08-18-2013 at 5:32 PM

I have family members who are on a crusade to eliminate the word "r'tard" from the English language. While I understand where they are coming from, I have three problems with it.<br /> <br /> 1. The word has important use in the medical community, especially when referencing substances that affect the growth of organisms in a variety of ways. It is unfair to outlaw a word when it is used in a context that is in no way referencing the intelligence or common sense of a human being.<br /> <br /> 2. Making a word illegal is censorship, no matter how well-meaning. It's a dangerous path to take.<br /> <br /> 3. Even if the word was illegal, it's not the word that's the problem; it's the attitude. Ignorant people who want to belittle an entire group are going to do it no matter what they call it. A rose by any other name, and all that.<br /> <br /> As for spaz ... I have only ever heard that in a derogatory manner in the movie "Romper Stomper". Still, the same as above applies.

06-20-2012 at 1:45 PM

I agree with both of the posts here, and can't find much else to add except that if only one country sees it as negative slang, it's not fair to ban it from an entire world site. For example, many users could claim, truthfully, that b*tch is a derogatory term in their country, and many users would object because in their areas, it's more often used to refer to a female dog than any other definition, and Ala would side with them. It's just the way things go; mostly with the majority.

06-20-2012 at 9:04 AM

The way the term "spaz/spastic" is used in the US doesn't compare the "spaz" to a person with an illness or handicap. It's used more to say "You're being spastic!" - you're acting awkward, clumsy, or eccentric. If you follow this definition, I'm a spaz half the time. You should see me when I walk through a spider web - I get downright awkward, clumsy, <i>and</i> eccentric. o.o<br /> <br /> "Spastic" is derived from a Greek word that means "drawing in" or "tugging" and is used to refer to the medical condition spasticity (seen in spastic diplegia and other forms of cerebal palsy). Originally, "spastic" was just a word used to describe the movements of people with spasticity - no one meant anything bad by it and it was an accepted medical term. Only after years of people using it poorly did it become "offensive", as you say.<br /> <br /> Same goes for "r'tard", at least in my book. The actual definition is "a slowing down, a delay in the development or progress of, or hindrance, as in a machine" - it says nothing about people or handicaps. Based on the definition, it was applied to people with mental r'tardation (which can be caused by a variety of things) because they displayed "a delay in the development". It's only years of offensive application that have made "r'tard" a "dirty word". If it wasn't for those certain people who used it poorly, it would still be okay to say "The machine is r'tarded" - you'd just mean "The machine is slower than normal." <br /> <br /> And don't even get me started on the rest of the words that have been tweaked and abused by people so that we can't even use them now without everyone assuming you're a terrible person. My favorite one of these is probably "fag" - originally, it meant a lot of different things: to tire or weary by labor, to exhaust ("That long climb really fagged us out"), to require a young public school pupil to do menial chores (this one's British), to fray or unlay the end of a rope. Then it started being used as slang: first, it was slang for the end of a cigarette. It's also short for "$@#!*/fagot" - this means a bundle of sticks, or anything bound together and used as fuel. Only fairly recently did it come to be a slang (read: offensive) term relating to male homosexuals. It was originally (in the 16th century) an offensive term applied to women, particularly old women (implying that they're a burden, something to be carried - like a bundle of sticks).<br /> <br /> It's truly fascinating how many of today's "offensive" words started out meaning something pretty harmless. If only people hadn't been (and weren't still) so terrible to each other, we could still use these words harmlessly. <br /> <br /> tldr: Most words truly are harmless little things, but years of poor use and abuse has taken all the good out of some of them. Now when people hear certain words, they get offended. I'm not saying that these people are being too sensitive or that these words should be added back to mainstream culture - sadly, these words do hurt people and it's much too late for them to make a harmless comeback. But if you get back to the actual definitions, there really isn't much to be offended about.<br /> <br /> Hopefully that makes sense. I don't want to come off like I'm saying these words aren't used to hurt people - I'm very aware that they are (and that they do, in fact, hurt people). It just really bothers me that most people seem to ignore the original (often harmless) definitions and get worked up over one particular association.<br /> <br /> ETA: Oh my, it's like an English lesson. And I keep saying I don't want to be a teacher... >.&lt; <br /> <br /> ...Sorry xD

06-20-2012 at 2:09 AM

Personally, I feel if you use Spastic in that way, then yes it is offensive and should be treated the same as if you called someone another equally offensive name.<br /> <br /> In the case of the dog being called that, it was a descriptor of the way the colors flowed on the coat - in that form of usage it is completely acceptable.<br /> <br /> I don't see any problem with it being allowed in that way.<br /> <br /> I also named my dog Spaz, because she had a crazy, super-active personality (as terriers tend to have) - and I feel this is different from calling a person or animal, or even an idea mentally defective.