On RetardareA: How has it (your birthday) been so far?
B: Mostly spent battling retarded seminar sources.
A: We don't use that word.
*deeeeeeep breath* Okay, here is where Nadia causes the free world to curse her name, because there are several things I can't bear about this particular dialogue.
The base fact of the matter is that, if people find the hijacking of the word 'gay' as an insult offensive (I should point out that I am one of these people), then I find the hijack of words with perfectly logical roots because they also refer to specific mental or physical conditions equally offensive. Well, okay, maybe 'offensive' is the wrong term. But I am deeply distressed by it. The basis of this aggravation seems, to me, to be thus: if you could find me any sense in which the word 'gay' has a root in stupidity, abnormality or plain irritation, I would allow its archaic usage. If you accept that it can mean both 'happy/bright/cheering/whimsical' and 'homosexual', then it would be absurd to deny its other definitions. But the word 'gay' HAS not such origins. Therefore, one can only assume that its usage as an insult is born out of absorbed if not overtly hostile homophobia, quod erat demonstrandum (QED, for the non-Classicists). This leads me on to the defense of my using the word 'retarded' - gerunds and gerundives flying all over the place, today; to look at its Latin root, retardare, it literally means 'to hold back, to hinder, to delay', which leads to its use to describe certain conditions of delayed development. This being borne in mind (oh gods, another gerundive - although actually I think Latin would structure that as an ablative absolute), I am perfectly vindicated in my usage. The particular seminar sources were indeed delayed, hinder and held back. Not only that, but they were inflicting this same fate upon me.
To further my point, these original meanings - which I assure you are not just the ramblings of a Cicero-bashing Classicist (they still appear in modern dictionaries under 'retarded') - having negative connotations themselves! Surely, if anything, it's use of the word 'retardation' to describe the people who HAVE conditions involving a decreased rate of mental development is the one we should be weeding out, not its use in everyday conversation to describe things that won't be insulted no matter how much abuse I hurl at them.
I think I've flogged that dead donkey enough. Before PETA come down on me for use of THAT phrase - and yes, I'm aware that I'm starting to sound dangerously like Jeremy Clarkson here, I shall move on to the OTHER bone I have to pick with Person A's response.
Hypocrisy.
No matter the fact that I disapprove of your methods, I greatly admire your attempts to make the world a better, less judgemental, less insulting place for everyone. However, with that statement you have just upscuttled your own mission, because that phrase ('we don't use that word') has the effect of making ME feel alienated, belittled and condescended to, and now I'm trying to think of a way to end this sentence with something other than a preposition. Success. <- fragment.
Your use of the term 'we', since I just used the word and therefore am clearly not included IN said first person plural, gives an instant impression of division. Furthermore, the phrase as a whole carries with it conotations of parental guidance and instruction in civilisation. Am I less civilised than you because I choose to define words differently? Are you intellectually superior to me and rubbing it in my face by assuming a parental role and treating me like a child? I seem to remember something about the time when people used to treat African Americans like that. I think there was some kind of hooha about it. Oh yeah, the Civil Rights Movement, I remember now. Now, I'm NOT going so far as to say that having this phrase used at me is in anyway equivalent to the treatment which sparked the civil rights movement, but it is the same in a few essentials, which I believe I've already set out for you.
Another point, on the topic of hypocrisy: the terms 'idiot', 'imbecile' and 'moron' used to be specific categories of mental retardation, relating to certain IQ brackets. Would you like us all to edit those out of our vocabularies as well? Because the fact is, every insult has some basis on an actual condition of some variety. You may say that a world without any insults would be a nicer place to live, and maybe it would be, but it would also be a world without freedom of expression. George Orwell's 1984 demonstrates the attempt to eradicate concepts by eradicating the word for them. Is that what we're aiming for here? I sincerely hope not.
Essentially, I value my right to free speech and, yes, I consider that my right to offend if necessary, but that's not actually the issue here. The issue is that perfectly ordinary words should not be hog-tied and wrestled out of out vocabularies because of some slightly unsavoury connotations, particularly when they are not meant in anyway as insults to whoever those connotations might involve. Also, I think people need to be clearer about which usage they want changed. I think, in this case, at least, that they're missing the mark pretty badly.
Feel free to comment on this. Flame me, if it's your wish, but it's something I've given a lot of thought to, so you'll have to be quite convincing to change my mind. You have been warned. Thanks for reading.