Retard was not a slur. It was a medical term, "mental retardation" (it's still actually used in some of the literature).
It was used as a slur, the way any term can be used as a slur: by saying it to insult someone. The intend made it a slur, not the term.
In fact, in the case of insulting, it was primarily used against people who don't have that condition (mind developmental problems). "See what you've done? Are you a r...?", etc. For the people actually having such condition, it was just the medical term the literature, and their own doctors used to describe their condition.
Replacing the term doesn't change the mindset. Any new term adopted can equally be used with malice, it's just a BS arms race, focusing on words, when it should have focused on the bullying and attitude. But that would actually make sense - and have an actual effect, so why not take the easier path?
I also find it a little ironic that the class who police language like this also are pretty hesitant to actually talk about the commonplace eugenics of eliminating fetuses with Down’s Syndrome (and a medical system that effectively encourages this by pushing prenatal genetic testing). For all the talk of ableism, we are most certainly still ableist in the way it most matters, not just words but deeds. And we lack the self-honesty to talk clearly about this, using endless euphemisms instead, acting like we solve the moral dilemma by just policing our language.
It reminds me of NIMBY activists using land acknowledgements while blocking anything that would allow someone who isn’t high caste from actually moving to and living in San Francisco in a proper dwelling.
Indeed, but even here on the board you'll encounter those who are (on the surface) simultaneously pro-choice but oppose (in principle) the notion of selective abortion. As they would tell it, caring for someone with Down's is only ever a treasure, and they care not that some are utterly incapable of caring for themselves into adulthood, or how hard it can be to care for them in general. I would not wish it on an enemy. In their minds though, they can't reconcile notions that it's not good to have Down's, yet it's possible to love and value someone who has it. Everything is black-and-white to the extreme.
The one that stands out to me is "Trigger Warning" - that's not something you should say because it might cause people feelings of anxiety. Of course, the reason it causes people feelings of anxiety is because they know it's a phrase used to indicate that something bad is going to come in upcoming content. Instead they want you to use "Content Note" (though I will note that they weren't even competent enough to follow their own guidelines - they use "Content Warning" at the top of the list). So... what happens when people start to associate "Content Note" with the fact that something bad is upcoming? Do we move to "Upcoming Information Alert"?
The only thing this list does is give credence to Tucker Carlson and co's complaints about performative wokeism.
Ford flipped the switch which he saw was now marked "Mode Execute Ready" instead of the now old-fashioned "Access Standby" which had so long ago replaced the appallingly stone-aged "Off"
Full agreement here. Content Warning was and is a perfectly sufficient term. We’ve had them on TV shows for as long as I remember as “Viewer discretion is advised.” messages. They’ve been on the internet too as NSFW and NSFL.
Their primary purpose is for deciding if you want to view material in the first place.
Example from university: One of my media classes was going to show a clip of “Passion of the Christ”. We got a handout explaining the content of the movie and purpose of showing it and were told to opt out if we weren’t conformable. It all handled perfectly reasonably.
This list is not a reasonable way to handle this. It lacks nuance.
Right, witness “retarded”, which just means “delayed”. It was applied as a nice polite term for people whose development was slower than average, with the implication that they’d get there in the end.
At first it's not the euphemism, but the intent behind it. Over a long enough time period, if people are called the euphemism enough with said intent, the word itself has lost its original meaning and associations.
This is sometimes used maliciously though - like how a contraction about being against facism somehow got a bad connotation (antifa), or how being aware of social injustices is bandied about by right-wing outlets (woke).
Insults are only effective because of their meaning. Terms like "idiot" and "stupid" mean exactly what they have from the outset in the medical field. You cannot divorce derogatory use from meaning, much as you would like to. But to follow your rationale, we'd be right on track by now for "retarded" being kosher, as other terms have replaced it. That has not happened.
Please stop the harmful use of the word kosher when not referring to Jewish dietary law. It trivializes the experience of people who deal with Kashrut issues.
That's a little different, it's more like saying "Hey, the horse is escaping!" when the barn was already leveled to build a KFC which later became, briefly, a beeper store, and is now a place that sells THC-related goods.
Have you considered that all what you described is not happening in a vacuum, but rather, is a standard reaction of language to censor its users and circumvent the meaning they tried to convey. Humans are very adaptable and that is partially why this is a never ending endeavor ( and if I was a more cynical person, I would say this is also why it is pushed -- its a cushy position with no chance of ever being completed ).
But you know why it is really a bad thing? The actual loss of this weird focus on controlling language?
It is us. I am about to start a volunteer position with mentoring kids from underprivileged backgrounds and after the interview with the organization, I am genuinely considering dropping despite very clear positive impact this would have on the kids ( which is why I am preparing for it to begin with ). Thing will be virtual ( and recorded ), I was given a speech about white supremacy ( and asked how I feel about it ) and now I am worried that any bad word may result in career sanctions ( in other words, it is a net negative for me ).
This is just one example. It is suddenly possible that I can't pass on any real knowledge for fear of fucking myself and my family over.
<< This is sometimes used maliciously though - like how a contraction about being against facism somehow got a bad connotation (antifa), or how being aware of social injustices is bandied about by right-wing outlets (woke).
Those outlets certainly amplify it, but are you saying there is no objective reason for it happening ( for example, "being against fascism" often is being accompanied by 'punch a nazi' -- is that ok )? It is a real question and I am curious about your answer.
It was used as a slur, the way any term can be used as a slur: by saying it to insult someone. The intend made it a slur, not the term.
In fact, in the case of insulting, it was primarily used against people who don't have that condition (mind developmental problems). "See what you've done? Are you a r...?", etc. For the people actually having such condition, it was just the medical term the literature, and their own doctors used to describe their condition.
Replacing the term doesn't change the mindset. Any new term adopted can equally be used with malice, it's just a BS arms race, focusing on words, when it should have focused on the bullying and attitude. But that would actually make sense - and have an actual effect, so why not take the easier path?