I think that there are a lot of good reasons not to use the word “retard”. And there aren’t many good reasons to use it. I know of plenty of alternatives.

I totally agree when it comes to any public discourse.

But how often do people use the word cretin?

Most people have no clue what that word means or how it originated. I certainly don’t use “cretin,” since I have no use for disparaging someone as diseased and crippled. Maybe that’s your point, that properly understanding the genesis of some term can undermine your desire to use it? And you’re right. Cretinism, the disease, makes me really sad, as does the fact that assholes chose to turn it into a pejorative. So maybe that has something to do with my unwillingness to ever use the word.

In my mind, “retard” was more of a vague diagnosis of mental slowness, so it makes it less real as an actual medical condition. Like when you say “retard” I think “Republican.” Those are the people who need diagnosing. Still, I’m less willing to use the r-word than alternatives like “idiot” whose meaning is totally divorced in my imagination from any origin story.

After all, once you use a word (a bunch of sounds) to mean something long enough, it eventually makes no difference what the word used to mean. That said, I can see your point. The cretin example is a good one. Very persuasive.

I agree with everything you’ve written, but we are sort of going in a big circle. Earlier I wrote that

using the r-word to insult someone autistic is cruel and unacceptable.

For that reason, I can endorse everything you’re saying. However, I thought our disagreement was over whether there should be a concerted effort to banish a particular pejorative term from our vocabularies (namely the r-word). I had argued no, since it seemed like an overreaction, whereas you were in the affirmative, since groups of people were being offended/hurt by the casual use of that term.

So then the question becomes:

1. To what extent are we responsible for moderating our private speech in order to appease people we’ve never met?

• My intuition is that the answer is never. I think words should be struck from our vocabulary for a very different reason. Namely, when they represent an evil ideology. That is to say, I think that removing words from our vocabulary is a drastic thing to do and should be reserved for truly heinous verbiage (the sort of language that, if repeated, the only possible outcome between us would be violence). Some of these words are worse than the n-word. They are so evil, I can’t even euphemize them in good conscience.
• My understanding is that you have looser parameters for unacceptable language, which must meet a certain thresholds of causing offense to be candidates for censorship. Is that right? It’s a reasonable position, I’m just clarifying.

I really like your response and I needed a minute to read it. Let me reply later.

But “autist” is used colloquially — all the time. That’s my point. I mean that it hasn’t entered wider usage outside of high schools, twitch, and discord. Boomers don’t use it as an insult (yet).

I didn’t say “autistic” is synonymous with stupid. Usually it’s used to mean you’re excessively or neurotically detail-oriented.

A slur is an insulting or disparaging remark (according to the dictionary). Our contention is not over the definition of that word (I hope), but over whether the use of offensive language (such as slurs) is categorically unacceptable.

There are lots of slurs, but only a handful cross the line (for me at least), because I consider them to exclusively and belligerently perpetuate some evil ideology (usually racism). I don’t want to list these words here, but I can think of maybe 3 or 4.

There is no such thing as empirical evidence for an emotionally qualitative claim.

Well, history is not a matter of emotion. It is a matter of empirical fact. We can trace the origins and common usage of words, and the n-word is no exception. That body of knowledge is the product of research (historical data). The (mis)use of the medical term “retard” is also well understood. Its transference to colloquial slang is actually unexceptionable. Consider “psycho” or “cretin.” In the same vein, the word “autist” is now being used disparagingly among teenagers being goofy or weird, and so on.

“Autist” may not be sticky enough to require the medical community to come up with an alternative, more technical (and therefore less appealing) term for that mental disorder.

Regardless, people will continue to look for ways to call each other stupid, and the best thing we can do is encourage researchers to come up with long and convoluted names for medical conditions so they don’t get co-opted by teenagers looking for creative ways to insult each other.

The unfortunate truth is, yes. We are blameworthy for all acts independent of intention or context, because we have to be responsible for everything we do.

Well, yes and no. You have a responsibility to be mindful of those around you. But they also have a responsibility to at least attempt to understand what you’re trying to say. If we ignore your intentions, the result is tantamount to willful misunderstanding.

Remember, we are apes. Nothing more. Language is complex, and the average person is painfully, animalistically stupid. That’s why we have to be charitable to one another and give folks leeway to communicate without losing our shit over misunderstandings.

Again, two main questions I need to figure out (believe it or not, I don’t use “retard” in my everyday speech — which is hard for me because like 80% of the human population is retarded):

1. Are we really blameworthy for speech acts independent of our intention and context? Right now, I’m leaning no but maybe.

2. To what extent are others entitled to control our personal, private speech on the basis of their own internalized (and possibly neurotic) offense to it? I.e., religious groups getting mad, or autistic people being offended when people call each other “retarded.”

We also disagree on the facts I think. You have once again, without a morsel of empirical evidence, equated “retard” with the n-word, which is totally preposterous. So I think we are at an impasse.

You’re literally giving him (good) moral advice, so let’s not “remove morality” from the equation. That’s for the Nazis.

His brother is a raving lunatic. Why would he go to his wedding? Because they share a little more DNA? Who gives a shit? What a meaningless criterium for a relationship.

I am not fully committed to this position. That said, I just think we disagree on the extent to which intention and context matters when measuring blameworthiness for language acts. For instance, the n-word as repeated by black people might be harmless, whereas its utterance by anyone else is unacceptable. Similarly, using the word “idiot” against a neurodivergent person is very bad. If used against me, though, that’s fair game.

I also don’t know the extent to which people are entitled to control what others say because they’re offended. Christians are constantly offended, Muslims are offended, apparently some folks in the special Olympics are offended.

Look, unless a word is linked to a hateful ideology, I see no reason to be scared of it quite so categorically.

People who use words do so for a particular purpose. That’s what I mean by design. The n-word had one and only one purpose: a humiliating slur against a group of people.

Since this is obviously not the case with the word “retard” or “moron,” etc., I find the comparison obtuse at best and bad faith at worst.

Ultimately, people will use terms to call each other stupid. This is inevitable since people are, in fact, stupid.

A “moron” was also a medical diagnosis. Historically, the n-word was designed to be cruel and humiliating. The word retard was not.

If you choose to be offended every time the word “moron” gets thrown around that’s your prerogative.

I appreciate your good faith response. I see and empathize with your perspective. To play devil’s advocate, you can’t control whether a group of people decide, out of the blue, to internalize hurtful language that isn’t aimed at them. The N-word had a very specific target and a very cruel purpose. The word “retard” did not. It basically has the same vernacular trajectory as “moron,” or “idiot.” From medical diagnosis to non-specific pejorative. Why aren’t those synonyms verboten? Because people like to make things about themselves.

Americans and their hatred of random words. Lmao.

Nothing that OP said is false, so we can’t characterize this post as “misinformation.” The CEO of Proton is, as a matter of empirical fact, dangerously delusional. The Republican Party is not interested in antitrust issues let alone protecting “the little guy.” They’re interested in corporate subservience, the paradigm of all fascist regimes. I’m not sure why you would feel comfortable with a service whose CEO is this childishly naive.

Runoff from chicken abattoirs is incredibly toxic, so it’s not an exception.

Fact checking is censorship apparently.

That’s fascinating and quite shitty. Unfortunately there’s no other communication service with comparable performance when it comes to screen and file sharing, which is what I care about.

Good write up, except Skype is a bad example, because it’s better than any alternative, at least when it comes to screen sharing, audio quality, and file sharing. (Although I’d love to be wrong about this.)

Not at all. Our species is beyond fucked. There’s nothing to be superior about. Maybe you’re someone with an unjustifiable faith in the ultimate goodness of our subhumanity.

Regardless, just do your best to enjoy what will probably be our last century on this planet.

Dude read the room