And yet I bet you’re not cool with calling people retarded, or insulting things by calling them gay. We can’t prescribe the meaning of a term, but we can make it clear that when you use it you’re deriding more than just the thing you insult. And that’s not what most of us want.
My immediate association for both “moron” and “idiot” has been the Greek roots, and with them in such common use it didn’t occur to me anyone still associated them with Goddard, the way I sort of did with “imbecile”. But it plainly turns out some people still do, including some disabled people. I don’t want to be awful to such people, and so now I’ve been trying to avoid them.
I’ll admit, it isn’t trivial to avoid them. Not only are they so common as to be almost reflexive, but they have a cutting tone that many other insults lack, which feels hard to give up. But then it occurs to me that it might be the same cutting tone “retard” had – the cut from comparison to disabled people and how worthless they’re imagined to be. If so, that wouldn’t be worth it to me.
English has lots of words to insult people with. I think you can say someone is brainless without the ableist connotations of brain-damaged. Probably fool or dolt or nimrod or ignoramus or numbskull isn’t so bad; people here can I’m sure suggest others. And when that’s too soft, often what’s really meant can be spelled out another way, like when someone regardless of intelligence is a selfish, inept, odious asshole. I think there’s enough that we’re not losing much.
The only real question to me is how much to avoid comics, sketches, and so on that use them, things which are often otherwise funny but wouldn’t be for everyone. What did we do with all the old stuff that used the R-word and homosexual insults? I’m assuming we either moved on or labeled it a product of its time, but it’s harder to do when the time is now.
In general use, I’ve always tended to hear “moron” associated with an extreme lack of wisdom in either an action or person, as opposed to “idiot” which usually implies a lack of intelligence. I can’t remember ever seeing it used to specifically label a disability, and even feel like doing so would be a bit taboo.
Of course, my first thought of a replacement was the old Bugs Bunny “what a maroon”, and then I discovered that the dictionary definition there could also lead to being taken very wrongly.
I think at the root of this lies the uncomfortable realization that unenlightened humans privilege intelligence and wisdom over the absence of such elite traits.
THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal
before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter
than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was
stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the
211th, 212th, and 213 th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing
vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.
I’ve noticed a trend (in some aspects of general society, not specifically here) to label some words as generally prejudicial, pejorative, or offensive when they’re clearly not intended that way. Language changes. Initially “retarded” was meant to be a less offensive term for idiot, moron, or imbecile, yet it’s become more offensive, to the point that some people don’t use it or won’t spell it out even if it’s a reasonable use. On the one hand, I do not wish to offend anyone personally, but at the same time I find the perversion of language to be offensive. It’s a dilemma.
I assume when people use terms like “idiot” and “moron” they do mean it literally: referring to people whose mental development never went past a certain juvenile level and are incapable of complex adult thought.
And can I say – as someone who personally doesn’t care about this particular usage – that seeing “damned” used as a pejorative in a complaint against pejoratives was rich.
I’ve done this rant before in more detail, but I’ll keep it brief this time.
An insult always cuts two ways. It has to, by the nature of being an insult.
The first, obvious way that it cuts is against the person being insulted. It’s saying “You are [X], and that makes you inferior.”
Most people don’t think about the second way that the insult cuts, and that is against everyone else who can be described as [X]. By saying, “You are [X] and therefore you are inferior,” you’re also necessarily saying “Everyone who is [X] is inferior.”
There’s the part that you have to be careful of. Before you insult someone, and I mean every time you think of insulting someone, think of who/what else you’re insulting before you do so.
By the logic above, I’d say that it’s one of the few insults that is kinder to the group of comparison than to the person being insulted. “Damned” literally means destined for Hell, which (you’d think) would be reserved for only the most evil of people. It should be among the very worst of insults, but it’s usually considered fairly mild (and certainly milder than “fucking”), which is rather perverse.
When I hear someone call someone one of the discussed terms, I hear “You (are acting like a) ____!” much as I don’t expect to see a phallus residing upon a set of shoulders when I hear another insult used.
The answer of course is to avoid the use of insults. But when an individual’s greed has endangered others and lead to such a horrific loss, seems to me a fairly mild one was used.
I disagree, for words like stupid and idiot. The intent may not necessarily be there, especially when some powerless individual is just complaining about the world. I do agree that people might infer intent, but that’s their problem, IMHO. I understand this is not the case for other words that have definitely been hurtful, like the n-word.
And how do you mean “inferior” when using the word “stupid?” “Inferior” like, “oh christ, all these people should grow up/stop watching Fox News/do some reading and educate themselves?” Or “inferior” like “all these people should be gassed?” Again, people might infer the latter, but is that really the fault of the writer?
Furthermore, “stupid” doesn’t necessarly equal “inferior.” I am incredibly stupid (i.e., willfully ignorant) on things like philosophy and European history. I say willfully, because I have lacked the desire to educate myself. I excuse myself by saying that I know a fair amount about science and engineering, something about US politics of the last 40 years, and a little (very little) about modern art. So I would call someone who is against abortion even for very extreme reasons (rape, etc.) “stupid,” because IMO they have failed to educate themselves on issues like women’s rights, power politics, religion vs. science, and so on, or, if they have, have failed to come to conclusions that help more people than hurt.
If you mean “willfully ignorant,” why not say “willfully ignorant,” rather than something that might be construed as “born less intelligent” (or, as that often means, “born with different intellectual strengths”)?
I have no problem as “willfully ignorant” as an insult; it’s precise, it’s descriptive of behaviour rather than inherent traits, and it’s pretty much unambiguously a bad thing.
I could quite legitimately use the word “retarded” to describe a racecar driver who steered into the wall and cut a tire. Their car has a disadvantage which makes it move more slowly, which is literally what the word “retarded” means. I am not ever going to use that word in that scenario, because it’s ambiguous, and one of the possible meanings is extremely offensive.
If the writer cannot convey their meaning clearly to the majority of their audience, then yes, that’s the fault of the write. If they can, and some willfully ignorant member of the audience misconstrues it, then no, that’s not the writer’s fault (although they should still reflect to see if there was a clearer way to present the idea).
I would never use the word “retarded.” The English language has changed such that the word is, as you say, offensive (maybe it always was). I do not believe “stupid” has that connotation. Maybe it will in the future, but that time, in my opinion, has not come.
I forgot to mention that writing is another place I’m not entirely stupid, however one might interpret it. I’ve written & published three dozen scientific/engineering papers that have been noted for being especially clear by internal & peer review (whether or not scientifically useful), not to mention a couple of science fiction stories. Literary excellence I don’t claim to; clarity I do.
“Mentally Retarded” (meaning a limited level of mental functioning or a mental impairment) was a psychiatric diagnosis until quite recently. It’s been replaced by “Intellectual Disability.” I’ve already heard kids & adults use that as an insult.
In a society that privileges ability, to think that any term that describes an impairment won’t be used as an insult or gain negative connotations is a bit naive. I don’t think there is a good solution here except to be sensitive to people’s preferences for terms and use them when requested.
I agree, but I think there has to also be some allowance for actually current English usage, for terms that are not connected to intellectual disability.
Could you clarify: do you mean to say that a society that privileges ability (at least not to an obscene degree) necessary a bad thing?
Who a person turns out to be is a result of who they are genetically, how they were raised and educated, and what they choose to do with their innate and trained talents.
Of those three things, only the third is within the control of the individual; of the three, only that should be privileged.
So yes, a society that privileges based on ability is necessarily a bad thing, because which abilities are privileged will always be a subjective choice, and, as people with the chosen abilities take power, they will reinforce the power structures so that they (and their descendants) will stay in power.
My opinion on a society that privileges ability (and specific kinds of intellectual and physical abilities and characteristics at that) is that people who do not possess (or have limited abilities) are inherently disadvantaged and are often unaccommodated or not allowed to participate in society and that it is that aspect of an ableist society that is inhumane and immoral.
If people want something concise that’s got a reasonably long heritage in English, there’s always “fool”. I’ve seen people try to take offence at that one too, but historically it’s not been used for official diagnoses etc.
It occurs to me that any label that refers to a group of people has stereotypical connotations attached. When used to refer to people in that group, it may be referring to them neutrally as a group or to the positive or negative connotations associated with the stereotype, depending on how it is used.
But when used to refer to people not in the group, a group label is always referring to the negative stereotype. We don’t compliment people by saying that they have the good qualities of another group, because everyone likes to think that their own group is the best and has the good qualities.