That's a problem with the euphemism treadmill, not with the word in question. Any word can have negative meaning if it is said with negative or hurtful intent. Whatever word is used to distinguish those with a mental disability from those who are just otherwise less intelligent will be used as a slur to refer to those who are just on average less intelligent. 'Downsie' is now used as a slur by young kids/teens. Do we change the name of Down's syndrome because the word is used as a pejorative? Then kids will start saying that 'Aww shit, little jimmy must have an extra chromosome!' Wait, they already do that. I don't see a solution to this problem other than become harder to offend.The way I've always seen/interpreted the issues with that word is that by equating the mental disability with stupidity, it's equating the people with that disability with something negative.
It's always a balancing act, but it doesn't automatically follow that the answer is "do nothing." Language is ultimately a social construct, and we all get to decide both what words mean and what to be offended by. For whatever reason "retarded" has taken hold in mainstream culture while other things have not. It's arbitrary, but then so is language as a whole.
Good thing that's not what I advocate for. Learning to be thick-skinned and hard to offend is definitely not a 'do nothing' approach. It's damn difficult and even suggesting it is unpopular. For some reason we are dead set on giving words all this extra power and by extension give tons of power to those who get off on using offensive language. Trump, and those who think/act/talk like him are empowered by how easy it is to offend anyone to the left of center. They can do nothing except say one shocking, offensive thing, and all of a sudden it's the only thing that anyone can talk about for a week while other nefarious shit goes on behind the scenes. it doesn't automatically follow that the answer is "do nothing."
I get all this, but I don't think it's realisitic to just pretend that words don't mean anything, either.
That's your choice of course, but I haven't seen a reason that everyone should follow it (which is more where I was going). I also think your prediction is hyperbolic.
I'm always happy to hear alternatives. The parties in question are those who are taking offense and those who are giving it. Despite our best intentions and hopes Trump and Company are going to continue doing exactly what they've been doing because they've been successful doing it. The choice that we are faced with is to either allow it to have the desired effect or not.
Sure, but you can only do what you can do. Other people being assholes doesn't mean I get to be.
Not use terminology that I think has bad connotations.
I have, and it hasn't changed my opinion. I don't think his description of this consistent cycle is accurate: I've never heard anyone use any of the currently-used technical terms as a synonym for "stupid." The cycle pretty much ended with the word retarded. I think y'all are simply choosing to ignore how it's actually used. It's used to say "you being stupid is you being like this other person with a mental condition." Since this kind of logic is generally communative, I don't think it's unreasonable for it to be seen as implying that someone with one of these conditions is insult-worthy per se. You can say an association shouldn't exist, but that's academic: the point is that it does. That's how language works. A good example of this is the word "niggardly." It has nothing to do with the racial slur, has a totally different etymology (it comes via Scandinavian languages versus the slur being based on Romance ones), but given its effect, it's something that most people avoid using now. See also: "nimrod," which literally went from meaning "a great hunter" to "stupid" thanks to a massive misunderstanding of a Bugs Bunny cartoon. Regardless of the reasoning, there's a degree of selfishness involved. You're basically saying "I won't change my speech pattern even though it's hurtful to someone else." Sure, anything can be taken too far, and some of this is simply a matter of general societal agreement that is not perfect. But are you really saying that you're so inconvenienced by having to use a different word, to the point that it overrides the very real hurt felt by someone with such a condition or their loved ones? Even if we set aside the way it's used (and what thus makes it different), is it really so important to you that you're cool with being an asshole to someone who doesn't deserve it just so you get to use this one specific word? This is why the "anti-PC" crowd gets a bad rap, because my experience has overwhelmingly been that it's people being upset that they're not allowed to be shitty to someone else like they used to.
That was a more general thing about the whole idea of being "anti-PC" or whatever. So my comment to you more specifically was to question why it's okay to use a term that many would regard as offensive for little gain, at least that I can see.
I've heard special needs used as an insult. I haven't heard anyone go to Stanhope's lengths. I've not really followed this whole conversation but check this out: https://www.themarysue.com/sarah-palin-son-instagram/ That lady is a piece of work.
I've been having that internal debate a lot lately. I feel like it probably starts as cynicism and then just sort of becomes the person after awhile.