Let’s start with Merriam-Webster’s definition of retarded:
Pronunciation: ri-ˈtär-dədFunction: adjectiveDate: 1895sometimes offensive : slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development or academic progress
My problem with all the fuss is in how the situation is being misinterpreted. Yes, we once used this term as a descriptor for those who were of below average intelligence and those with actual mental and emotional disabilities…and quite frankly, it was entirely accurate. It became a derogatory word over the years, when specifically directed at those with mental and emotional disabilities, in order to make fun of them and be abusive. Though the word has been used accurately, it was the intent behind the use of the word in certain situations that became problematic and overly insulting. and I am not supporting the use of the term in that manner. In this particular situation, that isn’t what happened. Rahm Emanuel didn’t call mentally disabled people “fucking retarded.” It appears to me that he used the word exactly in line with its definition, towards a group of people who have no mental or emotional handicaps, to say they are acting like they are “slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development or academic progress.” Of course it was intended as an insult, but it was not intended as an insult towards those with emotional or mental disabilities. If he had said they were acting like they were “fucking mentally handicapped,” then everybody might have something to complain about. ..but he didn’t.
Sarah Palin, and whoever agrees with her, are using faulty logic to come to their conclusion. If I say a snowflake is white, and I say a softball is white, it doesn’t mean a snowflake is a softball. I wouldn’t try to make that argument, would you? So, if I say the actions of liberal activists are retarded, and I say those with actual cognitive and developmental disabilities are retarded, does that mean that liberal activists have cognitive and developmental disabilities? If you are of average intelligence, you should be able to see that these statements both contain the same exact pattern. If A is a member of C, and B is a member of C, it does not mean that A must = B. Palin’s statement claims that A must = B, and thus I would have to believe that she is- Retarded: slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development or academic progress. A person who is perfectly healthy in every way, but extremely unmotivated towards education and intentionally strives for ignorance, could fit the description of “retarded.” Therefore the group “retarded” is not exclusive to those who specifically have actual cognitive and developmental disabilities. I’m not saying that Sarah Palin has actual cognitive and developmental disabilities, however recent evidence does seem to point to that conclusion…either way, she is a retard. I do understand the intent behind not wanting her child to be labeled a retard, but again, that isn’t even close to what happened.
I’m not one to want to insult someone who hasn’t intentionally taken some specific action worthy of insulting them over. I am not one to want to insult those of a group just because they are different than I am or different than the societal norm, or who have no control over being a member of a specific group. The problem we face is that no accurate descriptor can ever consistently be used to describe a group made up of people who would not choose to be a member of that particular group, if given the choice. Nobody wants to be labeled as being of below average intelligence, so no matter what descriptor they are given and no matter how accurate that descriptor is, it will always end up being seen as derogatory. I’m not retarded…I’m handicapped, I’m not handicapped…I’m handi-capable, I’m not handi-capable…I’m physically challenged. The cycle doesn’t end. I truly think people believe that by changing the descriptor, they can somehow miraculously NOT be a member of the group anymore. Unfortunately, it just doesn’t work that way. If you have a tiny penis, the difference between the doctor calling you “needle dick” or saying you are “falicly challenged?” just doesn’t change a damn thing…you still have a teeny little pecker!!! It doesn’t make you a bad human being, and it might make your life a bit more complicated at times (and possibly even make your life easier at times) but you will just have to make the best of it. In this case your penis is irrelevant, it is the doctor’s intent that you should judge.
At the rate we are going, before long we’ll have a long damn list of things we’ll have to call “that which shall not be named” and nobody will know which of the “that which shall not be named” things we are meaning. Twenty First Century blogs will be something like this, I assume: I went to the “that which shall not be named” yesterday and met a “that which shall not be named” named Sindee. I showed her my “that which shall not be named” and she asked that I “that which shall not be named” in her “that which shall not be named” till she “that which shall not be named” and she “that which shall not be named” my “that which shall not be named” “that which shall not be named” for two hours like a “that which shall not be named” Now, isn’t that a romantic story?
I cannot say I am a Rahm Emanuel supporter, I cannot say that I’m much of an Obama supporter, I’m certainly not a Sarah Palin supporter either. The point is, we have enough to worry about in the year 2010, and politicians should get back to the issues without this stupid bullshit about unrelated semantics. Rahm made his point quite clearly, he thought they were acting like they were slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development or academic progress. When Obama said don’t take your college tuition money to Vegas, he clearly just meant not to gamble away something you couldn’t afford to lose…not that vacationers should boycott Las Vegas. Ambiguity and politically correct generalizations are not the core of communication…it is relaying a message as specifically as possible but still has the highest probability of being accurately understood by the recipient. If Sarah Palin can somehow shift gears and provide some type of ecomic solution that makes sense, in a way where we can understand what the hell she’s saying, I’d give it my full attention. If we can just figure out the words she thinks aren’t appropriate, which she must be dropping from her attempts at communication, and slip them back in at the right spots during her speeches, maybe they would start making some damn sense instead of coming off like eratic unfinished sentences and gibberish. At present, all she seems to do is provide us an amusement I can only refer to as “Jerry Springer meets the Beverly Hillbillies.”