‘Gay’ about 60 years ago meant “bright” or “splashy” with an overtone of irreverence or outrageousness.

In 1952, ‘gay’ appeared with sexual limitation in a slang dictionary with the meaning “australian: a male/female prostitute — a gay boy, gay girl.”

After 1969 and the great outing of homosexual culture in NYC, ‘gay’ rapidly came to mean only “male homosexual”.

It is easy to see how an irreverent flashiness in dress and behavior became applied to homosexuality only.

It did not take hundreds of years for linguistic usage to alter, but a mere span of fewer than 20 years.

My adopted sister suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome, fetal malnourishment, and probably some pre-natal drug use. Her IQ is in the 40s, she’s bipolar, and it takes about seven different medications to keep her emotions level. It’s hard to think about how bewildering and frustrating and painful her life must be. She is a fundamentally broken person, and it breaks my heart to know that there is absolutely nothing that anyone can do to make it better for her.

So on a personal level, I really don’t like that Rahm Emanuel used the word “retarded” that way, and I really don’t like that it’s taken over the news the way it has. My sister knows that the “retarded” is a cruel and ugly word, and somewhere in the back of her head, she knows that applies accurately to her. I don’t like that she has to think about it every time the news comes on.

Here’s the thing, though: there’s really no substitute for the word “retard”. There is no other word that means “deeply, extremely, permanently stupid”, and with the same connotation. Not even close. Some things really are just fucking retarded, and the idea that there’s an ENTIRE CLASS OF SITUATIONS that we’re not allowed to describe because my sister might overhear you just seems wrong.

I’m guilty of using that word myself, but to me it is meant in a way that means this:

to make slow; delay the development or progress of (an action, process, etc.); hinder or impede.
–verb (used without object)
2. to be delayed.
–noun
3. a slowing down, diminution, or hindrance, as in a machine.

NOT THIS…
4. Slang: Disparaging.
a. a mentally retarded person.
b. a person who is stupid, obtuse, or ineffective in some way: a hopeless social retard.

As you can see, in the first few definitions, the dictionary.com reference clearly defines Sarah Palin’s actions as retarded, in trying to IMPEDE the PROGRESS of the health care reform that might benefit other mentally disabled people.

However… I am trying to remove it from my vocabulary as well, as the meaning has become quite diluted over the years, from the second meaning.

I remember my foster sister calling her biological father and my foster father, “retarded”. I was incensed, and yelled at her to not say such a thing about him.

She opened the dictionary and showed me the literal definition of the word. I was astonished.

so… the word retarded, as Sarah Palin took exception to, is actually a pejorative in and of itself, as the original definition means “slow to progress” or “to impede progress”. Noun or verb, same concept.

She really should buy a dictionary before she gets on Facebook going off half cocked, because truly, the fact that she got so righteously indignant is actually an insult to her infant son.

If you agree that this would be an ideal, then the question becomes how best to bring it about. Obviously, using the word retarded when you really mean bad, low-quality, inferior, or lesser in any way would be counter-productive. But what if you use the word retarded to mean something that is stupid, or “less intelligent than average”? I think the problem with saying that people should not use the word retarded if they mean ‘stupid’ is that it implies (whether intentional or not) that being less intelligent than average is inherently bad. Taking for granted here that the word retarded has been co-opted from its original meaning of slow growth to be a catch-all for people with mental disabilities, if we weren’t making this value judgment, then why would calling something retarded, if you mean stupid, be wrong? Wouldn’t it just be the case that some things are less intelligent, on average, than other things, and to state this would be a matter of fact, like pointing out the speaker’s tie was green?

This is a difficult concept to wrap one’s head around, because there are a lot of people whose value systems are built around the concept that intelligence is a fundamental good and stupidity is its opposite. I’m not sure if this is something that could ever change, but I do think that considering the assumptions that are inherent in what makes you uncomfortable is important. If you don’t like people saying something or someone is retarded, why don’t you? What exactly is it about the word that makes you uncomfortable? Is it the concept of people with mental disabilities in general?

In regards to anyone who thinks that anyone who disagrees with Sady’s blog in any way must be a moron/hater/whatever I submit this to you; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403698_pf.html

For those who won’t follow the link, I submit these two quotes;
“Perhaps the most important conservative insight being depreciated is the durable warning from free-marketeers that government programs often fail to yield what their architects intend.”
“Even liberals should think twice about the prospect of decisions on innovative surgeries, light bulbs and carbon quotas being directed by legislators grandstanding for the cameras. Of course, thinking twice would be easier if more of them were listening to conservatives at all.”

Personally, I agree with much of what Sady has said about language and it’s use. I simply disagreed with turning it into a political anti-Palin message. I’m possitive that if someone wanted to spend the time you’d find numerous examples of politicians on both side of the fence and plenty of independents that use language that disagrees with what some people feels their politics show.

I beleive that a world the way the present liberal party seems to want would be a great place…if it were possible to maintain in reality. There will -always- be someone out there who will want to change it. No society of more then oh… a few dozen people could ever maintain “eutopia” because everyone has a different view of what eutopia is.

I beleive that we must do what we can to make our world the best it can be in reality. That being a combination of many views, Liberal and Conserative, with respectful debate on how things should or need to be changed with the times.

Brilliant work, Sady. Really.