On the subject of this debate, I have a question. This is going to be some Devil's Advocacy goin' down, but I'm just looking for some debate and not trying to blow apart arguments.
Since you surmise that, essentially, calling something "retarded" more or less means you're comparing it to a group of people who never asked for it, and who so are labeled as such due to a deficiency within themselves (let's not get into the specifics, I'm trying to maintain a big picture attitude here), doesn't that sort of call into question a chicken-and-egg thing?
I.e., back in the day. Let's use the Middle Ages. There'd be people showing up with birth defects, like seizures or whatever, and doctors and science men of the time would label it demonry or devil possession. Hell, we have people who still do that today in certain parts of the world. This seems like a problem to me because medical doctors could probably fly in and diagnose someone with something. Again, no specifics. Being vague on purpose.
So people with ___. In the 1500s, you're possessed by Satan. Today, you're called any number of things - mentally handicapped, retarded, "special," etc.
So the word retarded gets redefined at this point, or does it simply take on
another definition? Because it seems to me this could be applied to this debate at large and cull away two camps of words. When did gay begin to mean homosexual? It's pretty clear it wasn't that originally. So who started that trend?
Slippery slopes start to come into play if you want, but it doesn't seem all that needed. My point being that if a word comes to mean X, does it
grow by that, or get replaced? Because on some level you're telling me "hey, this word is now off limits because it now contains this new definition, and can only be relegated to usage X pertaining to these certain situations."
Hold up. Did we invent the word "retarded" for such things? Did it exist elsewhere? Where was the line drawn that tells me I can no longer use it?
At the end of the day there are words I'll try to not use in a demeaning manner. Then there are the ones that I know
can be but that I've never thought of as such. People in Texas have an issue with "Mexicans" because the stereotype overrides the fact that it simply defines where that person came from, and
can be used to signify their culture and heritage. But it's not a dirty word. The idolization of a wide brimmed wearing drunk skeezy mofo?
Yes, and the fact that you
think up that image is racist - not the word itself.
Further, people start assuming words are interchangeable. Again, with "Mexican" I hear people say "isn't that the same as Chicano? Tejano? Wetback?"
Mother
er. Chicano is a cultural movement thing. Tejano is more of a definition based on territory.
Wetback is indeed a racist term. But there's confusion over this. In
Texas. Put it another way: One of these words should be OBVIOUSLY not like the others. But even
here some of us don't know!
Which means if I wake up tomorrow and find out I can't use the word "waffle" because some PAC got pissy and said it shouldn't be used because some bigot assholes somewhere decided it meant "fetus
ers," I'm going to punch some puppies. I.e., if people this close in proximity to a nation in
my state cannot tell these words apart, what hope do I have for people in the rest of the nation, and
then what hope do I have when this metaphor is magnified and multiplied in complexity by 1000000000 times by spelling out words with even more obtuse usages and applications? Shit, man. Stuff goes deep and wide QUICK.
So, all I'm asking at this point, is where and when we decide these things. If it's something that's vague and arbitrary, and changes based on the evolution of language, there ought to be room for variations over what someone means and means to say. I'm sure you'll tell me this falls under the "intent" category, which you fully do away with (I'm talking directly to myke with this), and if that's the deal, then I can understand that.
Again, it just makes me wonder if it's all a timing thing, or if any word could be the culprit. If someone started calling mentally deficient people "gummybears" would
that word be controversial.
Edit: By the way, myke. Look up some books by Charlie Huston referred to as the "Joe Pitt Casebooks." They might be your style. Pulp noir underground hard ass dood, and he's a Vampyre. Who likes the Pogues, and used to go to CBGB. Seems up your alley. It's silly fiction, but we all need entertainment in our lives.
