", "Niece Susie" or "Cousin Elvir", not "sun-stroked Jean", "Intrauterine Hypoxic Susie"  or "Meningitis Elvir". A long-time childhood playmate was just "James", not "Concussed James". Even when we as kids were cruel, it <i>was</i> still "person first".

It's not such a big leap to apply that to everyone.

Thanks for the reminder.

-jeq

Michelle Milham said:

If anyone is wondering how to PROPERLY address someone with disabilities, it's just that: 

Person first. 

A person with autism. 

A child with Down Syndrome. 

A girl with one arm. 

Not "autistic" "retarted" "one armed." 

It does not define them. 

Permalink Reply by Simon Phearson on August 6, 2014 at 4:17am

Michelle - I am glad that your women/LGBT/queer/transgender/race/ethnic/disability studies classes in undergrad have helped you to feel empowered to "fight the fight" on behalf of oppressed minorities, especially those to which you don't personally belong. It seems like your professors have sparked in you a powerful sense of righteousness and an eagerness to challenged received prejudices and biases, including their expression through microagressions, which is to their credit; and they've also given you the kind of specialized vocabulary you need in order to signal your authority and expertise when instructing others how to behave (so that you don't have to persuade them to listen to you, instead). That's fantastic.

What your background doesn't seem to have prepared you to recognize is that here - in this strange, bike-centric corner of the internet's reflection of the real world - we don't live by the rules of a very narrow slice of academic discourse or by the curious gotcha! word-policing that has become the price of admission to certain self-selecting communities on various other sites like Tumblr.

We live, instead, by the common-sense "morality" of just getting along, the way anyone has to do in a city like Chicago, where lots of people do things that we find irritating, offensive, even unnecessarily hurtful, and they can't all be held to account (as we, ourselves, are generally not held to account by those we irritate, offend, or hurt). By that standard, there's no justification for wishing physical harm on a person just because they might blithely use a "slur," even after one has yelled and shouted at length about how using that slur is the worst. thing. ever. By that standard, there's no reason for us to overlook the fact that one is hypocritically calling for empathy and sympathy for oppressed classes while using their own classist privilege to beat others around the head with abusive rhetoric. In the real world - and I think this makes for a sound morality in any case - we take people as they are and, where we disagree, we try to work with them in good faith and with good will. Basic human decency kind of stuff.

So yes, it is worse to use this community and Tristan's post as a punching bag for working out your anxiety that, in the real world, there's no one to give you gold stars for calling people out on their anti-disability microaggressions, than it is to be out-of-sync w/r/t the word "retard." We're not here to validate your existence or to cheer you on in your quest to shout people like Tristan into submission. We're here to talk about bikes and cycling. 

You're no Andrea Dworkin, Michelle. I think more: Britta Perry.

Michelle Milham said:

I suppose it's all about whether you would like cycling to be a place inclusive of minorities or one that would knock them down. 

Had I said "Wow, gee wilikers, you really shouldn't use that word" ... I would have been ignored.

Also, regarding the use of slurs: it's still a harmful microaggression, regardless of whether or not you intended its use to be offensive. 

Also I love that calling someone a piece of shit is apparently considered MORE OFFENSIVE than using an ableist slur here. 

Way to go Chainlink!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Next ›
• Page