Terminology

[Lib.]

I want to make it very clear that I am not complaining or even necessarily expecting anything to change or any rules to be made. I would like thoughts on this, that's all.

I don't spend a lot of time on the forums so I can't really comment here, but in chat it is frequently used terminology to call others, or situations, or rules etc 'retarded'. Equally it is often seen that people will accuse others they don't like or don't agree with of having a 'low IQ'.

Purple_Rain explained recently that the reason no text talk is allowed is because if someone with a learning disability came here, it would be difficult to read and therefore exclusive. Why have rules specificly for learning disabled people if their potential welcome to chat is to see someone being called a 'retard'?

I uderstand it has lost its original meaning over time and often people aren't using it to mean someone of low IQ, but equally many times they are and I very much doubt it would matter to the learning disabled person how the term was being used. To put it in more culturally relevant terms, it would be like someone on here calling calling someone else a 'f*cking psycho' or equal. Psycho may not mean what it originally did but that still has the potential to cause great upset and I'm sure would probably be reported by some users if it happened.

I'm not saying I want to report anything, people will use language they are comfortable with, but I do think its a bit of a farce to have a rule which seems to protect the learning disabled in this situation.

Recently there was a thread about too many/few rules and coping in real life. Well, in real life it is highly unlikely that you would stand in a group with a clearly learning disabled person and refer to someone else as a 'retard'. Or, if you just have an 'I don't care' attitude, perhaps you would but you would probably recognise how hurt the other person was by your comment.

Any thoughts?

[Bellatrix]

Retard doesn't just refer to someone with a low IQ.

To retard is to hold back - 'retarded' can refer to being retarded physically, mentally, etc.

But yeah. I don't like that word used outside it's medical meaning.

[Greyscale]

I'm learning disabled as you put it, I have NLD and ADHD. While I may not like the word, I don't mind it as much when it's not used in the sense of a personal insult. When I've seen it used, it hasn't been in a personal insult way. I'm not saying it never has, but I've been here for 5 years (almost) and I haven't seen it.
Not to mention, I'm pretty sure that at least some of the people who use 'retard' have some form of a learning disability.
Another thing - it really isn't the same as if a person said it to your face. The thread about the real world/here was about coping with triggers. How people talk online versus in real life are often very different.

[Lib.]

Thanks both...

aeternal, I would say you have learning difficulties but not a learning disability as the medical diagnosis for that is to have an IQ of 70 or below.

Nevertheless I appreciate your feedback and yes, I have often seen 'retard' used towards a situation or object people are irritated with 'School is retarded' etc, but I have also seen it used several times as a personal insult.

[[Purple_Rain]]

Quote:

Purple_Rain explained recently that the reason no text talk is allowed is because if someone with a learning disability came here, it would be difficult to read and therefore exclusive. Why have rules specificly for learning disabled people if their potential welcome to chat is to see someone being called a 'retard'?

I just wanted to say that, this is just one reason. At the time i was including myself as 'learning disabled' due to dyslexia - text type is very hard for a dyslexic person to read. However there are other reasons, such as it causes arguments and can prevent peopel getting support etc.

Also on all the forms i've filled in, dyslexia is classed as a learning dissability.

In regards for the word Retard, I have ye tto make up my mind. Retard isn't syonymous to someone with learnign disabilities. To retard something is to slow it down, you say plants have retarded growth - i.e. slow growth.

[Greyscale]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Still7

Thanks both...

aeternal, I would say you have learning difficulties but not a learning disability as the medical diagnosis for that is to have an IQ of 70 or below.

Nevertheless I appreciate your feedback and yes, I have often seen 'retard' used towards a situation or object people are irritated with 'School is retarded' etc, but I have also seen it used several times as a personal insult.

Everything I have seen in my area uses the terms 'learning disorder' and 'learning disability' interchangeably. Again, NLD stands for Nonverbal Learning Disorder OR Nonverbal Learning Disability.
I've never seen it used for only an IQ of under 70 - that is clinical Mental Retardation. You may not like the term, but that is what it is called in textbooks, etc that I have read.

[Heidi Tiger]

This could be a cultural thing. In the UK medical professionals don't use the word retard as they think it's politically incorrect, but I believe in the USA they still do. I don't like seeing it thrown around as an insult, but don't necessarily think it should be banned.

With regards to wether dyslexia was a learning disability or not, I know Mencap classifies it as a specific learning difficulty rather than a learning disability. However that's only one source.

[Lib.]

aeternal, where are you from hun? Just wondering if this is a crossover of terminology from country to country. In the UK, learning disability stands for someone with an IQ of under 70, hence the Child Disability Team of Social Services will only offer services to children with an IQ of 70 or below, and someone can have autism but unless they have a low IQ, they do not have a learning disability as a comorbid condition.

I'm not sure what books you are reading either as the ones I am reading refer to a low IQ as a 'learning disability' and other conditions, such as dyslexia and dyspraxia, aphasia, epilepsy, etc as learning difficulties.

Perhaps it is very different in America or other countries, I'm not sure?

For the record, I would FAR prefer to go with your take on things because as it stands my husband isn't able to access services because he has a normal IQ and therefore isn't 'learning disabled' in spite of having autism. Its infuriating lol

[Greyscale]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Still7

aeternal, where are you from hun? Just wondering if this is a crossover of terminology from country to country. In the UK, learning disability stands for someone with an IQ of under 70, hence the Child Disability Team of Social Services will only offer services to children with an IQ of 70 or below, and someone can have autism but unless they have a low IQ, they do not have a learning disability as a comorbid condition.

I'm not sure what books you are reading either as the ones I am reading refer to a low IQ as a 'learning disability' and other conditions, such as dyslexia and dyspraxia, aphasia, epilepsy, etc as learning difficulties.

Perhaps it is very different in America or other countries, I'm not sure?

For the record, I would FAR prefer to go with your take on things because as it stands my husband isn't able to access services because he has a normal IQ and therefore isn't 'learning disabled' in spite of having autism. Its infuriating lol

That must be it - I'm from the US. That is very different, I had no idea the two countries had such different takes.

[Stellata]

My experience of it is people mocking those who're more emotionally immature, or vulnerable, and supposedly 'inferior' to them.
Sadly this means that any scientific meaning learning got somehow lost on me.

[The One Who]

We can't ban words because some people don't like them. Languages change and evolve all the time, even with medical terminology. It's a bit like saying something is "gay" as in it is rubbish. Meanings and usage change. Also, many different nationalities use this site, each with their own different languages and definitions.

[Schleier von Dunst]

Well said Claire.

[Stellata]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evility.

There wasno suggestions of changing or banning things, I think Still was just expressing how she feels and if someone does this and this thread raises the issue for them and their conscience, then they can work on using different words. If they do this and it doesn't raise anything at all, then it won't make a difference to them.

I think potntially its just about making people think.

I agree, Dasher - and Still.

[Bellatrix]

Yeah, like my cousin will call something 'gay' when he doens't like it, and has done since like 5. I'll say, 'Do you know what gay means' and he will tell me it means stupid.

He doesn't realize, or hasn't been taught that gay refers to homosexuality.

[The One Who]

Gay also used to mean happy. Words and their meaning change. Language is dynamic, and I'm all for that.

[sherlock holmes]

I call things "gay" when I mean stupid etc, but I mean no disrespect to homosexual people. None of my friends get offended, but if someone did find it offensive I would try not to say it.

[Freedom Fighter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Purple_Rain]

I just wanted to say that, this is just one reason. At the time i was including myself as 'learning disabled' due to dyslexia - text type is very hard for a dyslexic person to read. However there are other reasons, such as it causes arguments and can prevent peopel getting support etc.

Also on all the forms i've filled in, dyslexia is classed as a learning dissability.

also text speak is very very hard to read for people who's first language isn't english. Rike had a great post on how using "u" instead of you is confusing for people who speak german. (the letter u makes a different sound in different languages)

[Dreaming.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by The One Who

Language is dynamic, and I'm all for that.

Ditto Claire.

Quote:

To put it in more culturally relevant terms, it would be like someone on here calling calling someone else a 'f*cking psycho' or equal

What about 'absolutely mental'? I've seen that thrown about a bit.

I think one of the biggest things I've noticed is - and this is a comment, not a criticism or anything else - the lack of awareness of the differentiation between what's meant in jest and what's meant seriously. I understand it's hard to draw the line, especially if you're unsure - I guess I normally just give people the benefit of the doubt by nature. But, for example - to open a recently-closed can of worms, the RYL soap thread. I don't think anybody involved actually believes that all 'emos' are fulfilling the stereotype they put out in that thread - it's intended for comedic purposes, and I think that can be agreed on whether or not you personally found it funny. But that's far too recent to be good to bring up.

Aside from that, words like 'gay', 'retard' and 'rape' can be used in a range of contexts; the frape thread being a recent example of this. The word rape is technically correct in it's usage, but a few people commented on how disgusted they were that the word was being used. Where do you draw the line there - definition or attitude?

But, like Claire, I think that words are pretty fluid in their definitions, and I like that. Also I had something else to say but I've forgotten it. sorry. Please excuse this awful sentence structure by the way; late and tired and long day.

[Lib.]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreaming.

Ditto Claire.

What about 'absolutely mental'? I've seen that thrown about a bit.

I think one of the biggest things I've noticed is - and this is a comment, not a criticism or anything else - the lack of awareness of the differentiation between what's meant in jest and what's meant seriously. I understand it's hard to draw the line, especially if you're unsure - I guess I normally just give people the benefit of the doubt by nature. But, for example - to open a recently-closed can of worms, the RYL soap thread. I don't think anybody involved actually believes that all 'emos' are fulfilling the stereotype they put out in that thread - it's intended for comedic purposes, and I think that can be agreed on whether or not you personally found it funny. But that's far too recent to be good to bring up.

But, like Claire, I think that words are pretty fluid in their definitions, and I like that. Also I had something else to say but I've forgotten it. sorry. Please excuse this awful sentence structure by the way; late and tired and long day.

I can see that people being at times oversensitive has caused friction on RYL, and perhaps you are a little concerned that this thread is remniscent of that. I do see the humor in day to day communication, I have a theory on RYL which I'll put on another thread so as not to clog up this one, but yes you've made a good point- sometimes humor just needs to be seen as humor.
And sometimes when someone is angry they don't yet know how to say 'I am angry because xxx' rather than automatically determining everyone, and everything, to be 'retarded'. That's ok, it takes time to learn to feel safe when expressing strong feelings. It'll come.

Thanks guys, lots of really good thoughts coming through.

As Evility said, I have no intention of banning or changing any rules etc, just to remind those who may think I am pushing towards more bubble wrap on RYL ;) As I said, people will use language they are comfortable with and rules won't change that.

[Buttons.]

Quote:

I call things "gay" when I mean stupid etc, but I mean no disrespect to homosexual people.

The thing is that even though you don't mean disrespect (I do appreciate that, really I do) to me having my sexuality equated with everything 'stupid' and disliked is very disrespectful. Imagine using the same word for an Asian person or a Black person and for everything you dislike/find stupid. That would be incredibly offensive. To me it's the same.

Plus although people can argue about semantic shifts which mean a word can completely change meanings e.g gay meaning happy to gay meaning homosexual, the word 'gay' now Still means homosexual, so yes, when people use that as a negative, even if they don't conciously realise it they are equating being gay to negative things, which I don't think is helping the more ignorant members of society get it through their skulls that gay is not bad. If they constantly have their ignorant beliefs reaffirmed by society at large using gay as negative how are things ever going to change?

Some people are bound to say I'm over reacting but although I know this is a bit different, I bet when people starting trying to make people see that the word 'nigger' was offensive people thought they were over reacting/being too sensitive too.