|
in reply to Re^2: MJDs Contract Warnings - courtesy of Perlweekly
in thread MJDs Contract Warnings - courtesy of Perlweekly
Are mentally disabled people worthy of derision, as the quote seems to imply?
|
Re^4: MJDs Contract Warnings - courtesy of Perlweekly
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Apr 15, 2015 at 10:16 UTC
|
Are mentally disabled people worthy of derision, as the quote seems to imply?
Question: Do you seriously believe that either person was actually deriding mentally handicapped persons?
Is it possible that they were perhaps suggesting that on occasions, persons who are usually judged to be of 'normal' mental capacities; make questionable decisions and assertions that might, in isolation, cause them to be accessed far below their 'normal' faculties, such that they would, in isolation, rate them statistically as 'below normal'?
If so. That is, if there is even a possibility that they are not attempting to deride those whom society/statistics judge to be of 'below normal mental acuity'; but rather poking fun at those of often above normal abilities, that for some reason -- technical blind spots; oversensitive defensiveness; academic indoctrination; or simply lackadaisical research, effort or thought -- occasionally or habitually make, and worse, defend, demonstrably incorrect technical judgements, assertions and assumptions; then aren't you making the lot of mentally disabled people worse, by making an issue of this?
That is, by making a big issue of small, and highly questionable infractions of social awareness issues, you make it harder for the real issues to be discussed and addressed; because you make people afraid to even mention them for fear of falling foul of the self-appointed, oversensitive gatekeepers of political correctness.
Please note: there are three questions there. No judgements; no assertions; no condemnations.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
| [reply] |
|
|
Do I believe that either person was actually deriding mentally handicapped persons? I suspect not, hence my question focused only on the meaning of the quote, not the motivation of the quoters.
We often fall victim to using particular terms without fully comprehending what they imply, and that's what I think has happened here.
Is it possible that they were perhaps suggesting that on occasions, persons who are usually judged to be of 'normal' mental capacities; make questionable decisions and assertions that might, in isolation, cause them to be accessed far below their 'normal' faculties, such that they would, in isolation, rate them statistically as 'below normal'?
Possible yes, but to me it seems much less likely than a simpler possibility i.e. that "retardo" is being unwittingly used as a stand in for "stupid" or "ignorant".
We also tend to not notice how poor a "joke" is until the joke is on us. Empathy matters to me much more than political correctness. I'm not telling people what to do or not do, but a thought experiment may illustrate this better than arguments can - Imagine for a minute or two that you had a close friend or relative who is mentally disabled (I have two such relatives), then see if you still think "retardo" is a suitable rebuke term.
| [reply] |
|
|
then see if you still think "retardo" is a suitable rebuke term.
I started working with the mentally handicapped as a volunteer aged 15; and I still participate some 40+ years on.
then see if you still think "retardo" is a suitable rebuke term.
It's all about context and intent. In the context there is no intent to apply or relate the term retardo to anyone suffering from a mental handicap.
Indeed. The only person relating that term to your relatives, is you!
By seeking out offense, and choosing to be offended, on behalf of others, where no offense was intended, nor can be rationally inferred from the context, you don't help a problem -- you are the problem.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
retarded
[ri-tahr-did] Usually Offensive.
adjective
1. characterized by a slowness or limitation in intellectual understanding
and awareness, emotional development, academic progress, etc.
2. Slang. stupid or foolish.
Here is an idea. Don't call people with mental disabilities retarded, even though it is definition #1. Call people who don't have mental disabilities that do stupid and foolish things retarded because they need a shock to their system at that point in time.
People who get so offended by these kinds of things are not being realistic. You just aren't. We are talking about two completely different audiences here, retardo. Take that as a compliment.
| [reply] |
|
|
No, you don't get special treatment because some particular association may bother you especially.
This device complies with part 15 of FCC Rules. This device may not cause harmful interference. This device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.
Be a good device, mkay?
| [reply] |
|
|
hence my question focused only on the meaning of the quote, not the motivation of the quoters.
Well said, Arunbear.
This mini-thread is interested to read, though i am flabbergasted that it even needs to be discussed.
| [reply] |
|
|
