Autistā may not be sticky enough to require the medical community to come up with an alternative, more technical (and therefore less appealing) term for that mental disorder.
Regardless, people will continue to look for ways to call each other stupid, and the best thing we can do is encourage researchers to come up with long and convoluted names for medical conditions so they donāt get co-opted by teenagers looking for creative ways to insult each other.
Thatās not the best thing we can do. We donāt have to waste time trying to avoid giving teenagers ammunition, and we certainly donāt have to do it by giving people with learning disabilities a diagnosis that could be hard for them to remember or understand.
Teenagers donāt need ammunition. The reason āautistā isnāt sticky enough, the reason itās not used colloquially, the reason itās only an insult for teenagers and people with the emotional maturity of the average teenager is because itās an actual diagnosis with an increasingly well-studied list of symptoms, and standards of care, and moral implications.
It should serve the same vernacular niche as āretardā but it doesnāt seem to be doing so. Adults donāt say āthatās autisticā with good intentions. They do say āthatās retardedā with good intentions. Why? Because being a āretardā was a blanket diagnosis with no real treatment options, and no real empirical evidence of its value as a diagnostic label. It was too broad and too vague and therefore effectively synonymous with āvery stupid.ā āAutisticā isnāt synonymous with stupid.
You have a responsibility to be mindful of those around you. But they also have a responsibility to at least attempt to understand what youāre trying to say.
I really do think we agree completely for the rest of this, this might just be semantics. They do, absolutely, have that responsibility. You are blameworthy for your acts. And they are blameworthy for theirās in response. The whole point is that you and they are entitled to beliefs and feelings, just as you and they are responsible for words and actions. If you are judged poorly for doing the right thing, then you can blame them for that. And they can blame you for the things theyāre judging you for.
Theyāre entitled to that, because yes we are just apes trying to grasp at moral truths that are not written in the stars or the atoms of the world, and in fact some of these moral truths appear to be actively in contention with many of our ape-derived biological and psychological functions.
And we very often get things wrong. And yes, we have to try to be charitable and give each other leeway. I think that you and I do disagree on some fundamental information, and I think you and I have given each other plenty of leeway, and managed to communicate in a healthy and productive way.
Iām asking you - why should that stop here? Donāt the people offended by a term deserve some charitable consideration? Some leeway? Theyāre communicating a feeling that they have. They feel upset. They feel offended. They feel angry. Are they entitled to those feelings? Yes. Can you blame them for those feelings? You are entitled to.
But many of them wonāt understand or believe your intentions are good. Is that their fault? That they canāt see into the mind of a fellow ape, and know your heart is pure?
The transference of āretardā from medical diagnosis to colloquial slang is actually exceptionable. Because it appears to be the last one in the list for this particular group of people. The last one to be so pervasive, so ubiquitous, and so synonymous with āstupidā. There were plenty of others beforeā¦ but whatās the next one?
Itās not about disarming teenagers. Itās about trying to learn more. Itās about seeing each otherās intentions, and actions, and needs. And itās about not using a word so stained by bad intentions, so villainous in action, and so dismissive of needs.
When a doctor told a parent their son was mentally retardedā¦ that was it. They just were. For the rest of their life. They were a āretard.ā And the parents just had to deal with it.
When a doctor tells a parent their son is autistic, they follow it with āhereās what that means.ā Hereās a couple of potential reasons why they might be the way they are. Hereās what their life might look like as an adult, based on these studies. Hereās the coping mechanisms you can try to teach them, hereās the educational methods that seem to work best, hereās the support structure that you need to build.
Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But the whole point is it is far, far better than it ever was with the word āretardā, and we as apes and as a collection of apes know so, so much more now. Thatās why āthatās autisticā doesnāt mean āthatās stupidā for most people, and therefore why it also doesnāt replace āthatās retardedā for most people.
The term itself was deeply flawed from the beginning, as was idiot, as was cretin. I do blame the people that came up with it, and used it. But I donāt think they were bad people. I donāt hate them. I think they were acting with good intentions, and probably with the best information that they could find in context.
I just also think they caused a lot of harm by inventing a diagnosis that was far too broad to be medically or socially useful. They can be blamed for that. It was their responsibility to do no harm, and they did harm. That doesnāt make them worthy of shame, or bad people. It just makes them human.
But āautistā is used colloquially ā all the time. Thatās my point. I mean that it hasnāt entered wider usage outside of high schools, twitch, and discord. Boomers donāt use it as an insult (yet).
I didnāt say āautisticā is synonymous with stupid. Usually itās used to mean youāre excessively or neurotically detail-oriented.
Youāre absolutely right. You didnāt say that āautisticā is synonymous with stupid, I wasnāt accusing you of doing so. Neither of us believe it is synonymous, people donāt think itās synonymous, and itās no surprise that people will instead use it colloquially to mean āexcessively detail-orientedā.
Is that so terrible? I donāt think so. I wouldnāt use it that way, but I also donāt say things like āIām so OCDā for that same purpose - and I donāt think itās a terrible thing to do that either! I wouldnāt use those terms like that, for the record, nor do I think others should. But I donāt think itās anywhere on the same level, and I donāt think it ever will be.
I think itās insensitive to use āautisticā and āOCDā in this way because it runs the risk of blinding us to other peopleās struggles when we normalize their symptoms as āstandard neurotypical problem but worseā.
But do you see how specific that concern is? Do you see how far weāve come? To even care about the idea of not being able to see someoneās symptoms? To discuss how it might be insensitive to not even know someone else has a mental condition?
Being ādetail-orientedā is not by itself a bad thing. It doesnāt bear any terrible implications of your value or worth to society. It doesnāt suggest that you canāt be trusted to make decisions, or hold a job. If anything some people are starting to think the opposite.
Which is also problematic, because we sometimes romanticize symptoms as super powers - but do you see? Do you see how far weāve progressed, when we have to start worrying that people will assume neurodivergent people are too capable?
So calling someone āautisticā when you want to call them ādetail-orientedā is insensitive, sure. It might even be labelled as ignorant - but look how high that bar of ignorance is! āDetail-orientedā is simply the most recognizable symptom of a particular flavor of neurodivergence - and using it colloquially like that suggests that you already know how the disorder works!
In the past, children and adults with autism werenāt called autistic. Even after the diagnosis was added to the DSM, it went criminally underdiagnosed for a long time.
Some of them, the ones that didnāt strongly present symptoms that disrupted their lives, the ones that could mask their behaviors - they were just called ādetail-orientedā. They were just āweirdā.
But most of them? The ones that had trouble speaking? The ones that had trouble looking you in the eye? They werenāt called ādetail-oriented.ā They were called retarded.
Do you see how it might be different to call someone āretardedā when you want to call them āstupidā? How much deeper the implications run? How much worse the associations are?
I agree with everything youāve written, but we are sort of going in a big circle. Earlier I wrote that
using the r-word to insult someone autistic is cruel and unacceptable.
For that reason, I can endorse everything youāre saying. However, I thought our disagreement was over whether there should be a concerted effort to banish a particular pejorative term from our vocabularies (namely the r-word). I had argued no, since it seemed like an overreaction, whereas you were in the affirmative, since groups of people were being offended/hurt by the casual use of that term.
So then the question becomes:
To what extent are we responsible for moderating our private speech in order to appease people weāve never met?
My intuition is that the answer is never. I think words should be struck from our vocabulary for a very different reason. Namely, when they represent an evil ideology. That is to say, I think that removing words from our vocabulary is a drastic thing to do and should be reserved for truly heinous verbiage (the sort of language that, if repeated, the only possible outcome between us would be violence). Some of these words are worse than the n-word. They are so evil, I canāt even euphemize them in good conscience.
My understanding is that you have looser parameters for unacceptable language, which must meet a certain thresholds of causing offense to be candidates for censorship. Is that right? Itās a reasonable position, Iām just clarifying.
Thatās fair, we can step back from the intricacies of this particular word and return to first principles - and I agree, this is an important first principle to discuss. After all this time disagreeing, we may have come back around that big circle to find that we really agreed all along.
I donāt really think I advocate for a concerted effort to change the english language the way you imagine. I want people to change the way they think, not the way they talk. I think if they change the way they think, this will certainly change the way they talk. Not the other way around.
I try to invite people to take a look at the words we use as a vehicle for taking a look at the way we use them - the intentions and the context. Why do we use these words this way? What do they mean? Who can be hurt? Why would they be hurt?
I think that there are a lot of good reasons not to use the word āretardā. And there arenāt many good reasons to use it. I know of plenty of alternatives. So I donāt use the word. And I do have the arrogance to think Iām right, and the gall to suggest that others should stop using the word too.
But for the record I have never advocated for censorship of the word āretardā in this conversation, or anywhere. I donāt think a fediverse instance or any media platform should just ban the word, or ban people for using it. I donāt think people should be silenced for it.
Even below the level of ācontrolā, of authority figures or systems imposing changes from the top-downā¦
Even down to a personal level - I donāt think I advocate for people to censor themselves or each other. Please forgive me if I have done so here - that wasnāt my intention.
I just want people to be mindful of what they say. To understand what theyāre saying, and why, and what impact it can have and what implications it carries. I donāt think the decisions I make about vocabulary are so severe as your question suggests.
I donāt think Iāll ever again find someone to go the distance with me on this topic as you have, and I thank you for that. But if I did? And they listened, and thought, and consideredā¦ and they walked away, still saying the word? I wouldnāt want them to lose their voice. I donāt think they should be censored. I might think theyāre wrong to continue saying it, but I think a lot of people are wrong about a lot of things.
But I do have to say that I think a large part of this conversation unfortunately has boiled down to āwho gets to decide?ā.
You have a list of words in your mind that deserve to be abandoned. Iām fairly confident we could agree on all of them. But Iām not certain, because I donāt know your list. I only know my list. Most people only know their list. So I do need to argue against the implication that I have looser parameters from you because my list might be different. I may have added words to my list for different reasons than you added words to yours, but thatās not the same thing as having a lower threshold for what offends me. There are people who will add words to their lists that I wonāt add to mine, and for reasons I wonāt understand, and I donāt think theyāre wrong for doing so.
That being said, you and I appear to be approaching some of the core concepts of linguistics here, and from different angles. Youāve joined me this far for this productive discussion, so I feel comfortable asking you to please follow me on one more twist of thought before we step away from ableism entirely -
How often do you call someone a cretin? The interesting thing about the euphemism treadmill is that we kept replacing the āofficialā words for the same definitions. We actively changed our clinical language each time. But until the treadmill stopped on āretardāā¦ we didnāt actively stop using those words colloquially.
We struck them from the medical journals, but we didnāt strike them from the social vocabulary. The internet didnāt exist. People werenāt nearly so up in arms about ableism. You couldnāt censor the town square the way you can an online forum. We still use the word moron, and idiot. We even still use the word imbecile sometimes. Itās a fun word to say.
But how often do people use the word cretin? You might hear it in a particularly poetic roast, but not out loud. Youāll never hear someone say āoh, jennifer? Sheās a cretin.ā
(Edit-And I realize this might be a regional thing! Which adds a fun layer to all of this!)
Medical journals stopped using it because it became a derogatory termā¦ but did we stop using it for that reason? Then why didnāt we stop using moron?
I take a descriptivist approach to language. I believe it is what it does. The only rules for how we talk to each other are the ones humans made up, and because of that language constantly evolves as we keep making shit up. And I donāt set the rules. Nobody does, because we all do. I decide what the language of the future will be as much as you do, which is to say probably not at all.
I donāt think we stopped using cretin for good reasonsā¦ I think we just stopped using it. I think weāll just stop using a lot of words for no good reason, and so itās not a very big leap from there for me to believe we can stop using a word for genuinely good reasons.
I think that we should try our best not to hurt people. And I think that we will hurt people anyway, no matter how hard we try. No matter our intentions. No matter the context. Thatās one of the many curses of being the rising ape, and I agree with you - there is absolutely no way to break that curse. Something we do will offend someone somewhere, and that doesnāt mean we did a bad thing. But that also doesnāt mean we should stop trying.
I think that there are a lot of good reasons not to use the word āretardā. And there arenāt many good reasons to use it. I know of plenty of alternatives.
I totally agree when it comes to any public discourse.
But how often do people use the word cretin?
Most people have no clue what that word means or how it originated. I certainly donāt use ācretin,ā since I have no use for disparaging someone as diseased and crippled. Maybe thatās your point, that properly understanding the genesis of some term can undermine your desire to use it? And youāre right. Cretinism, the disease, makes me really sad, as does the fact that assholes chose to turn it into a pejorative. So maybe that has something to do with my unwillingness to ever use the word.
In my mind, āretardā was more of a vague diagnosis of mental slowness, so it makes it lessreal as an actual medical condition. Like when you say āretardā I think āRepublican.ā Those are the people who need diagnosing. Still, Iām less willing to use the r-word than alternatives like āidiotā whose meaning is totally divorced in my imagination from any origin story.
After all, once you use a word (a bunch of sounds) to mean something long enough, it eventually makes no difference what the word used to mean. That said, I can see your point. The cretin example is a good one. Very persuasive.
Maybe thatās your point, that properly understanding the genesis of some term can undermine your desire to use it? And youāre right.
Cretinism, the disease, makes me really sad, as does the fact that assholes chose to turn it into a pejorative. So maybe that has something to do with my unwillingness to ever use the word.
In my mind, āretardā was more of a vague diagnosis of mental slowness, so it makes it less real as an actual medical condition.
For me, the vagueness of the diagnosis is what makes me sad. To think of how many vulnerable people were left struggling for answers with very little help from that word and plenty of hurt from it for so long. Perhaps this makes it less concrete in the mind than a word with a more specific target, but no less sad to me. Cretinism makes me sad as well, and more so when I think about how many people could have easily avoided it if they just knew more about thyroids.
So yes, precisely! If people change how they feel and think, they change how they speak. Not just their internal dictionary, but the way they use their words too.
I appreciate your time, understanding, and well-reasoned discussion. Thank you!
Thatās not the best thing we can do. We donāt have to waste time trying to avoid giving teenagers ammunition, and we certainly donāt have to do it by giving people with learning disabilities a diagnosis that could be hard for them to remember or understand.
Teenagers donāt need ammunition. The reason āautistā isnāt sticky enough, the reason itās not used colloquially, the reason itās only an insult for teenagers and people with the emotional maturity of the average teenager is because itās an actual diagnosis with an increasingly well-studied list of symptoms, and standards of care, and moral implications.
It should serve the same vernacular niche as āretardā but it doesnāt seem to be doing so. Adults donāt say āthatās autisticā with good intentions. They do say āthatās retardedā with good intentions. Why? Because being a āretardā was a blanket diagnosis with no real treatment options, and no real empirical evidence of its value as a diagnostic label. It was too broad and too vague and therefore effectively synonymous with āvery stupid.ā āAutisticā isnāt synonymous with stupid.
I really do think we agree completely for the rest of this, this might just be semantics. They do, absolutely, have that responsibility. You are blameworthy for your acts. And they are blameworthy for theirās in response. The whole point is that you and they are entitled to beliefs and feelings, just as you and they are responsible for words and actions. If you are judged poorly for doing the right thing, then you can blame them for that. And they can blame you for the things theyāre judging you for.
Theyāre entitled to that, because yes we are just apes trying to grasp at moral truths that are not written in the stars or the atoms of the world, and in fact some of these moral truths appear to be actively in contention with many of our ape-derived biological and psychological functions.
And we very often get things wrong. And yes, we have to try to be charitable and give each other leeway. I think that you and I do disagree on some fundamental information, and I think you and I have given each other plenty of leeway, and managed to communicate in a healthy and productive way.
Iām asking you - why should that stop here? Donāt the people offended by a term deserve some charitable consideration? Some leeway? Theyāre communicating a feeling that they have. They feel upset. They feel offended. They feel angry. Are they entitled to those feelings? Yes. Can you blame them for those feelings? You are entitled to.
But many of them wonāt understand or believe your intentions are good. Is that their fault? That they canāt see into the mind of a fellow ape, and know your heart is pure?
The transference of āretardā from medical diagnosis to colloquial slang is actually exceptionable. Because it appears to be the last one in the list for this particular group of people. The last one to be so pervasive, so ubiquitous, and so synonymous with āstupidā. There were plenty of others beforeā¦ but whatās the next one?
Itās not about disarming teenagers. Itās about trying to learn more. Itās about seeing each otherās intentions, and actions, and needs. And itās about not using a word so stained by bad intentions, so villainous in action, and so dismissive of needs.
When a doctor told a parent their son was mentally retardedā¦ that was it. They just were. For the rest of their life. They were a āretard.ā And the parents just had to deal with it.
When a doctor tells a parent their son is autistic, they follow it with āhereās what that means.ā Hereās a couple of potential reasons why they might be the way they are. Hereās what their life might look like as an adult, based on these studies. Hereās the coping mechanisms you can try to teach them, hereās the educational methods that seem to work best, hereās the support structure that you need to build.
Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But the whole point is it is far, far better than it ever was with the word āretardā, and we as apes and as a collection of apes know so, so much more now. Thatās why āthatās autisticā doesnāt mean āthatās stupidā for most people, and therefore why it also doesnāt replace āthatās retardedā for most people.
The term itself was deeply flawed from the beginning, as was idiot, as was cretin. I do blame the people that came up with it, and used it. But I donāt think they were bad people. I donāt hate them. I think they were acting with good intentions, and probably with the best information that they could find in context.
I just also think they caused a lot of harm by inventing a diagnosis that was far too broad to be medically or socially useful. They can be blamed for that. It was their responsibility to do no harm, and they did harm. That doesnāt make them worthy of shame, or bad people. It just makes them human.
I really like your response and I needed a minute to read it. Let me reply later.
But āautistā is used colloquially ā all the time. Thatās my point. I mean that it hasnāt entered wider usage outside of high schools, twitch, and discord. Boomers donāt use it as an insult (yet).
I didnāt say āautisticā is synonymous with stupid. Usually itās used to mean youāre excessively or neurotically detail-oriented.
Youāre absolutely right. You didnāt say that āautisticā is synonymous with stupid, I wasnāt accusing you of doing so. Neither of us believe it is synonymous, people donāt think itās synonymous, and itās no surprise that people will instead use it colloquially to mean āexcessively detail-orientedā.
Is that so terrible? I donāt think so. I wouldnāt use it that way, but I also donāt say things like āIām so OCDā for that same purpose - and I donāt think itās a terrible thing to do that either! I wouldnāt use those terms like that, for the record, nor do I think others should. But I donāt think itās anywhere on the same level, and I donāt think it ever will be.
I think itās insensitive to use āautisticā and āOCDā in this way because it runs the risk of blinding us to other peopleās struggles when we normalize their symptoms as āstandard neurotypical problem but worseā.
But do you see how specific that concern is? Do you see how far weāve come? To even care about the idea of not being able to see someoneās symptoms? To discuss how it might be insensitive to not even know someone else has a mental condition?
Being ādetail-orientedā is not by itself a bad thing. It doesnāt bear any terrible implications of your value or worth to society. It doesnāt suggest that you canāt be trusted to make decisions, or hold a job. If anything some people are starting to think the opposite.
Which is also problematic, because we sometimes romanticize symptoms as super powers - but do you see? Do you see how far weāve progressed, when we have to start worrying that people will assume neurodivergent people are too capable?
So calling someone āautisticā when you want to call them ādetail-orientedā is insensitive, sure. It might even be labelled as ignorant - but look how high that bar of ignorance is! āDetail-orientedā is simply the most recognizable symptom of a particular flavor of neurodivergence - and using it colloquially like that suggests that you already know how the disorder works!
In the past, children and adults with autism werenāt called autistic. Even after the diagnosis was added to the DSM, it went criminally underdiagnosed for a long time.
Some of them, the ones that didnāt strongly present symptoms that disrupted their lives, the ones that could mask their behaviors - they were just called ādetail-orientedā. They were just āweirdā.
But most of them? The ones that had trouble speaking? The ones that had trouble looking you in the eye? They werenāt called ādetail-oriented.ā They were called retarded.
Do you see how it might be different to call someone āretardedā when you want to call them āstupidā? How much deeper the implications run? How much worse the associations are?
I agree with everything youāve written, but we are sort of going in a big circle. Earlier I wrote that
For that reason, I can endorse everything youāre saying. However, I thought our disagreement was over whether there should be a concerted effort to banish a particular pejorative term from our vocabularies (namely the r-word). I had argued no, since it seemed like an overreaction, whereas you were in the affirmative, since groups of people were being offended/hurt by the casual use of that term.
So then the question becomes:
Thatās fair, we can step back from the intricacies of this particular word and return to first principles - and I agree, this is an important first principle to discuss. After all this time disagreeing, we may have come back around that big circle to find that we really agreed all along.
I donāt really think I advocate for a concerted effort to change the english language the way you imagine. I want people to change the way they think, not the way they talk. I think if they change the way they think, this will certainly change the way they talk. Not the other way around.
I try to invite people to take a look at the words we use as a vehicle for taking a look at the way we use them - the intentions and the context. Why do we use these words this way? What do they mean? Who can be hurt? Why would they be hurt?
I think that there are a lot of good reasons not to use the word āretardā. And there arenāt many good reasons to use it. I know of plenty of alternatives. So I donāt use the word. And I do have the arrogance to think Iām right, and the gall to suggest that others should stop using the word too.
But for the record I have never advocated for censorship of the word āretardā in this conversation, or anywhere. I donāt think a fediverse instance or any media platform should just ban the word, or ban people for using it. I donāt think people should be silenced for it.
Even below the level of ācontrolā, of authority figures or systems imposing changes from the top-downā¦
Even down to a personal level - I donāt think I advocate for people to censor themselves or each other. Please forgive me if I have done so here - that wasnāt my intention.
I just want people to be mindful of what they say. To understand what theyāre saying, and why, and what impact it can have and what implications it carries. I donāt think the decisions I make about vocabulary are so severe as your question suggests.
I donāt think Iāll ever again find someone to go the distance with me on this topic as you have, and I thank you for that. But if I did? And they listened, and thought, and consideredā¦ and they walked away, still saying the word? I wouldnāt want them to lose their voice. I donāt think they should be censored. I might think theyāre wrong to continue saying it, but I think a lot of people are wrong about a lot of things.
But I do have to say that I think a large part of this conversation unfortunately has boiled down to āwho gets to decide?ā.
You have a list of words in your mind that deserve to be abandoned. Iām fairly confident we could agree on all of them. But Iām not certain, because I donāt know your list. I only know my list. Most people only know their list. So I do need to argue against the implication that I have looser parameters from you because my list might be different. I may have added words to my list for different reasons than you added words to yours, but thatās not the same thing as having a lower threshold for what offends me. There are people who will add words to their lists that I wonāt add to mine, and for reasons I wonāt understand, and I donāt think theyāre wrong for doing so.
That being said, you and I appear to be approaching some of the core concepts of linguistics here, and from different angles. Youāve joined me this far for this productive discussion, so I feel comfortable asking you to please follow me on one more twist of thought before we step away from ableism entirely -
How often do you call someone a cretin? The interesting thing about the euphemism treadmill is that we kept replacing the āofficialā words for the same definitions. We actively changed our clinical language each time. But until the treadmill stopped on āretardāā¦ we didnāt actively stop using those words colloquially.
We struck them from the medical journals, but we didnāt strike them from the social vocabulary. The internet didnāt exist. People werenāt nearly so up in arms about ableism. You couldnāt censor the town square the way you can an online forum. We still use the word moron, and idiot. We even still use the word imbecile sometimes. Itās a fun word to say.
But how often do people use the word cretin? You might hear it in a particularly poetic roast, but not out loud. Youāll never hear someone say āoh, jennifer? Sheās a cretin.ā
(Edit-And I realize this might be a regional thing! Which adds a fun layer to all of this!)
Medical journals stopped using it because it became a derogatory termā¦ but did we stop using it for that reason? Then why didnāt we stop using moron?
I take a descriptivist approach to language. I believe it is what it does. The only rules for how we talk to each other are the ones humans made up, and because of that language constantly evolves as we keep making shit up. And I donāt set the rules. Nobody does, because we all do. I decide what the language of the future will be as much as you do, which is to say probably not at all.
I donāt think we stopped using cretin for good reasonsā¦ I think we just stopped using it. I think weāll just stop using a lot of words for no good reason, and so itās not a very big leap from there for me to believe we can stop using a word for genuinely good reasons.
I think that we should try our best not to hurt people. And I think that we will hurt people anyway, no matter how hard we try. No matter our intentions. No matter the context. Thatās one of the many curses of being the rising ape, and I agree with you - there is absolutely no way to break that curse. Something we do will offend someone somewhere, and that doesnāt mean we did a bad thing. But that also doesnāt mean we should stop trying.
I totally agree when it comes to any public discourse.
Most people have no clue what that word means or how it originated. I certainly donāt use ācretin,ā since I have no use for disparaging someone as diseased and crippled. Maybe thatās your point, that properly understanding the genesis of some term can undermine your desire to use it? And youāre right. Cretinism, the disease, makes me really sad, as does the fact that assholes chose to turn it into a pejorative. So maybe that has something to do with my unwillingness to ever use the word.
In my mind, āretardā was more of a vague diagnosis of mental slowness, so it makes it less real as an actual medical condition. Like when you say āretardā I think āRepublican.ā Those are the people who need diagnosing. Still, Iām less willing to use the r-word than alternatives like āidiotā whose meaning is totally divorced in my imagination from any origin story.
After all, once you use a word (a bunch of sounds) to mean something long enough, it eventually makes no difference what the word used to mean. That said, I can see your point. The cretin example is a good one. Very persuasive.
For me, the vagueness of the diagnosis is what makes me sad. To think of how many vulnerable people were left struggling for answers with very little help from that word and plenty of hurt from it for so long. Perhaps this makes it less concrete in the mind than a word with a more specific target, but no less sad to me. Cretinism makes me sad as well, and more so when I think about how many people could have easily avoided it if they just knew more about thyroids.
So yes, precisely! If people change how they feel and think, they change how they speak. Not just their internal dictionary, but the way they use their words too.
I appreciate your time, understanding, and well-reasoned discussion. Thank you!