Originally Posted By barboy "Someone is not a mental retard" One can be and my diction is just fine. Your use of "mental retardation" works also. They are both correct: one is a person and the other is a condition, no?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "McCain's comment was "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." Now he claimed he was referring only to his guards. But if that's so, why not say "I hated my guards." Why use a term that has traditionally been used as a slur against southeast Asians in general? That said, that was from 2000 and he'll probably be given a pass from most people, though I do have a Thai friend who did not (and still does not) look upon it kindly." Yeah, but after what McCain went through at the hands of the North Vietnamese, I can't say as I'd take issue with his use of the word gook too much. To say he went through hell is a gross understatement. That he doesn't shoot or throttle every Vietnamese he sees to this day is somewhat of a surprise to me.
Originally Posted By barboy "though I do have a Thai friend who did not (and still does not) look upon it kindly." I presume your friend took the comment personally(that is why you specifically brought up the Thai status, right) and he/she should not have because US servicemen used "gook" as a demeaning and convenient way to address Vietnamese--- the North Vietnamese commie enemy, not Cambodian, Malaysian, Loatian, nor Thai.
Originally Posted By DlandDug It's all based on the idea that words themselves carry power. Some believe this to a great extent (ie: words carry magical powers), some not at all (words are simply noises produced by the controlled exhalation of air). I believe the truth lies somewhere between. To take either extreme makes one vulnerable to those who would use words against them. Words do carry meanings. I believe words are the containers of ideas. For Orthodox Jews, the name of God (Yahweh) is literally powerful. It is disrespectful to say or write the name. Hence, the use of YHWH (or G-D in English). It is true that everyone knows what it means. But using it that way does not violate a powerful taboo. Other words are considered dirty because they deal with that which is dirty. It is humorous to know that when you say "boo boo" you are actually saying "the S-word." How is that? Well, the word itself is too crude for polite society, so the term "bowel movement" was substituted. As that phrase entered common usage, it became taboo, and was shortened to "BM." This, in turn became "boom boom" (as in "Time for baby to make boom boom!") And that, in turn, became, "boo boo." So when you say someone made a boo boo... The two biggest categories of words-that-may-not-be-spoken are those that deal with the Deity and those that deal with sex. Bodily functions are close behind. (Heh heh heh.) Which of the following is an oath based on substituting a religious term: bloody, zounds, or gosh? Answer: All three are. "Gosh," of course, is a corruption of God. (Gosh darn is a lot stronger, of course.) "Zounds" is a corrupted contraction of "God's wounds," and refers to Christ on the cross. "Bloody," interesting enough, does not deal with Christ, but rather His mother, Mary. "Bloody" as an oath is a contraction of the phrase "By the Lady." So you may be using a really naughty and offensive word and not even be aware of it. When I was growing up, we were not allowed to use ANY profanity, or even the "substitute" words, for the very reason that the OP wondered about. Yep, they mean the same thing, and they carry the same power. Just not maybe in the same way for every person. I do believe, incidently, that there are certain words and phrases that, by their nature, are mean spirited and are intended to offend. The "N-word" is a prime case in point. So is the term "mental retard." "Mentally retarded" is a perfectly accurate description of a medical condition. "Retard" or "mental retard" is a corruption of that term, and is usually misapplied in an intentionally provocative manner. Not to say that someone couldn't be using it without knowing that. (I have an Aunt who is mentally handicapped, so I may be sensitive about this.) The uses of euphemism change over the years and within societies. I try to keep track of that which is offensive, not to be "PC," but rather to meet people where they are and try to show them the respect I would ask for in return. So if colored people prefer to be called negoes, who prefer to be called blacks, who prefer to be called African-Americans, that's just fine with me.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I try to keep track of that which is offensive, not to be "PC," but rather to meet people where they are and try to show them the respect I would ask for in return. << There you go. That's the most reasonable way to approach it. >>Retard" or "mental retard" is a corruption of that term, and is usually misapplied in an intentionally provocative manner.<< Yep, and kids (especially teenagers) use the term "retard" a lot. It's usually tossed around almost with the intent of harmless fun. "Bobby, that was so retarded." Similarly, "that's so gay" is heard quite often.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I presume your friend took the comment personally(that is why you specifically brought up the Thai status, right) and he/she should not have because US servicemen used "gook" as a demeaning and convenient way to address Vietnamese--- the North Vietnamese commie enemy, not Cambodian, Malaysian, Loatian, nor Thai.> But "gook" has been used for at least a century as a prejorative about anyone from that whole region, not just the NVA. I wouldn't presume to tell my friend how she "should" feel about someone using that word. I would give McCain a pass, because I know what he meant, just as I give Obama a pass for the "typical white person" remark, because I know he MEANT his grandmother had attitudes typical of white people of her generation.
Originally Posted By X-san Interesting comments, guys. Here's one slight nuance I was trying to get at though that I'm not sure I expressed properly. Back to the case of a reporter. I appreciate how some people mentioned that offensive language is, well, offensive to some and thus they can appreciate that the reporter didn't repeat the foul language. But the thing with "f-bomb", or "n-word" is that they essentially ARE repeating the foul or racist language. Obviously everyone knows exactly what words we're talking about. If they really were just taking decorum or etiquette into consideration, why not just say "the suspect then uttered a racial epithet towards the crowd", or "the politician peppered his speech with profanity". That was part of my point. There is an easy and professional way to explain what happened WITHOUT specifying exactly what word was used. But by going with the whole schoolyard approach it's obvious these people (reporters or whoever) WANT you to know exactly what word it is that they are "politely" not repeating. That's what I find silly. And I also find it interesting that people who would shudder at the mention of these words can comfortably hear their equivalent with no problem. That's "words have power" for sure, huh.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>If they really were just taking decorum or etiquette into consideration, why not just say "the suspect then uttered a racial epithet towards the crowd", or "the politician peppered his speech with profanity".<< I see what you're saying now. Yes, I agree.
Originally Posted By X-san Calling someone a "mental retard" is essentially the same as calling someone an idiot or a moron, I'd say, except that it comes off especially unkindly as it references people with actual cognitive dysfunction (I suppose the other words did to, at one time, but they're more generic now and retard probably will be one day as well). Besides, you're dating yourself on that one. The proper nasty terminology these days is 'tard or 'tards.
Originally Posted By X-san <a href="http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28779" target="_blank">http://www.theonion.com/conten...de/28779</a> I thought this was one of the funniest examples of REAL morons in the world...
Originally Posted By barboy "The proper nasty terminology these days is 'tard or 'tards." Cool, thanks for the tip. I'll get that on my "play list".
Originally Posted By Mrs ElderP >>If they really were just taking decorum or etiquette into consideration, why not just say "the suspect then uttered a racial epithet towards the crowd", or "the politician peppered his speech with profanity".<< Absolutly, this would be a best case senario. However, just so you know, when I hear the phrase "the f-word" I don't usually "hear" the correct word in my head. If you asked me, of course I could tell you what they mean, but, unless you force me to think about it, I don't. So, to me, it's still preferable to the actual word, though not as good as the phrase examples above.
Originally Posted By mele Well, sometimes children are in the room while their parents are watching tv and it's preferable for them to hear "the f-word" than the actual word. At least slightly. I don't really care if my kids hear some curse words but I think the words are unnecessary, especially on the news. It seems more like there is certain language that is more appropriate for work environments or in public. Speaking of newscasters and swearing...anyone see/hear the footage of the NYC anchorwoman a couple of days ago? I thought it was kind of funny. Maybe it's just annoying to use other coy words for swearing when you know the person uses other words.
