Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
good chemistry is complicated,
and a little bit messy -LW
 
PerlMonks  

Re^4: MJDs Contract Warnings - courtesy of Perlweekly

by BrowserUk (Pope)
on Apr 15, 2015 at 10:16 UTC ( #1123478=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^3: MJDs Contract Warnings - courtesy of Perlweekly
in thread MJDs Contract Warnings - courtesy of Perlweekly

Are mentally disabled people worthy of derision, as the quote seems to imply?

Question: Do you seriously believe that either person was actually deriding mentally handicapped persons?

Is it possible that they were perhaps suggesting that on occasions, persons who are usually judged to be of 'normal' mental capacities; make questionable decisions and assertions that might, in isolation, cause them to be accessed far below their 'normal' faculties, such that they would, in isolation, rate them statistically as 'below normal'?

If so. That is, if there is even a possibility that they are not attempting to deride those whom society/statistics judge to be of 'below normal mental acuity'; but rather poking fun at those of often above normal abilities, that for some reason -- technical blind spots; oversensitive defensiveness; academic indoctrination; or simply lackadaisical research, effort or thought -- occasionally or habitually make, and worse, defend, demonstrably incorrect technical judgements, assertions and assumptions; then aren't you making the lot of mentally disabled people worse, by making an issue of this?

That is, by making a big issue of small, and highly questionable infractions of social awareness issues, you make it harder for the real issues to be discussed and addressed; because you make people afraid to even mention them for fear of falling foul of the self-appointed, oversensitive gatekeepers of political correctness.

Please note: there are three questions there. No judgements; no assertions; no condemnations.


With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked
  • Comment on Re^4: MJDs Contract Warnings - courtesy of Perlweekly

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: MJDs Contract Warnings - courtesy of Perlweekly
by Arunbear (Prior) on Apr 17, 2015 at 17:21 UTC
    Do I believe that either person was actually deriding mentally handicapped persons? I suspect not, hence my question focused only on the meaning of the quote, not the motivation of the quoters.

    We often fall victim to using particular terms without fully comprehending what they imply, and that's what I think has happened here.

    Is it possible that they were perhaps suggesting that on occasions, persons who are usually judged to be of 'normal' mental capacities; make questionable decisions and assertions that might, in isolation, cause them to be accessed far below their 'normal' faculties, such that they would, in isolation, rate them statistically as 'below normal'?
    Possible yes, but to me it seems much less likely than a simpler possibility i.e. that "retardo" is being unwittingly used as a stand in for "stupid" or "ignorant".

    We also tend to not notice how poor a "joke" is until the joke is on us. Empathy matters to me much more than political correctness. I'm not telling people what to do or not do, but a thought experiment may illustrate this better than arguments can - Imagine for a minute or two that you had a close friend or relative who is mentally disabled (I have two such relatives), then see if you still think "retardo" is a suitable rebuke term.

      then see if you still think "retardo" is a suitable rebuke term.

      I started working with the mentally handicapped as a volunteer aged 15; and I still participate some 40+ years on.

      then see if you still think "retardo" is a suitable rebuke term.

      It's all about context and intent. In the context there is no intent to apply or relate the term retardo to anyone suffering from a mental handicap.

      Indeed. The only person relating that term to your relatives, is you!

      By seeking out offense, and choosing to be offended, on behalf of others, where no offense was intended, nor can be rationally inferred from the context, you don't help a problem -- you are the problem.


      With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked
        It's all about context and intent. In the context there is no intent to apply or relate the term retardo to anyone suffering from a mental handicap.
        Except that I haven't made that claim, and that's not my point anyway. I'm questioning the suitability of "retardo" as a rebuke term in this context because it equates mere ignorance or stupidity with a condition (mental disability) that for most of its sufferers, is not reversible.

        It's all about context and intent. In the context there is no intent to apply or relate the term retardo to anyone suffering from a mental handicap.

        Yes, context is important. However, the "no intent" part is not true. The original quote (which, in the reply, was not put in quotes) is meant to deride a non-mentally disabled person to say that he was acting as if he was mentally disabled. That's the meaning of the quote and the oomph is given to it by the hidden disdain we have for people not as put together as us.

        By seeking out offense, and choosing to be offended, on behalf of others, where no offense was intended, nor can be rationally inferred from the context, you don't help a problem -- you are the problem.

        He did not seek out offense. He pointed out the offense that was already there. He did it by asking a question, which instead of answering, you attacked him, ad hominem. If you don't want to answer the question, or even if you think it is off topic, just say so, or don't answer at all. But don't attack him.

      retarded
      [ri-tahr-did] Usually Offensive.

      adjective

      1. characterized by a slowness or limitation in intellectual understanding
      and awareness, emotional development, academic progress, etc.

      2. Slang. stupid or foolish.

      Here is an idea. Don't call people with mental disabilities retarded, even though it is definition #1. Call people who don't have mental disabilities that do stupid and foolish things retarded because they need a shock to their system at that point in time.

      People who get so offended by these kinds of things are not being realistic. You just aren't. We are talking about two completely different audiences here, retardo. Take that as a compliment.

      No, you don't get special treatment because some particular association may bother you especially.

      This device complies with part 15 of FCC Rules. This device may not cause harmful interference. This device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.
      Be a good device, mkay?

      hence my question focused only on the meaning of the quote, not the motivation of the quoters.

      Well said, Arunbear.

      This mini-thread is interested to read, though i am flabbergasted that it even needs to be discussed.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1123478]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others cooling their heels in the Monastery: (5)
As of 2019-11-19 06:11 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Strict and warnings: which comes first?



    Results (94 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?