Being given the label "ret*d"

Post Reply New Topic

Why is it that, despite having extraordinary ability in a few areas, one could still somehow be labeled a "ret*d"? Why do others feel compelled to dismiss someone as such when they don't fit it with the rest of society's expectations?

I just don't get it, it seems like such a broad term that gets misused very often. Outgoing folks who type like complete illiterate MySpace morons are perfectly fine, but when you struggle with everyday life and social demands, you're automatically deemed a waste of life. It depresses me sometimes thinking about it so I just try not to.

I take that term, and anyone who uses it, with a grain of salt (I think that's the right expression?). I refuse to use it in my own vocabulary and find it highly offensive. Even the term "mental retardation" is being phased out in favor of "intellectually disabled."

"ret*d" simply means: cause to move more slowly or operate at a slower rate

Some people may do it because they want to be mean and cruel, but scientifically you have to be non-functioning in normal society with an I.Q. below 70.
Causes are Down syndrome, fetal alcohol syndrome and Fragile X syndrome.

I agree that the term doesn't sound nice, it does sound inappropriate.

Yeah, you hit it on the nail (taken lightly, "with a grain of salt").

You've got "mental retardation", but what about being labeled "socially ret*d"? If I'm making progress in gaining better social understanding, does that make me "ret*d" or capable, albeit wired differently?

Socially "ret*d" just means that you're slow to develop socially and, if you are on the autism spectrum, is highly likely an appropriate label. If a doctor labels you "socially ret*d" then that is very different from a person calling you the "r" word. I wouldn't get offended by a doctor calling me such, as it would be an accurate statement.

It's true that the word "ret*d" does mean "to slow", but popular use of the term has shifted. The word "ret*d" is now most often used to refer to someone who is perceived to be stupid or deficient. For that reason, I strongly prefer to avoid the term except when necessary to use it in a technical sense. Even there however, the term "intellectually disabled" is gaining currency as a less offensive alternative.

I'd recommend you'd look at Amanda Baggs' video on being considered ret*d. Her experiences are probably very different from yours, but it may help to develop a new perspective on cognitive disability.

Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn70gPukdtY

Despite my rather high Intelligence Quotient, peers have given me this label before. This proves that, instead of me being more 'ret*d' than the person calling me 'ret*d', it's the other way around, because I actually know what the word means.

I grew up in regular contact with an Aunt a year older than I with Down's Syndrome. Before I fully understood there was something different about me, I found the term "ret*d" highly offensive, and never had a problem displaying distaste and even indignant anger toward those who used it.

To take it with a "grain of salt" as you put it, is beyond my capability. It makes me down right angry when I hear it, and I've never been afraid to say so.

To me, those who use it as an insult are labeling themselves as insensitive, intolerant morons who clearly do not give a crap how it makes anyone else feel.

They're idiots.

I think that it's used by people, who don't care, if their use of that word makes them look like, insensitive pricks. The fact that kids in Grade School were quick to call me that word, even though I was one of the best students, in my regular classes, really baffles me. I'm sure they knew what it meant, and they wanted to hurt someone, and I seemed to be an easy target, for their sharp tongues.

That word and the people who use it, are very hard for me, to take with a grain of salt.

Um, how many people do you know ho actually have a diagnosis of MR? Because you don't have to be nonfunctioning and often they can pass or nearly pass for normal (even with an IQ in the forties). Most of it doesn't have a known cause like Down's, Fragile X, or FAS.

Oh and regarding my video, sice it's unclear, I'm talking about being regarded that way by people who haven't given me a formal assessment (although some of those who have are professionals wh have not assessed me). I'm talking about people who do it just by looking at me and judging me.

People who are crass and despicable enough to use words like that to assault others, are invariably themselves far more impaired socially and intellectually than the person(s) they're attacking. It takes one to call somebody one.

To be that demeaning to others, there first has to be a small, ugly, dimwitted soul inside you.

Decent, intelligent people have more self-respect than to stoop to that level.

I was watching the show CSI (while Peterson was still the star). There was an episode where a character with an intellectual disability was called "a ret*d" by his killer.

I can remember what Grishom responded, but it was something like this, "ret*d means not going anywhere. (the victim) was growing and learning everyday. Now it's you who will 'not be going anywhere" (as he was going to jail).

The thing with people with autism (or many other learning differences or intellectual disabilities) is that we/they DO grow and learn.

ret*d is just the wrong term.

When someone uses the term "ret*d" or "mentally ret*d' respond by using the approrpriate word, "I prefer the term "autistic"." Or, "I prefer the term "intellectual disability" or "intellectual difference" or whatever term you find appropriate.

I have had success with this when people use the term "normal" when comparing my son to others his age. I simply state, "My son is normal. He is autistic. I think you mean "neurotypical" which is the preferred term for non-autistic people." Or sometimes I just say, "the preferred term is "neurotypcial" for non-autistic people."

Maybe I used the wrong expression or wasn't clear, about the grain of salt. I was trying to be more creative with my words, and I see that it didn't work out.

What I mean is that I don't take their evaluation of the situation/person as having much value. To put it simply, they're wrong. The word angers me as well, and if I heard someone use the word I may well jump to the defense of the person at whom it was directed. I hate that word. I think that if a person uses it in a derogatory manner, it's just showing their own lack of sensitivity toward other human beings. Granted, some people don't know that it's offensive and may not be aware of their rudeness, so my response is typically, "I, and many others, find that word highly offensive and I would prefer that you do not use it in my presence." This allows for the case that they may be unaware and provides a bit of education that it's not an appropriate word to use. The "r" word implies that a person is somehow "less than," and I don't believe that any human being is "less" for any reason, especially something as meaningless as IQ or so-called "functioning."

A lot of people seem to think aspergers and autism makes someone intellectually handicapped because they don't know what it is. I'm guessing thats why people use it.

Some people also use it for people who don't seem to be able to do normal things like go to a class in school or go to a special ed department.

The misuse of words has definitely f****d around with the definitions of some of them. ret*d means slow. I could say I am socially and emotionally ret*d, because I have been slow to develop in those areas. Am I insulting myself? No, because I am using the word based on the technical definition because ret*d means to move slowly.

I admit that I use the term "ret*d". Usually when I'm on the freeway and some "ret*d" cuts me off while talking on a hand held cell phone or, when I'm at the grocery store and some "ret*d" parks their cart in the middle of the aisle so no one can get by. I guess it's not very politically correct but, I'm not a fan of creating new terms everytime someone is offended.