Hacker News Reader

Comment by judk | Hacker News Reader

This article is weird.

1. The bizarre * in "retardation", as though it's a slur like "nigger".

2. It overplays "now we know it's all autism". The whole point of "autism spectrum" concept is that it's a name for a basket of symptoms that are NOT understood by current science. We don't have reliable biological tests yet (but there are some great correlates), we don't know the mechanism, we don't now how to reverse it. All we know are some ways to help people meet their life goals by learning ways to work around the skills they lack.

The article has the feel of someone with an extreme-seeking personality: he swung from an extreme homeopathic anti-scientist to an extreme "sciencist", assigning magical powers to "science", not understanding what science actually says.

View on HN

If you're the kind of person who doesn't use the word nigger then you should probably stop using the word retarded unless you're talking about mechanical movements. It's pretty much only used as hate speech now.

Edit: when you use the word retard as an insult you further the stigma that people with a learning disability face -- and those people already experience significant stigma. But it's also just not very insulting to the non-learning disabled people who you're using it against. They're just as insulted if you call them stupid or dumb.

When you write an article about something that has big overlaps with learning disability you need to be aware of the audience who will hate you if you use words like retard.

In New York City there is an agency called "The Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities."

There is a fascinating article about how this agency has resisted changing their name.*

>The debate over erasing the term “retarded” illustrates the issues that can arise as language shifts. Terminology was important to the parents who fought on behalf of children who until the 1950s were labeled “moron” or “imbecile.” For them, the initial popularizing of the term “mentally retarded” was a victory. A once-hidden population now had a name and a state agency.

*http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/nyregion/08name.html

That's a great article!

I hope we do better than we did 60 years ago!!

I have a few colleagues who have a diagnosed learning disability. They strongly reject the word "disabled". They sY that labelling them as disabled transfers blame to them. Bob can't understand that document? Well, of course not, Bob has a learning disability. But in that situation the actual nlame lies with the person who created the document - that person lacked empathy, understanding, and the skill to make information meaningful and accessible. And in this situation Bob is not paid to read and understand information, while the person providing it often is paid to provide information.

This echoes the sentiments from other disabled groups. You will often hear a person using a wheelchair say that the wheelchair is not the problem; that stupid bus without a ramp or the steps outside a shop are the problem.

There is a difference between US and UK usage. US usage of learning disability includes things like dyslexia or dyscalcula; in UK these are probably learning difficulty.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote, but in this article it was used in terms of, "Now we diagnose these behaviours as autism, whereas in the past they would have been called mental retardation." In that context it's hard to see how someone would be offended by the word. That said, I think it's a stretch to be offended by the unusual asterisk as well (or to discount the rest of the post because of it).

The noun form of "retard" (and the word "retarded", depending on context) is a much different thing than "retardation" or the verb "retard".

How are we to prevent retarded people from reaching positions of power where their retardation would harm others? Not talking about who is retarded and who isn't could cripple organizational decision making, causing entire organizations to behave in a retarded way.

Now I understand and respect your concern for the feelings of the retards, and we should of course try to hurt their feelings as little as possible. But discussing who can and cannot be trusted, and here level of intelligence is an important factor, is an instinctive human social behaviour that is at the core of a functioning society.

tl;dr The ideas you are advocating could destroy society... retard

Language changes.

If you still say things like "I was gypped" or "I got Jewed on that deal" then knock yourself out, keep using the word retard.

> How are we to prevent retarded people from reaching positions of power

I work with people who have various learning disabilities who are in positions of power. Not just token power -- controlling hundreds of thousands of £s of power; part of recruitment and selection power; elected representative power.

Those people with a learning disability suffer real harm when you misuse the word retard to insult people without a learning disability. Not using the word isn't about protecting their feelings although that is a nice side-effect. It's about changing a culture where people with a learning difficulty are not murdered by police or allowed to die by doctors or discriminated unfairly against at work.

But all those other people that you call retarded? The ones without a learning disability? There are a whole slew of other, better, words that you could use. Your vocabulary is too limited and so your invective suffers.

> Language changes.

Language has appearently changed within your circle of friends. Now you are trying to impose your language on the rest of the world by decree. I think that is disrespectful.

But the meaning of retard is a bit of a side-track. Because as you say yourself

>They're just as insulted if you call them stupid or dumb.

What you are trying to achieve is not just to change language in superficial way by just banning a word. That in itself would not be so bad. You are trying to change language on a deeper level so that a particular thought is impossible to express. You don't want there to be insults based on level of intelligence. You don't want there to be insults applicable to poorly thought out ideas. That is the geniuenly terrible idea.

> the retards

See, this I would say is kind of insulting.

retard has been on the last of no no words for a while now. Lots of co-workers really dont like it. cant tell if i'm on the wrongside of history but i really need a word for when my friends do something stupid.

"Retard" as a derogatory term and/or as a slur is indeed offensive, and people are using it less and less. It's best to avoid it. If you're still using it, you are on the wrong side of history. Find another word instead.

But "mental retardation" is a clinical term that is perfectly acceptable, and to bleep it for fear of saying it or spelling it out, is quite ridiculous. This is the first time I've ever seen it done, in fact. It's as silly as bleeping out "Niger river" because it is similar to a slur and shares some amount of etymology.

In fact the reason why "retard" is offensive, is because it is taking a term for a mental condition ("retardation") and turning it into a slur. It's similar to how calling something "gay" in a derogatory manner is offensive.

With "retard", the derogatory use became so much more prevalent than the clinical that even the latter was overshadowed and began to take on a negative connotation (at least, for many people).

You mean like a word like "stupid"? :-)

You most likely prefer "retarded" because it's feels different, and this is closely tied to it being a "no-no word". Swear words trigger a different part of the brain (limbic system and basal ganglia), so they feel more emotive, but if we didn't train ourselves to store them that way, they wouldn't.

http://harvardsciencereview.com/2014/01/23/the-science-of-sw...

Your cognition is spot on and you should be proud that you've been able to reflect on your usage of the word.

When I decided to stop using "retarded", I chose to replace it with "ridiculous". It was very easy to train my tongue. Since then, my vocabulary has gotten much sharper.

Yes, the word you're looking for is "stupid."

> i really need a word for when my friends do something stupid

How about two words? I think the current in-phrase is "special needs".

Words can be more or less hurtful to different groups of people. In Britain, calling someone "spastic" is extremely insulting, while in the US it's pretty slight.

autism is now pretty broad. spectrum broad. aspergers is gone. the article seems to insinuate that retarded is no longer going to be a valid state, and most affected by mental retardation will be labelled as autistic spectrum disorder.

i think the whole idea of promoting a label that allows you to speak of someone with a severe illness where they are non verbal and unable to look after themselves, and someone who doesn't make "enough" eye contact, "in the same breath" is pretty dangerous. particularly dangerous when those who create or make things, on whom most progress depends, tick the box.

the euphemism treadmill will therefore eventually accept "autistic" pushing off earlier terms.

in fact i can already see technically minded people labelling each other and themselves autistic, jokingly.

my prediction is that autistic will become an insult and will eventually be replaced by a newer more politically correct term.

Couldn't agree more, and I feel like seeking personalities like these give everyone a bad name, homeopaths and ivory-tower scientists alike.

It's a bit like deciding to be a vegan for years and then deciding that now it's okay to eat meat, but you're going to have to kill the chicken with your bare hands.

This blog post exemplifies the mindset that would beg one to "believe" recent research into autism spectrum disorders. As though belief had any place in scientific research.

The damage then cause when other folks grab this standard and run with it, claiming that now we all know genetics is where autism originates makes me cringe. And this is coming from someone who is deeply skeptical of a great majority of modern scientific medical practices, not because I do not believe they will improve my life, but because a rational and scientific mind must always be skeptical until experience or proof can be offered otherwise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com