General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe word "RETARDED" as defined by Webster's and Urban Dictionary
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/retardedverb (used with object)
1.to make slow; delay the development or progress of (an action, process, etc.); hinder or impede.
verb (used without object)
2.to be delayed.
noun
3.a slowing down, diminution, or hindrance, as in a machine.
4.Slang: Disparaging.
a.a mentally retarded person.
b.a person who is stupid, obtuse, or ineffective in some way: a hopeless social retard.
5.Automotive, Machinery . an adjustment made in the setting of the distributor of an internal-combustion engine so that the spark for ignition in each cylinder is generated later in the cycle.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=retarded
Except in very specific situations, the word is offensive and those who strive to avoid offending others do not use it once they become aware of the offensiveness. Rather like "c*" or "n*" or "clutch those pearls.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Nauseating day here in GD. To the Lounge, or Sports I will head to now...
uppityperson
(115,674 posts)uppityperson
(115,674 posts)Igel
(35,197 posts)Some have a rather larger boundary with far more people in their group than others. Some try for no boundaries (but that usually fails).
Had a friend many years ago who'd say "that's gay" about things, words, actions. That use of the word has been widely disparaged on DU. Nobody's seriously defended it here. Then again, nobody wants to defend a bunch of mostly white teens who have homophobic tendencies. Not the "in-group" for most DUers. (He'd also say "that's hoy," but "hoy" was apparently more of a short-lived SoCal thing.)
In defending "that's retarded" (short for something like "that's retarded of you to say" or "that's something a 'retard' would say" , they're not defending the word. They're defending the person. And not the person per se--probably nobody on DU actually knows her. They're defending some group that they feel solidarity with: Those who are poorly educated, those who speak AAVE, those who are African- or Haitian-American, those who have had a hard life, those who want Zimmerman sentenced harshly. It probably varies by person. But as soon as you identify with a person because of group boundaries you start justifying their actions, even if they're actions that you'd find reprehensible if somebody not in your group did them. At that point hypocrisy is all but impossible to avoid--you have one standard for you and yours, another standard for somebody else. (Better: Instead of saying it's actually acceptable behavior, first condemn it and then say why mercy is appropriate.)
Recently watched somebody on DU defend blatant racism by a member of a minority group. "It wasn't racist, it was defensive." Most racists I know think they're defending something or somebody through their racism. The irony was palpable.
kiva
(4,373 posts)When someone you like/admire/respect/relate to says or does something stupid, you can either say "Wow, that was stupid and I hope they don't do that again" or you can defend the words or act with every fiber of your being and take every criticism of those words or acts personally.
If you choose the latter you will be pilloried here by some and defended by others. Personally I prefer to think that liberals are better critical thinker who are able to recognize cognitive dissonance and reject it, but some days I'm dead wrong.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)What does that mean?
REP
(21,691 posts)Discount any other new definition.
Response to uppityperson (Original post)
devilgrrl This message was self-deleted by its author.
REP
(21,691 posts)Nothing else matters. Not her nimble wit under stress; not her grief and guilt: only that she said a word the DU has decided is a no-no word.
Response to REP (Reply #8)
devilgrrl This message was self-deleted by its author.