Comment by tasuki | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tasuki | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Nope, I still don't get it. And I'm somewhat offended that you're just sending me random links instead of clearly explaining your position.

So, there are certain... specific... groups of people with specific characteristics who are sometimes not well thought of by some other people. And there's a word to refer to this specific group of people, and it's considered a Bad Word. And then we as a society come up with a new word for these people, which is now a Good Word. But in a couple of years, it starts being used as a slur (by the other people who dislike the specific people) and quickly becomes a Bad Word. This process keeps repeating ad infinitum and you're not going to solve it by successively banning each subsequent word and coming up with a new one which is now politically correct.

I don't think the words themselves are the problem here? The problem is that some people don't think well of some specific groups of people and whatever term is being used to refer to the specific group of people quickly becomes a Bad Word. And I don't think we'll solve this problem by banning the Bad Word and replacing it with the Good Word.

Retarded, in this context, is being used specifically as an insult by using a superseded medical term to imply that a person is of lesser intellect. The condition in question, intellectual disability as it is now known, is one that cannot be influenced by a person's actions, but is a consequence of birth.

In western culture it is usually considered offensive to use a characteristic that is a consequence of birth as an insult. For example: "Don't be such a black person/jew/asian" is considered offensive because you cannot control the trait of your race any more than you can control an intellectual disability.

Compounding that, as I mentioned above, the term 'retarded' or 'mentally retarded' is no longer used medically or legally, in the same way that 'moron' and 'idiot' aren't considered diagnoses anymore.

Therefore, using the term 'retarded' is culturally associated - exclusively - with insulting a person's actions by comparing them to someone who is disabled with the implication that a disabled person would necessarily act foolishly or irrationally.

It would be the same as if you needed an explanation simplified for you, and from then on every person who then needed a simpler explanation was then said to have 'needed a Tasuki'. You can surely understand, even if you personally don't mind, how that might cause offense.

After all, you are 'somewhat offended' by someone assuming that a link might provide a sufficient explanation instead of holding your hand through the explanation like someone who lacks reason, empathy, logic and intelligence ... Or do I need to Tasuki that further for you?

> In western culture it is usually considered offensive to use a characteristic that is a consequence of birth as an insult.

The problem is the insult, not the characteristic that is a consequence of birth. "You're retarded" is offensive, while "you're Asian" isn't. What about "You don't have legs" said to a person born with no legs? It might or might not be offensive, depending on the context.

> Therefore, using the term 'retarded' is culturally associated - exclusively - with insulting a person's actions by comparing them to someone who is disabled with the implication that a disabled person would necessarily act foolishly or irrationally.

I get how calling someone retarded might be considered offensive, but jesuscript specifically said that Stripe was not retarded. How is that offensive? Would you be offended if I said you were not retarded?

> Or do I need to Tasuki that further for you?

Oh please do tasuki that further for me, I'm a simple man and not offended by you suggesting so.

I appreciate you wanting to to understand a different point of view.

Why is it the author could understand certain actions only if someone has a medical condition?

Surely there could be multiple other reasons.

The context in which the word is used isn’t appropriate. Many find using the word when referring to a medical condition to be derogatory.

Saying someone/something isn’t a derogatory word isn’t kind. The words association and connotation is still there.

Thanks, didn’t mean to offend, just thought the article could explain it better then I could .

> The problem is that some people don't think well of some specific groups of people and whatever term is being used to refer to the specific group of people quickly becomes a Bad Word.

If a group of individuals actively find a word offensive and ask others not to use it, I think it’s generally kind to respect their request.

Word associations may change over time, and it’s great you have that insight. I don’t have a solution, other than recognizing the words we say invoke feelings in others. We live in the now.

Finding someone whom feels targeted by the word and is open to a conversation can help you understand why the word is harmful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com