Might I make a request regarding Rule #1

[TheGatesofLogic]

I suppose this involves rule #1, I'm not quite sure what rule "being a bigot" falls under but it borders on idiocy i suppose.

Now I'm obviously not the least bigoted person on this forum (even been temp banned for it once, though I WAS drunk) but I don't feel that makes me a hypocrite in this regard. Now a frequent way bigotry is seen on the internet and on these forums is using discriminatory words in a derogatory or insulting manner (i.e. using gay as an insult or using sexist phrases) I was simply wondering if it would be too much to ask to extend this to the word "retard," and although it might seem to be a nonissue, it really makes me cringe inside every time i see it. The word as it is so often used nowadays implies the lesser and it grinds on my nerves. I don't have any particular reason for this request, I'm not related to anyone with mental disabilities, and i obviously don't work with any, but regardless I would hope it might be considered.

[FlowerChild]

I'm a somewhat common offender on this one, and it's something I've put a fair amount of thought to, so I'll attempt to offer an explanation.

Personally, I don't think that the same logic applies here as with using a word like "gay" as an insult to describe something silly or stupid. In that case, you're applying a label that relates to something else entirely (gay people) to represent something negative (someone acting silly or stupid), thereby creating an unfair association that "gay people are silly or stupid".

In the case of a word like "retard", while I openly acknowledge it is far from PC, that's not the case. You're describing someone acting stupid by creating a reference to someone that is indeed likely stupid as a result of a mental disability.

Is it nice then? No, and having grown up in a time and place where such words were used regularly, it's become part of my speech patterns that I've actually been making an effort to cut down on with time. Is it bigoted though? I would say no, at least not in the same way that certain usage of words like "gay" would be. I know on many occasions I've tried to apply the same kind of analysis to the word, and it just doesn't hold up.

If you can make additional arguments to that effect though, I'm all ears, as like I said, this is stuff that I do actively consider and which I try to remain aware of. Given a compelling logical argument as to why it qualifies as bigotry, I also know I would have a much easier time eliminating it from my speech patterns, as right now the personal motivation comes down mostly to being polite, which I know from experience is a far less strong incentive.

[TheGatesofLogic]

I totally get that opinion man and really it's just that odd moral compass i have (i mean half the time it doesn't even work right) that nags at me.cI guess the best description i can think of right now is that a mentally disabled person is still a person, and yet they only act in a way we find silly or stupid because they are often incapable of doing otherwise, an analogy being making fun of gay people when the reason we think of something as gay being negative is because the natural tendencies of those people and our predispositions towards those tendencies. Do you see what i mean there?

[FlowerChild]

I totally get that opinion man and really it's just that odd moral compass i have (i mean half the time it doesn't even work right) that nags at m.I guess the best description i can think of right now is that a mentally disabled person is still a person, and yet they only act in a way we find silly or stupid because they are often incapable of doing otherwise, an analogy being making fun of gay people when the reason we think of somthing as gay being negative because the natural tendencies of those people and our predispositions towards those tendencies. Do you see what i mean there?

Sure, and if I was referring to a person with a mental disability as a "retard", I would think that to be cruel and unfair, and it's just not something that I would do.

And again, I openly acknowledge that it's not nice. However, that's not really the same thing as something qualifying as bigotry. I also engage in a lot of behavior that would qualify as "not nice", or vulgar, so it could also be viewed as a drop in the bucket where my overall personality is concerned :P

I think the "retard" thing would be more akin to calling someone a "cripple" (again, a common expression when I was growing up that's become distinctly unpopular since) if they can't run very fast. Is that vulgar, insulting, and even downright mean? Sure. Is it bigotry? Again, I'd have a hard time arguing that it is.

I dunno man, at a certain point I think that if we keep selectively eliminating the usage of words to avoid offending people, we're not going to have very many left at all.

I think I've talked about in the past how I find it rather amusing from an etymological perspective for example that people tried to basically repurpose the word "special" in attempt to make people with mental disabilities feel more positive about themselves.

So what happened? "Special" became repurposed once again by the hive mind as an insult to say someone was "retarded" in a more PC fashion. The meaning is exactly the same, the sounds have just changed slightly. Meanwhile, we largely lost the ability to use the word "special" in its more positive sense without someone cracking a smile about it. Despite their best intentions, in attempting to repurpose a positive word to describe something negative, they wound up changing the meaning of the word more than they wound up changing what it means to be mentally disabled.

At a certain point I think that we have to accept that despite our best intentions and how much we wish it weren't so, people with mental disabilities are still likely stupid by definition, and such analogies are thus unavoidable. I try to avoid bigotry like the plague, but when it comes down more to people taking offense about vulgarity for words they themselves can not avoid using in other forms, I really don't think it qualifies. Even "mentally disabled" or "challenged" or whatever, is highly insulting when you think about it hard enough.

So yeah man, still don't really "get it". As you probably know I frown severely upon bigotry on these forums, even in subtle forms that are not commonly recognized, but again, I still don't see it here.

[DaveYanakov]

While I try to be very aware of ableist vocabulary in myself, retard is referring to retarded development. This applies to maturity as easily as mental capacity and as such is often used in a perfectl accurate manner. Calling childish behavior retarded is much the same as saying 'hey, grow up if you want to carry on civil conversations with adults'.

[MoRmEnGiL]

If I may point out here, gay is a word that used to mean happy, but in today's society it has a very specific meaning 99,9% of the time. On the other hand, retarded, it's root and it's derivatives, are used in a variety of contexts and are still widely used without having any references to mental capacity.

In the end I think one has to draw a line to how much p.c. he wants the world around him to be. I'm sure we can find plenty of words that can offend someone, that doesn't mean we shouldn't use them. Words are never offensive imho, context is everything, and I don't think generalizing and attacking words is beneficial to anyone. It's a case by case basis thing. I use the word retarded, Fc uses it, hell, my mother uses it, and none of us do it in a bigoted fashion.

Sometimes it's just a turn of phrase and we shouldn't look too much into it. I say "oh my god a lot" for e.g., and I am 101% an atheist. It is just a verbal habit, no different than biting your lips when lost in thought, in the sense that it is not even something you consciously do most of the times. If others are offended by things like that, it's either VERY bad timing/context, or they choose to be. Or they are overly sensitive, which is also not my own fault, even if I tend to try not to hurt people's feelings.

[Aesc]

I usually only lurk but I have a personal stake in this. I'm mentally ill and physically disabled and I do have a developmental disability, although I'm lucky enough that it doesn't affect me as strongly as it does some other people. And yes, I find words such as "retard" and "cripple" very offensive.

The fact is that you are insulting someone by comparing them to us. And it is even worse given that the vast majority of the time people say "retarded" when they mean "wilfully ignorant" or "tremendously poorly thought out", which imply a lack of willingness or effort rather than a lack of ability, which ties in to the idea that disabled people can be 'normal' if we could just be bothered to try.

Even if you are able to separate the two meanings, the fact remains that the very word "retard" can be very upsetting and triggering for disabled people who have been repeatedly attacked using it, just like other slurs - even if you believe that the context makes it clear that you're not being ableist, that doesn't help someone who has a reaction to the word itself.

"Retard" started as a medical term used to justify institutionalising and murdering disabled people. It's still used that way. You can't separate it from that context.

I sincerely appreciate that you don't allow homophobic slurs, and in fact this is one of the only forums I've ever been part of that has deleted transphobic posts. I don't have to worry, when I come here, that I'll find people using my sexuality as a joke or an insult. That's why I'm very disappointed that ableist language is still allowed here - because despite the fact that this forum is much less bigoted than others, I still can't feel safe here.

[FlowerChild]

"Retard" started as a medical term used to justify institutionalising and murdering disabled people. It's still used that way. You can't separate it from that context.

I think the point of historical context is a valid one, and one I'll devote some more thought to. While it may not be along the same lines of "gay" (although there's a historical context to that one as well), in terms of the rational explanation for why it qualifies as bigotry, I can see a validity to it in that context (this was something I was contemplating myself a short while ago). That's one thing that "special" (when used as an insult), doesn't have, despite them being functionally equivalent.

I would like to point out that I very much appreciate the fact that these forums are a place where we can discuss such things rationally, intelligently, and without it turning into a flame war. As such though, I'd appreciate it if we not get personal about this but keep it on the level of a rational debate.

Obviously, I am a person who does care about such things, and I started out this conversation stating that if a compelling argument that I myself could "grok", could be made here, that I'd be all ears. I'm not willing to ditch words simply because they are offensive, or hurt someone's feelings, but if a clear case can be made for it going beyond that, then I would consider it the right thing to do.

[Aesc]

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer - "you" was meant to be a general you, not directed at anyone in particular. It might have been better if I'd used "one" or something instead. Since this subject is very close to my heart, I do get quite worked up about it, and that shows through in my writing even when I'm not angry at anyone in particular.

I guess there's only really one more thing I can say. In 2014 already at least five disabled children that I can name have been murdered by their parents in America alone, and 99% of the comments on any article about any of those deaths are sympathising with the parents for having to deal with a "retarded" child and talking about how killing them was best for everyone involved. This kind of thinking isn't just in internet comments either - the vice president of communications and awareness for Autism Speaks, a charity supposedly devoted to supporting autistic people, talks about wanting to kill her autistic daughter in a film made to promote the charity.

That's why I have such a strong reaction and opposition to the word "retard" in particular. It kills.

[FlowerChild]

Sometimes it's just a turn of phrase and we shouldn't look too much into it. I say "oh my god a lot" for e.g., and I am 101% an atheist. It is just a verbal habit, no different than biting your lips when lost in thought, in the sense that it is not even something you consciously do most of the times. If others are offended by things like that, it's either VERY bad timing/context, or they choose to be. Or they are overly sensitive, which is also not my own fault, even if I tend to try not to hurt people's feelings.

I'm sure we've also all encountered older white people that still occasionally use the word "nigger" without thinking about it, out of habit, and possibly even without actually being racist. It still doesn't make it right though.

Ultimately words are symbols, which is a point that I think will help demonstrate what I'm talking about.

At the risk of being a bit personal here myself, I'd like to recount a story from my own past to illustrate what I mean. For context, I'm a white man myself, which is not something I think I've mentioned before, nor which I even like mentioning, but is rather relevant here.

About 20 years ago I took my first trip to Atlanta, which in turn was the first time I was in Georgia. My plane landed late at night, and I went straight to my hotel. When I woke up in the morning, I walked out to a beautiful sunny day, and my jaw hit the ground.

Right across the street from my hotel was a government building (maybe a post office or something), and flying prominently above it was something that looked a hell of a lot like a Confederate battle-banner.

To me, that was so utterly tasteless that I couldn't fathom it being publicly flown, let alone it embellishing a government building, giving me the impression the authorities were lending tacit approval to such a thing.

Was the American civil war just about slavery? No. Is the Confederate Battle Banner a direct emblem of slavery? No. HOWEVER, there's such a strong connection between that war, that flag, and slavery, that to my mind at least, it is simply not acceptable to be perpetuating that symbol and everything that's associated with it. To me, I could easily see a black man having to walk by that every day having it act as a constant symbol of oppression. If I had to do so, I suspect it would constantly make me feel beaten down in subtle ways and subtly detract from my quality of life over the long term. That's just not right.

Now, I think I remember hearing Georgia changed its state flag to no longer look like that (again...this was around 20 years ago), but man, the above, and that entire trip due to a number of subtle things that were going on that gave me a constant impression of racism lurking just beneath the surface of almost everything in that place, made me feel honestly ashamed to be white and wound up leaving me feeling distinctly dirty. I'm very happy I experienced it mind you as I think it was a very significant life-lesson for me.

But again, that flag was "just" a symbol. Was everyone flying it a racist? Probably not. Does flying it have a direct relationship to bigotry? I don't think so. But fuck man, at a certain point you gotta let go of those symbols from the past with the acknowledgement that they have become so tainted through association that they are simply no longer appropriate.

I'll even intentionally invoke the Nazis here as an extreme example by mentioning that even the swastika has no direct relationship to genocide. However, I doubt anyone would argue it's cool to fly one due to the associations that it creates. Again, just not right.

Anyways, does the word "retard" qualify as one of these outmoded symbols with such painful associations that it should simply be retired? Maybe, and that's why I thought the argument of historical association was particularly strong. It doesn't follow the same logic as the word "gay" IMO, and it may not be actual bigotry, but it's a strong argument for why it may not be right regardless.

We may do these kind of things habitually, but ultimately habits can change

[FlowerChild]

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer - "you" was meant to be a general you, not directed at anyone in particular. It might have been better if I'd used "one" or something instead. Since this subject is very close to my heart, I do get quite worked up about it, and that shows through in my writing even when I'm not angry at anyone in particular.

No, that wasn't how I took it. I was actually referring to both you and Morm in the "lets not make it personal" thing.

In Morm's case, he seemed to be getting a bit hot under the collar and becoming a bit aggressive about it in his tone.

In your case, while I appreciate your personal experience, I'm a bit worried that sharing it in this context will amount to an emotional argument here rather than a rational one about why this is right or wrong. I know from personal experience that the rational part of the argument is the one that will really cause someone like me to change his behavior patterns, and beyond that, if this were ever to turn into some kind of forum rule I personally need to be 100% sound on the logic of why it's the case in order to apply it.

In terms of me, I think you guys calling me out directly on this is entirely appropriate, so I don't object to the use of the word "you" in the slightest. I am probably the biggest perpetuator of the use of such words on these forums, and I openly acknowledge that. So yeah, don't sweat it about treading lightly in referring to me directly here. I haven't been treading lightly in presenting the counterpoints either.

Given the context I grew up in, I spent a good portion of my life combating various forms of discrimination within myself man, so I don't take it personally, I am not averse to change, and I am habituated to taking such things seriously.

I'm getting older but I don't particularly want to be the uncle that everyone rolls their eyes at over Thanksgiving dinner when he busts out the occasional "nigger" or "fag" out of a lifetime of habit :)

[Gilberreke]

I appreciate that there's a lot of good conversation here. I'm personally very conscious about the words I use, which means I'll sometimes decide to use a word in spite of its connotations, because I feel like the reasons for banning it are invalid (I hate overly PC behavior).

To give some examples: I will routinely call my black friends "Ey neger" (Dutch for "yo nigger"). We do have a history of oppression against black people, like almost everywhere, but there's been no direct contact of my country's home soil with black slavery. The situation is such, that for us, any connotation with the word "nigger" really comes down to silly rap videos. I highly believe that making fun of stereotypes in such a way (I regularly call my female friends "sluts" for example) is a good thing. When my friends and I make fun of the word (and I obviously make absolutely sure at any point that people understand its tongue in cheek nature), we own the word and protect ourselves against its use. And obviously, they will call me certain words too (for example, I allow people to call me a nerd, when it's tongue in cheek, while I actually really hate when people call me that word as an insult).

That being said, I wouldn't use the word on American soil or versus a US citizen, because I know the connotation and history of the word is completely different for them. I will sometimes use an "N-bomb" online, but only when it's extremely absurd and tongue in cheek. I also support that African-Americans can use the word "nigger" whenever they damn well please, as apart from being a shield, as I explained above, it also serves the important function of linguistic reappropriation. I personally find that black popular culture went too far in its use, but again, they can do with that as they damn well please, it's fair to say they earned all use of that word and it's theirs to do with what they want.

What Aesc seems to do is compare the word "retard" to the word "nigger", in that they both have a very strong historical connotation to some atrocious human behavior. I think he's correct in this case and if we should shun one, we should probably shun the other. Especially since many of us seem to shy away from using the N-word due to sensibilities versus black people, but forego the same attention to word retard, because the real retards won't fight back (which is obviously despicable).

I don't think I use the word "retard" a lot (not because of choice, it seems to be something lacking from my vocabulary for whatever reason), but I'll endeavor to at least mind my use of it if I can. I hate overly PC behavior, but this one seems warranted (and well defended by Aesc, I hadn't seen the historic use explained before).

Thanks again for the intelligent discussion here, it brings me joy to see that there's still tons of good people left :)
As a small aside, I deliberately made use of the word "nigger" here, without shame. I learned this from Samuel L Jackson, among others. One correct use of the word is when talking about it. Directly discussing the effects of the word without mentioning it is ludicrous and an example of being "too PC". I'd go as far as to say it's almost insulting. Example here:

[FlowerChild]

I'm personally very conscious about the words I use, which means I'll sometimes decide to use a word in spite of its connotations, because I feel like the reasons for banning it are invalid (I hate overly PC behavior).

I'm exactly the same. I often use words with the specific knowledge that they push people's buttons in ways that I don't agree with to get a rise out of them and provoke confrontation.

Many people will avoid using words such as "fag" or "nigger" not because they have valid justification for not doing so, or because they honestly understand why it's wrong, but rather just because "none of the cool kids do it", or maybe at best out of guilt because they don't want to hurt someone's feelings. I also think that's when you start to run into the "n-word" nonsense with people that think it's somehow the specific combination of sounds that are offensive rather than the concepts they symbolize.

It's like people that will frown at you for not recycling while driving an SUV around, and I utterly loathe that kind of hypocrisy. They make token gestures to maintain the appearance of "good people" while doing any actual good is the furthest thing from their minds. IMO, those kind of attitudes perpetuate problems by conveniently sweeping them under the rug where they are less likely to be addressed head-on. It's what I personally refer to as a "moral placebo".

Hence why I will argue a point as unpopular as the use of the word "retard" in open debate. Hence why I am still using such language in the first place when it hasn't been considered generally acceptable in a couple of decades. If I am to change, it will be because I *know* that I am in the wrong, not because I know it's unfashionable or because I think it will make people like me.

I personally find that black popular culture went too far in its use, but again, they can do with that as they damn well please, it's fair to say they earned all use of that word and it's theirs to do with what they want.

Man, as someone that I think has experienced a fairly wide range of North American culture and how much it varies from region to region, I really don't think it's been overdone. A few hundred miles can make a *huge* difference. Sometimes even going city to city within the same state will result in something that feels like you're on another planet in terms of the attitudes on display. I feel confident in saying this is an ongoing fight that is occurring, not something that is relegated to the history books.

Let's please not take this into politics, but I think if you take a look at the recent supreme court ruling in the U.S. that overturned a law that required southern states to get federal approval for any changes in local voting laws, which had been specifically created to combat racism in the first place, and what happened immediately after that decision, it will speak volumes to you.

Right on man. That was a thing of beauty.

[Gilberreke]

It's like people that will frown at you for not recycling while driving an SUV around, and I utterly loathe that kind of hypocrisy. They make token gestures to maintain the appearance of "good people" while doing any actual good is the furthest thing from their minds. IMO, those kind of attitudes perpetuate problems by conveniently sweeping them under the rug where they are less likely to be addressed head-on. It's what I personally refer to as a "moral placebo".

Yeah man, preach on :). I'd go as far as to say THAT's offensive to ME. I spent literally hours upon hours a week trying to be a good fucking human being. I'm not all peaches all the time because I'm some sort of ignorant hippie, I put hours of work into trying to maintain a semblance of a morally good person. Do good, just because people deserve that (even when they usually don't). I fret over details, I study philosophy, I really believe that there's good in everybody if we take the time to reflect on it. The important part is that morally good is something you need to own. Morals are subjective from person to person, so you need to put in the effort to find out what good morals are for you. Reading liberal media or the bible, communist manifesto or Mein Kampf; it all doesn't matter to me. If you're going to quote a book or an article without understanding it, I don't even care if you're on the same side of the argument. I respect moral people with different morals more than people with no morals whatsoever (especially if they *think* they have morals).

When someone tells me to recycle from the window of a SUV (or any other obvious BS "moral placebo" act), I find that really offensive. That's indeed the reason why I'll go out of my way to use certain words that I know will make them cringe, because if you haven't spent the hours upon hours I have, I will see right through that, and you will lose the argument. If I notice the person in question knows what they're talking about, we'll have that talk and I will apologize if I'm wrong.

Honestly, it just baffles me that everyone is not like that. I just can't understand how they can go through life so blissfully unaware.

Man, as someone that I think has experienced a fairly wide range of North American culture and how much it varies from region to region, I really don't think it's been overdone. A few hundred miles can make a *huge* difference. Sometimes even going city to city within the same state will result in something that feels like you're on another planet in terms of the attitudes on display. I feel confident in saying this is an ongoing fight that is occurring, not something that is relegated to the history books.

Oh yeah, I'm sure that's how it is. I just don't think most people from the US get how weird it is to live in Europe these days. The part of NA culture that's exported over here is very lopsided to say the least ;). Sadly enough, it's taking over our culture, especially with young black people in our country. They think they're emulating strong black role-models, but I feel that's not always the case.

Let's please not take this into politics, but I think if you take a look at the recent supreme court ruling in the U.S. that overturned a law that required southern states to get federal approval for any changes in local voting laws, which had been specifically created to combat racism in the first place, and what happened immediately after that decision, it will speak volumes to you.

Yeah, I won't go into the politics, but I'll check out those ramifications. I've read about the law changes, but I didn't know I had to do research on the follow-up, I will.

[FlowerChild]

Ok, after a long walk and much introspection I've come to the conclusion that I'm utterly in the wrong here.

I think I have always approached this in the past in the manner it was always perceived by me as: as some "do gooder" telling me I was using non-PC language and reveling in pushing their buttons as a result of them having no direct connection to the issue at hand, and in pretty much every case an extremely flimsy moral justification for why it was wrong that didn't withstand further discussion.

Never before has someone said to me something as simple as "dude...you're hurting *me* by saying that". In that light, I simply can not justify it, despite my best efforts to try to remain coldly analytical about it (which amounts to a bunch of bullshit in the face of such a statement).

As as result, and as an extension of the story about my experiences when I was younger above, I've come to the conclusion that I've been continuing to wave the rebel flag in defiance of federal authority (or in my case, in defiance of the PC movement), while practicing willful ignorance over the "collateral damage" I've been causing in so doing, through displaying what has become a hurtful symbol by its associations.

It may not be bigotry by the definitions I usually associate with it, but I also can not say in good conscience that it's right. In fact, I don't feel at all good about it, and will do everything I can to change that behavior in myself.

That's why I'm very disappointed that ableist language is still allowed here - because despite the fact that this forum is much less bigoted than others, I still can't feel safe here.

Man, seriously, you have my sincerest apologies. It was bone-headed defiance on my part that resulted in hurtful behavior towards people I wasn't taking the time to consider. I'm very sorry for that.

I also don't know exactly how to word this, but it's important to me to express regardless: thank you for teaching me something about myself.

I don't feel comfortable implementing some kind of immediate rule about this kind of thing given I'd feel rather hypocritical doing so and feel that it will require a fair amount more thought on my part, but I'd ask for your patience as I attempt to transition towards that through warnings and such while I work on the log in my own eye.

[Xeo]

Yeah man, preach on :). I'd go as far as to say THAT's offensive to ME. I spent literally hours upon hours a week trying to be a good fucking human being. I'm not all peaches all the time because I'm some sort of ignorant hippie, I put hours of work into trying to maintain a semblance of a morally good person. Do good, just because people deserve that (even when they usually don't). I fret over details, I study philosophy, I really believe that there's good in everybody if we take the time to reflect on it. The important part is that morally good is something you need to own. Morals are subjective from person to person, so you need to put in the effort to find out what good morals are for you. Reading liberal media or the bible, communist manifesto or Mein Kampf; it all doesn't matter to me. If you're going to quote a book or an article without understanding it, I don't even care if you're on the same side of the argument. I respect moral people with different morals more than people with no morals whatsoever (especially if they *think* they have morals).

A bit OT but are you a Nietzsche fan? If so I don't think anyone really understands everything he wrote. :)

Anyways back On Topic: Okay, so I wrote a long post about the linguistic history of the word "retard" and how it can be a simple insult without drawing a comparison to mentally disabled people, but then after reading your realization I remembered I can be a huge asshole sometimes when I get too involved in Philosophical idealism. The truth is the English language changes whether we want it too or not, see the new meaning of literally meaning "figuratively" or the fact LOL is now in most dictionaries. As such the word retard has changed just like the word gay/fag to mean, in simple language one would expect on an internet forum, a comparison to something considered "bad" or unfavorable by the Zeitgeist of western culture. I guess when we overanalyze language we overlook the point of rule #1 completely, not to injure people. Sometimes, as a straight, not-disabled, white male I can forget that when someone yells an expletive at you, one doesn't stop to think about what it meant or the linguistics behind it, you feel hurt.

Wow, I too was totally turned around on this issue, thank you guys for the intelligent debate, using Logos and Pathos.

[Gilberreke]

A bit OT but are you a Nietzsche fan? If so I don't think anyone really understands everything he wrote. :)

1) I'm too thoroughly impressed by FlowerChild to reply right now
2) Not even Nietzsche understood what he wrote I think :p

[Xeo]

1) I'm too thoroughly impressed by FlowerChild to reply right now

Yeah, I know, its a beautiful thing when someone is turned around on a belief based on a convincing argument, especially not a confused youth like me! And honestly, something sadly few and far between today, (getting dangerously close to politics I know)
Also Bravo to Aesc to for arguing his case convincingly without letting it devolve into flames, something which I guess is a further testament to the unusual good quality of these forums.

[FlowerChild]

I appreciate where the positive comments about my change of heart are coming from guys, but "we've come to bury Caesar, not to praise him".

I honestly don't want to feel good about any of this. It's a painful realization, and I want to keep it that way as a motivation towards change.

[Aesc]

I just got back from a day out at uni, and all I can say is thank you, FlowerChild. I really appreciate it.

I can't exactly explain what I feel when people actually listen about this sort of thing, so all I'll say is that it's very, very rare, and it means a lot to me.

Edit: to explain how rare this is, I basically have a script (you saw some of it) for when I'm trying to explain this to people, and as a result I get extremely Words about it all. This post was three sentences long, because I've never even had to think before about what to say when someone actually listens. I understand that you don't want to feel good about this as a whole, but I want you to know that I do.

[tedium]

i work with many disabled and elderly people. even for those struck by a physical trauma, it feels better to think of them as 'changed' rather than 'damaged'. it's a matter of perspective. we all grow old, most of us will suffer problems along the way. i just try and make that experience as not unpleasant as i can make it. and give them a chance to forget they have a problem, and let them enjoy small victories. a walking frame is awesome, if you are in the unfortunate position of being greatly benefited by one.

[editted; due to 'sometimes less is more]

[FlowerChild]

I understand that you don't want to feel good about this as a whole, but I want you to know that I do.

I'm glad that's the case man :)

i work with many disabled and elderly people. even for those struck by a physical trauma, it feels better to think of them as 'changed' rather than 'damaged'.

Uh huh...and it also feels better when I consider myself to be the Queen of France. I'm editing my vocabulary man, not attempting to practice self-delusion :)

I think one of the big problems I've always had with the PC movement, and hence why I feel compelled to rebel against it, is that it has a certain "war is peace" quality to it. If a man loses his legs, I'm sure he'd both prefer to have them back, and I would still prefer not to lose my own. Thus, I think that at a fundamental level we can both agree it's an unfortunate and generally bad thing that has occurred. I do not think it's right to try and redefine his loss to make us feel better about the situation and like it was no big deal. It still is, and to me saying otherwise is not only a violation of intellectual integrity, but is also disrespectful towards him and what he's going through in dealing with it.

What I do agree with however, and have become more aware of, is that it's also not right to use language that inadvertently rubs salt in those wounds and makes the experience more painful than it already is through its associations. That, I most certainly don't want to be doing, even while I continue to regard the more Orwellian aspects of language manipulation to be just as distasteful as ever.

EDIT: And reference in case anyone missed it:

[Kazuya Mishima]

i work with many disabled and elderly people. even for those struck by a physical trauma, it feels better to think of them as 'changed' rather than 'damaged'.

I feel really unsettled by this. These conditions are essentially loss of function and only in a few rare instances is loss of function desired like various manifestations of dysmorphia or deaf culture, the first being to atypical neurologies. We should not be making neutral or even positive normative claims about these states of existence out of fatalism. Assuming regenerative medicine was more advanced few people would likely elect to experience these conditions just as a very small minority of the population voluntarily elect to have healthy limbs amputated. One need only stroll through a shopping mall to see the massive defiance against senescence represented in endless cosmetics vendors.

[Rawny]

Yes some words aren't nice and can hurt, that's been covered above. People have the right to say dumb things and people have the right to dislike, disagree and feel bad but where do we draw the line? An extreme even implausible example; if I was a grossly obese child because of a chocolate addiction and I was hurt by the word "chocolate", would the word be discussed? I doubt it, so there is a line, or a large grey patch. If a word is "removed" then it will be replaced by something else with different sounds but similar intent, the example of "special" given previously. Will "special" ever be considered hurtful by enough people and will it one day be "removed"?

Note. Tone through text is difficult to convey and I'm not always good with my words. I mean no disrespect to anybody and is mean only as an open question. I myself have recently noticed the word and have been taken back with how I personally felt with saying it. This thread is an odd coincidence because that word was recently used while skyping and BTW'ing, and this type of conversation took place.

[MoRmEnGiL]

Wow, lots of words, no time to read them all right now.

I'll just mention that there is not a tiny bit of aggressive intent from my part, and if it came out like that I apologize, maybe it's because us Mediterranean types tend to be a bit too passionate when we try to express ourselves. Again, I was just trying to get my point of view across, and I am sorry if it came out wrong.

A funny thought I had, is that the swastika is obviously a no-go in everyday life, you can't just fly it around without causing havoc. But we use the term grammar nazi for example. If you think about it, it should be offensive to both Germans and victims of the Third Reich. Is it wrong to use it?

Dunno. Context and intent is everything for me. I stand by my view that words are neither good nor bad by themselves, it's not how you dress it, but what you mean. But you can't be oblivious to how your words affect others too. A complicated situation to be sure.