Can you please use the word in a context that is not insulting?
lets say for example, you left your car outside, and it rained, and after the storm passed you realized you left the windows down. I would say that it would be a pretty "retarded situation" my response would probably be something along the lines of "well that was retarded" both literally, and on my end.
How would you describe someone or something as “retarded” without implying that there is something wrong with the person or thing?
If i'm using it to insult people, i'm referring to people who have a functional neurology, and aren't actively using it, for whatever reason. As opposed to people who are intellectually/developmentally disabled/challenged whatever you want to use works, who cannot function on that level. There's nothing inherently wrong with having a lowered level of neurological function. There is something inherently wrong with being so obtuse you obscure your own intelligence in stupidity, and be a retard in the process.
If i'm referring to something stupid i did and it's not a person. Something like the previous car example. I might design or build something, and in the process i realize i've made a significant mistake, misplaced some key component, and done something irreversible that needs to be undone, that would be retarded.
I mean, if you literally google the definition of retard it says: "to stay back" "put off, post pone, or delay" Of course the perjorative version was historically used to insult people, specifically those of a lower intelligence. But just because it was once used that way, doesn't necessarily mean i'm using it that way now.
whenever i say it, i'm almost exclusively not referencing people who are developmentally challenged, i'm referencing people who are fucking stupid. You could call them developmentally challenged, but then you're just doing the retard thing that happened to make it a pejorative in the first place. And even then, that's not necessarily true because it's such a sterile definition.
i don't even necessarily disagree with that argument. I just don't think it's really all that relevant. I'm not even sure most people would disagree with it.
Obviously you should be nice to people, you probably shouldn't be an asshole, and you should help them as much as possible, but like, how many of us actually do that?
It's sort of like telling someone who smokes, that it's bad for them, they know, you don't need to remind them.
ah, yeah no that would do it, i wouldn't report shit like this either. People are entitled to posting their dogshit opinions on the internet (myself included lmao)
yeah, ultimately the only thing worse than unbridled bigotry, is misplaced accusations of bigotry. That's one of the unfortunate things with this problem, and similar ones like it, is that unless you judge it by the character of the context, it can be really wide sweeping sometimes.
And genetics were used to justify genocide and eugenics. By your logic are genetics absolutely evil?
genetics are a constant truth, so the argument should be based from the perspective that genetics mean something, in regards to genocide and eugenics, not that genetics itself is flawed, because genetics didn't create this perception, humans did.
edit: retards was a typo of regards lmao, what an unfortunate typo.
it's the internet, and this is a post about blackholes and a bird being recorded. This is a tad bit out of place for what it is, not surprised people downvoted it, probably because they thought it was irrelevant, oh well, that's the internet, sometimes people like what you have to say, other times they don't. Don't think about it too hard, at the end of the day it's just internet karma.
we're all a little retarded at the end of the day, if you squint hard enough, it might even be pretty retarded. Because there isn't anything to see, it's a metaphor.
Anyway, this joke has overstayed it's welcome, i will be on my way now.
If the n-word was used to describe people acting stupid would you feel comfortable with that? What if no black people complained about it? Would that make it okay?
it depends on how far back you go with this one, if you were to remove the racial pretense from it entirely yeah it would probably be fine.
But if you just sort of retconned it in like 1970 through timetravel or something, i mean it would also be fine because nobody would know what it previously was, but hypothetically that wouldn't be ok, because it's historical roots are the same.
Its the history and usage of the word that matters. Given enough time, the n word will probably lose it's vile status and become more casual. Like every other word before it.
if someone is stupid, and making objectively stupid decisions, it would be fair to call them "developmentally challenged" especially if that person is donald trump, and the stupid decision is tariffs.
Would it also be fair to call him a retard? Yes.
should you? Probably not, would it be justified, yes.
It's only really fucked up if you're using it belittle and demean someone, though there are also situations where this is deserved. Morals and ethics aren't really a solid ground to stand on, more so a floating mass of garbage in the ocean, that just sort of, showed up one day.
In other words, the entire reason we say “developmentally disabled” (or whatever the nom du jour is), is because people like you insist on associating developmental disabilities with bad things.
who is saying that an intellectual disability is a bad thing? You're the one arguing it's a problematic discussion. A lot of people are intellectually challenged, is that also rude? Or is that one fine, is it ok to say uneducated, or is that questioning the socioeconomic status of a person, and therefore, also rude.
Just because something is defined in a rather terse/blunt way, doesn't necessitate it being a negative thing, that was the problem with "retard" and "retardation" being used, it turned into an insult, and as a result, fell out of favor, because it fucked up the medical definition, which is now "intellectually disabled/disability"
Sometimes weird deformities happen, sometimes people get physically disabled, or are physically disabled, sometimes people are cognitively, or developmentally disabled, both are fair depending on the context, because neurology is fucking weird. I mean we call certain things "disfigurements" because it's not normal. If they sound bad it's because you've negatively associated these words to concepts that bother you.
lets say for example, you left your car outside, and it rained, and after the storm passed you realized you left the windows down. I would say that it would be a pretty "retarded situation" my response would probably be something along the lines of "well that was retarded" both literally, and on my end.
If i'm using it to insult people, i'm referring to people who have a functional neurology, and aren't actively using it, for whatever reason. As opposed to people who are intellectually/developmentally disabled/challenged whatever you want to use works, who cannot function on that level. There's nothing inherently wrong with having a lowered level of neurological function. There is something inherently wrong with being so obtuse you obscure your own intelligence in stupidity, and be a retard in the process.
If i'm referring to something stupid i did and it's not a person. Something like the previous car example. I might design or build something, and in the process i realize i've made a significant mistake, misplaced some key component, and done something irreversible that needs to be undone, that would be retarded.
I mean, if you literally google the definition of retard it says: "to stay back" "put off, post pone, or delay" Of course the perjorative version was historically used to insult people, specifically those of a lower intelligence. But just because it was once used that way, doesn't necessarily mean i'm using it that way now.
whenever i say it, i'm almost exclusively not referencing people who are developmentally challenged, i'm referencing people who are fucking stupid. You could call them developmentally challenged, but then you're just doing the retard thing that happened to make it a pejorative in the first place. And even then, that's not necessarily true because it's such a sterile definition.