>

It has been more time since the other words stopped being used, but "intellectually disabled" replaced the word "retarded" only a few years ago, only decades after it had first been implemented.
/u/MrNincompoopy (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

Hi, historical linguist here. Yes, words and their meanings do change. I do understand your point that mute, mad, lame have all been stripped on their offensive meaning and that you believe that retarded has as well. And to be fair, it might have for you. But language change is not a solitary process. Language is a social tool used by, shared by, and shaped by all of its speakers. 
The word retarded grew to incredible levels of offensive and taboo in the early 2000s. The folks for whom it became taboo are in their 30s-40s and their younger siblings are in their 20s. This  became a formative taboo for them when they were children. They will likely hold onto that for a good, long time. 
The thing with mute, dumb, mad, and lame is that they are all much older, and their phases of being taboos was much further in the past. There's a natural cycle for these things:
word with specific meaning > negative connotation of meaning > used as a slur/in an incredible hateful way > word becomes taboo > enough time has passed that the term loses it's taboo and either returns to the specific meaning or because of slur and taboo stages, has changed in meaning enough that it has adopted a new form, such as being a general marker of negativity (e.g. dumb and lame). 
I think you're right that it is moving towards being like those words -- but it's a strongly engrained taboo. That takes a serious amount of time to change. It might not be until millennials and zoomers are quite old, or are gone, that this term stops being a taboo. >


The word retarded grew to incredible levels of offensive and taboo in the early 2000s. The folks for whom it became taboo are in their 30s-40s and their younger siblings are in their 20s. This became a formative taboo for them when they were children. They will likely hold onto that for a good, long time. 

I hesitate to disagree with a historical linguist about historical linguistic trends, but I don't know that this particular word is as simple as other slurs in terms of offensive staying power. 
I'm the prime demographic for the age bracket you just mentioned, and I'll point out that I'm not some backwoods yokel, MAGA person, or other assorted anti-political-correctness reactive archetype. I grew up in a large metro area, traveled away to go to college, traveled again for law school, and have since moved states a few more times for work. I've been a lot of places, met a lot of people, and I'm fairly well educated with a broad social group that leans solidly left. 
Other slurs, for example racial slurs, have incredible levels of taboo such that even saying them in private with your friends will get you ostracized. This is because the offensiveness of those words has genuinely permiated throughout most of society. 
"Retard," on the other hand, doesn't really work the same way. Not in my experience.
You say that aversion to the word became a formative taboo for my age bracket, but to be perfectly honest I don't know anybody - not a single person - who is actually offended by it in private. Unlike other slurs, you're free to use it openly when in private with your friends. You just can't say it in public for fear of outside groups hearing you.
In my experience, the aversion to the word surged like a lightning bolt out of progressive academic circles - and there was a strange social phenomenon where the rest of society simply capitulated in public, but didn't actually convert in private. They said the prayers and sang along in church, and then went home and promptly ignored scripture.
I don't believe that (the vast majority of) my generation actually has a formative taboo to the word. I think that a minority of people have that taboo, and for whatever historical sociological reason had outsized influence that caused the word to become unacceptable in public only.
I genuinely believe that if progressive academic circles lose their social footing as a dominant ostracizing force, the word would come back into public vogue quite quickly.
I wouldn't say the same about almost any other slur. >

I appreciate you sharing your perspective on this, but I'm curious, did you grow up around people who would have been labeled "mentally retarded", such as those with Downs syndrome? I feel that in my experience the main push hasn't been from any academic setting, but from people who knew other people who had been called this word being intolerant of its use, privately and publicly. I'm sure there is a large proportion of the public that would love to bring it back, just like there is likely a lot of people who would like to bring back "gay" as meaning "uncool" or "stupid", but I don't think I've ever seen evidence that either of these were pushed from progressive bastions, I've only ever seen it come from my peers calling each other out for it. >


did you grow up around people who would have been labeled "mentally retarded", such as those with Downs syndrome? 

In my immediate family? No.
But in my immediate social circle, like in my classes at school? Yes. There was almost always somebody with developmental disabilities in every one of my grades throughout the years. I don't remember all of the names, but I'll always remember Miguel, who sat next to me in 6th grade. Super tall guy. Wasn't great at discussion, but he loved Pokémon like me. 
Further, I have a friend who went on to become a special education teacher with many developmental disabilities in her class - and I'll pause there to bring her into the discussion in my next paragraph down.

I feel that in my experience the main push hasn't been from any academic setting, but from people who knew other people who had been called this word being intolerant of its use, privately and publicly. 

I don't think that's a universal trend - in fact, I'd point you to the (in)famous (now defunct, but commonly mirrored) "tardblog," where a special education teacher wrote about her class experiences. If you put aside what is now a highly offensive title for a moment, and actually read the blog, you'll see that she had a deep love for the kids in her care, but she simply didn't take issue with the word. 
And now to bring my friend back into this - the one who went on to become a special education teacher - she loved that blog, and is in fact the one who introduced me to it. And loves her special education kids, too. But she uses the word plainly when in private with friends, because it's simply not the horrible slur to her that it is to some people.
I think the social phenomenon I mentioned before has impacted the people who work and live with the developmentally disabled just as much as it's impacted the rest of society. They're forced to pretend in public as well, but (in my personal experience, anyway) they go home and use the word in private also.

I'm sure there is a large proportion of the public that would love to bring it back,

I don't think that's right.
I don't think there are very many people who "would love to bring it back" in the sense that they long to hear it said again. That's not it.
I suspect most people who use the word in private don't really think about it in terms of "bringing it back" because, to them, it never really left. They've still been using it all this time, just not in public.
Which goes back to what I said about this one being different from all the rest of the slurs.
The vast majority of people (angry racist grandpa aside) aren't using racial slurs, even in private. The same goes for things like the "f-word" for gay people - it's simply not used, even in private.
But "retard?" It's used frequently in private. By people across all walks of life, from blue collar to white collar to actual special education teachers.
It's the one slur that's not actually treated as a slur in private, but simply hidden to avoid being ostracized by a small minority who has social control of that discussion. >

I'm sorry, there is no way special ed teachers are still using the word. Not even in private. Not anymore. >

There have got to be at least tens of thousands of them, of course some of them have probably used the word in private. >


I bet there will be some to say "wEll mEAninGs cHAnGe." Yes. Of course they do. Such has been the case with"retarded" as well. However, for whatever reason, some have decided that it was to be the magic word, the exception.

It's not a "magic exception"... its meaning just hasn't finished changing as much as the other examples you give have. 
You would agree, I hope, that these meaning changes happen over time, and some words complete those changes way faster than others. Look how fast "gay" stopped meaning "happy" for example. 
By comparison, people still argue about "literally" even though that ship sailed a century ago.
"Retarded" just still has strong connotations of being both a slur for mentally disabled people, and a mild insult towards others. It hasn't finished. 
Don't be so surprised by this. It is the norm, not some weird exception. Language/idiom/connotation almost never changes all the same all at once, in lockstep. >


By comparison, people still argue about "literally" even though that ship sailed a century ago.

It hasnt. The reason littetally is used colloquially is because of the literal definition of the word "litterally." When you use it colloquially, it's hyperbole. It means that something so close to reality that it becomes (metaphorically) real. You would not be able to use the word "literally" in the way that you do if its definition wasn't still taking a word or phrase for its true meaning. 
It's an expression, not an alternate definition. Much like how a ton still means 1000 kg. And how freezing means turning water into ice, or also the temperature at which water turns into ice. Their definitions haven't changed. We just use it in a metaphorical and hyperbolic sense to express ourselves better. >

You didn't understand what im saying either.  Metaphors are used to express your thoughts and feelings. Because of this, metaphors are entirely reliant on their original definition. So if you use the word "retarded" as a metaphor for stupid or backwards, it means that you are relying on its original definition of "mentally disabled people who are mentally slower". And if you are reliant on a word that is about "mentally disabled people" to tell someone that theyre "stupid and backwards", that means that what you are expressing is that you are comparing a metnally disabled person to the notion of being stupid and backwards. Because that's what a metaphor is. A comparison (NOT a new definition) of two concepts that we find similar in order to express our thoughts >


What does "retarded" even mean to you?

Retarded is a slur ised to demean mentally disabled people. Just like fag is a slur used to demean gay people. My point being, they haven't outgrown those definitions yet, so you can't use  them, especially as insults. When they have, you can. They dont have multiple meanings. They evolved from something into a slur, but you're pretending that they've evolved past being a slur. They haven't. It's that simple. Use the words if you want, but a slur is a slur until society deems it otherwise. And it hasnt. The fact that you so badly want to prove that words evolve is working against you. Because it relies on english speaking spciety to determine when that happens, and now thay society is telling you no, you say throw a fit. Make up your mind, youre arguing against yourself again. >


However, for whatever reason, some have decided that it was to be the magic word, the exception.

This is the key here. It seems that enough people have a reason to feel different about that word, in comparison to the others you mention. Whether you agree or not with their reasoning, or whether you think is consistent or not is irrelevant if enough people actually think that word is different, meanings don't just change, people change them. >

My dispute is with the morality of it. That concerns the reasoning. I acknowledge that "new" meanings have been given to these words by many. I am not disputing that. >

Saying a word in and of itself is neither moral nor immoral. It's communication. Saying a word that lots of people agree is offensive when there are plenty of suitable inoffensive replacements is what is immoral. Using language that you know hurts people is choosing harm unnecessarily. 
Because of this, I see no contradiction. If and when enough people start telling me that some language is offensive to them, I change my language, because I wish to avoid harm when possible. 
Obviously, "enough" is subjective and dependent on different communities. I am personally fairly conservative when making these decisions, because I would rather change my language at minimal cost to me in order to spare others harm. >

I tend to agree with this, but it is still extremely hypocritical to object to someone using a word that you (hypothetical you, not you specifically) find offensive while using other words that someone else might find offensive, and then justifying that usage with "not enough people agree that this word causes harm so I will keep using it." Which is the point of the post. >


I bet there will be some to say “wEll mEAninGs cHAnGe.” Yes. Of course they do. Such has been the case with”retarded” as well. 

But not really. It’s about recency. “Retard” as and offensive term for a mentally disabled person began around the 1970s. It’s a very recent slur. “Dumb” hasn’t meant mute since the 1820s. You’re just ignoring time. >


“Dumb” hasn’t meant mute since the 1820s.

Wtf are you on about, of course "dumb" still means "mute" it just depends on the context it's used. I dunno what English you've been taught. >

I've been around medical professionals my whole life and never once heard the term 'dumb' refer to nonverbal people. >

When was the last time you heard someone called "retarded" in a professional capacity? >

Most of the time you’ll see “MR” in charts which stands for mental retardation or mentally retarded which is sometimes spelled out. >

"Mr. F" >

There is a reason for that specific word becoming socially unacceptable while the others remain socially acceptable, and that is because words like dumb, mad and lame just aren’t used in those contexts, at least not anymore. The only time I’ve ever seen “lame” or “dumb” refer someone who is disabled is when I was forced to read the King James version of the Bible as a child, which is written in an older English dialect. I’ve never heard anyone use those words, at least not in normal modern conversation patterns, when referring to someone who is physically disabled or someone who is mute. Now dumb has morphed into a word that simply means stupid or unintelligent, which is obviously sad given the older meaning of it but like I said before NOBODY is still referring to people who don’t speak as dumb. Same thing with lame, nobody uses that word in that context anymore. Mad is similar, but is still used as it’s older connotation in Europe. Here in the States you might not be able to actually find many people who are even aware that it used to also mean insane. The R word on the other hand is different, it is still very much used to refer to disabled individuals while simultaneously having a very negative connotation as an insult for someone/something that is unintelligent or ridiculous. It is possible for words to have multiple meanings simultaneously, and unfortunately the meanings that words take on are subject to the evolution of culture as well. The R word used to be used to refer to people who were developmentally disabled, it was even used clinically, but then people began using it for humor, and finally as an insult. It does not matter what the old definition used to be, because now when people hear the word they only think of the prejudicial insult connotation, which is directly weaponizing the suffering that disabled people endure for the sole purpose of insult or negative description. This meaning of the word is also extremely emotionally charged, and that will make it the first meaning to appear in a given person’s mind when hearing it, after all it is simply more interesting than the other older clinical definition. This is just another word that has become associated with the worst meaning that it has, which is something that you can only really blame on those prejudiced individuals that gave it the negative connotation in the first place. >

Before the 1960's words like moron, idiot, cretin, and imbecile we're considered genuine, non-offensive ways to describe a person with disabilities. Around that decade people began to grow concerned with the negative connotations and replaced them with the word retard, which literally means to delay or hold back. Now the exact same thing is happening with the word retard.  
The way I see it, fighting these things only makes them worse, and it's cyclical. Whatever we replace retard is one day gonna end up in the same boat and we may find retard not as offensive anymore. Debates like these are nonsense while our world is burning. >

Language is dynamic. Things change, and if they change due to social pressure and making certain people feel more welcome/appreciated/loved in society...I am fine with that. >

My question is whether or not this particular change occured just randomly/naturally or due to some kind of activism against it. Ie did people start finding the word offensive naturally just due to the way it sounds, due to how people started to use it (culture), or because either a group or individual started the idea that the word was somehow bad. I wasn't alive at that time and don't have a whole lot of detailed info on the subject so I don't really know. 
My perspective is that further stigmatizing the word also stigmatizes the condition, having to dress it down and making it almost impossible to refer to in any commonplace terms seems more harmful than helpful to me especially if the trend I described persists.
The best analogy I can make is flimsy at best, but here goes. In meditation when dealing with anxiety or intrusive thoughts the way to overcome them isn't to fight them and make them go away, it's to accept them and actively and consciously reduce their effect on your state of mind. That's psychology in action and it works tremendously. I said before in either my first reply to you or another comment but it's the Tom Sawyer effect, ascribing labelling something as bad that was not inherently bad and then tabooing it will create a divisive environment for discussion and further instill belief that there's a problem with the word not the way we as a society treat each other. Words are just tools to convey ideas they're neither good nor bad. 
That being said I believe in about 10-30 years maybe even more we'll forget all about the outrage we have about the word retard, and possibly decide that now disabled is offensive and must use some new term. It's a cycle of misdirected outrage. You could easily start that conversation today by marketing the idea that it's some how offensive, like people labeled as disabled are not able to do things? That's not true though there are autistic and other disabled that have incredible talent. There now we cant use that word.
So I think the best way to fight an offensive word isn't to delete the word but normalize the correct or less offensive meaning. Because you can keep deleting words all you want but if we still have a society that tolerates bullying people there's always gonna be a new world and a new way to hurt people. My evidence for this are those old words that used to be polite words to describe the condition (idiot, imbecile, moron, etc.) Those are now normalized and  acceptable alternatives to refer to stupidity, those words have no other meaning than a stupid person so why is retard so hated when it's real meaning just means stop or delay? Time and normalization.
TLDR, the bigger reaction you make about the word the more uncomfortable people are likely to feel, normalizing the word would be more effective in taking away it's edge barring some kind of massive shift in societal values. >

Thanks for your thoughtful response. :) I think that's an interesting comparison with intrusive thoughts. But I think I disagree...I think that comparison implies that using the r word leads to erasure of people with mental disabilities. But that isn't the case. I don't think the r word should be banned or that mental disabilities shouldn't be talked about.
Words are powerful and have great potential to cause harm, alienation...but also to spread love and feelings of inclusion. I try to aim for the latter.
If you were a person with a mental disability who had been called the r word several times in their life, how do you think you would feel if you heard someone use that word in an "innocent" way? I think it would be perfectly understandable if that hurt and offended you. >

I think you misunderstood then. I'm not talking about erasure, I'm talking about exposure. You said it yourself if they've been exposed to only people using the word abusively then yes it will upset them. But I'm talking about societal level exposure to normalize a word that isn't in and of itself a bad word, just the way we use it and we ourselves behave. 
Like you said words have alot of potential to create different feelings and describe things differently. Which is why having  a variety of words to describe the same thing, in this case stupidity, for which there are already multiple words who's only meaning is "a stupid person", whereas retard does not even refer to a stupid person just the state of being held back. It was actually the word adopted to replace other once innocuous words. So what I'm saying is the behavior of society to find words and use them abusively is something that exist because a cultural flaw.  To fight against these kinds of things it doesn't help to go after a word because that will only create space for a new word to arise.
But you can go to different regions and words hold different meanings. So my stance is that further demonizing words only gives them the power that makes them so hurtful.
Call someone an idiot these days and it almost means nothing, calling someone an imbecile is almost a classy way to call someone an idiot where it was quite recently considered too negative to use. >

You say that what you are annoyed by is the "hypocrisy" behind avoiding some words but not others. Your assumption here seems to be that everyone who avoids  "retarded" does so because "oh no, PC culture made me do it because it might offend some hypothetical person" (or because of some other external black-and-white morality which reduces words to "potentially offensive" or "safe to use"), and thus if one believes in the boogeyman that PC culture has become, one should stop using all of the other words too.
I am telling you that, as far as I am aware, that is not the motivation of most people. Instead, they use an internal morality which distinguishes between those words. I am not avoiding "retarded" because the "woke left" or the "though police" told me to do it. I am avoiding it because saying it makes me feel like an asshole, and saying for instance "lame" does not. Where is the hypocrisy in that? 
Now I don't agree with the holier-than-thou attitude that some leftist people have, where they treat you like the devil because you use a word they don't like^1 . I think that the way to go about it is with empathy, and by explaining why we find certain terms offensive and not others, rather than just claiming it is a "morally superior choice". 
At the end of the day, I didn't have a problem with "retarded" 10 years ago. But that's because I didn't have an opinion on the matter other than the default opinion of "I say what I want lol". It took conscious time and effort to educate myself and change that opinion, and I can't blame someone for not being offered the chances to reflect on it. 
Because I acknowledge that (IMO) it does take a specific set of circumstances to change such a view. As humans we are empathetic creatures, but even so, it's difficult to have empathy for abstract, hypothetical people. But if, say, I had a good friend with a disability who told me that me using the word "retarded" really hurt them, while me using, say, "lame", had no effect, then yeah, I would argue that there's again no hypocrisy in just avoiding  one of the words.
As a last thing I want to commend you for this post. Since the internet is basically an echo chamber, the arguments inevitably get reduced to "but muh freedom of speech!" and respectively "it's the only moral choice and if you don't do it you're Hitler". Which is why it's important to have places like this where more nuanced conversations can be had. And while I disagree with your perspective, I am grateful that you did bring it up so that you can see the other perspectives, rather than letting it stew, and potentially lead you to a bad place (psychologically, not morally).
^1 the two disclaimers here are that 1) while I have seen people like that online, I haven't met anyone like that IRL (i dont live in the US tho), so idk to what extent that is a real thing rather than a strawman used by conservatives to show how our "freedom of speech" is "dying", and 2) there are limits to this - if you, say, unironically throw the n-word around, then yeah, you're out of my friends book just like that
Edit: grammar and a couple clarifications >

There are certainly people irl who butt into convos and say not to use "retard." I bet using the word "dumb" would make a mute person feel insecure and/or bad. I knew a mute person and would never use that word around them. 
The equation of an inability to speak with stupidity is no new thing. It has always been done. It is still mean. What are they going to do about it though? It is not like they can easily communicate their anguish without being labeled as "mad," and gain the reputation of being the crazy dumb person. >

Thanks for taking the time to reply! 

I bet using the word "dumb" would make a mute person feel insecure and/or bad. I knew a mute person and would never use that word around them. 
The equation of an inability to speak with stupidity is no new thing. It has always been done. It is still mean. 

Those arguments express the view that we should also stop using words such as "lame" and "dumb". I can't say that I completely disagree with this view.
However, in your original post, you say that your issue is with people who use only some of the words, but not others, because that is hypocritical. It is that view that I am challenging. In particular, I fail to see why it is at all hypocritical.
Sure, you could say that stopping at that specific point is arbitrary, that we should go further or less far than that, but that doesn't explain what exactly is hypocritical about it. The people you describe don't hold you to a different standard than themselves -- they're okay with you saying "lame" and "dumb" as well. There is nothing inherently hypocritical about treating two different words differently. 
Now if your question is really why do they stop there (which doesn't have anything to do with hypocrisy), I can't give you a unified answer, because each person draws their line of what is acceptable and what isn't differently. What I will say is that, in this context, no matter where you draw your own line, surely one of the two camps is worse than the other. In this context, I really struggle to see where you're coming from with this paragraph:

I could not care less if people either did not care about all the words or if people cared about all the words. As long as there is consistency, all the power to you. It is the hypocrisy that I find to be utterly disgusting.

First of all, you effectively claim that "consistency" and "hypocrisy" are the same thing, which really, they're not. Second, you talk about consistency as if it is automatically a good thing. What stops me from making the argument: 
"I despise the legal system. It punishes some crimes with a $100 fine, and others with the death penalty. It should strive to be consistent -- it should either give every criminal the fine, or every criminal the death penalty. I am okay with people supporting either of those two options, as long as it's not something in between."? >


I could not care less if people either did not care about all the words or if people cared about all the words. 

If you're equally okay with two opposite situations, then it really seems like you don't particularly care very much about this issue at all. Which is fine, but then I don't understand why you have such a problem when people seem to have self-contradictory views.  Could you explain?
Anyway...

However, for whatever reason, some have decided that it was to be the magic word, the exception.

Well, if (for whatever reason) one particular word is exceptionally hurtful to people's feelings, then treating it as an exception makes total sense, right? >

Moreso hurtful to a larger number of people. To make an exception for one simply because more people are behind it would seem to ignore the minority. I am sure that there must be those who hate the colloquial usage of "dumb," but have no voice, literally and figuratively. >

Except that the "colloquial" use of dumb doesn't refer to an inability to speak, mad to insanity, or lame to inability to walk. They each have discrete meanings far removed from their long-outdated medical usages. Whereas to this day I see teenagers pair the word "retarded" with a hand motion that mimics special needs students I work with who have mobility impairments. >

I feel the same way about how "autistic" has become a slur in recent years. I worked with kids and teens with Autism for several years, and I could see first hand how people using "autistic" as the new "retarded" caused real emotional harm to those kids.
Now that doesn't mean I'm gonna go out of the way to police everyone I see using"autistic" in that way, but like...don't deny that these usages are ~~harmless~~ harmful. >

I used to regularly say retarded as an insult and was one of those teens in the 90’s that used to say “that’s gay” when someone wasn’t cool. The reason I stopped was because while I was saying those things as a youth I didn’t see them as being to mean what their actual definitions, but as I got older I realized that didn’t matter. What mattered was that if I was saying “that’s gay” to a classmate and there was a gay person in the room (we now know there were probably way more than we thought at the time), that person was going to get upset and might feel worse about something they were already struggling with. 
I stopped saying “retard” after I dated a girl who’s brother was autistic with mental retardation. I had a convo with her mother once where she used to tell me how it broke her heart when she heard people casually use that word, and that it was usually not when her son was around. She was reminded every time that the world was probably laughing at people like her son in a regular basis and that he would never have a “normal” life. So the point is, if you can avoid using a word that is going to ruin someone’s day, why not just grow up and do that. >

Why not also not use the other words? Is it because that only the mentally retarded are deserving of it? Are not others? 
Dumb/mute people are bullied relentlessly as well. They also cannot verbally defend themselves. If they expressed their anguish they may be labelled as mad/crazy. >

Because those words are have dictionary definitions that correlate with the newer uses and they just flat out aren’t as offensive. The new definitions have surpassed the others in usage. Just like geek means more of a bookworm than it does someone who bites the heads off live chickens. But who knows, maybe the gate keepers will come after those someday too. All I know is that I have evolved to be mindful of what I say. I also try not say the word “fat” a whole lot or make weight jokes because the sensitivity to that either. My sister was overweight and when people used to make fun of “fat” people I would just imagine how she would feel if she heard it. For the record, I am the furthest thing from PC, I just know I have the power to ruin someone’s day/moment with careless words and I choose not to. >


The medical term has changed but people still use the term to mock and insult neurodivergent people. 

I feel like in my personal experience, most of the time the term is used to describe stupid things, not specifically as an insult directed towards neirodivergent people. In that sense, allowing it to be used to call things dumb actually moves the term away from being used to insult neirodivergent people. >

In my personal experience, it is still used to refer to neurodivergent people. Not to mention that a term associated with mental disabilities should not be used to describe stupid things because that implies people with disabilities are stupid. I person think we should purge the word all together instead of trying to rebrand it. I'm not exactly comfortable with a word that people have called me to say that there's something wrong with me being used to describe illogical things. >

Not to discount your experiences, but growing up in a town that generally had 0 regard to what people said, I don’t have any recollection of anyone ever calling someone “retarded” to hurt them. Having adhd as well, I was called autistic a lot, but never retarded, and so in turn when I hear austistic, I usually view it negatively, even though it is usually ok to say as a descriptor for someone’s mental disability. (But I generally would think to say “they have autism” over “they are autistic”)
However, retarded was very commonly used as a replacement for “this is pretty stupid”, or “that is fairly dumb.” In my personal vernacular, I view the word in this way.
But people view words differently based on their regional culture, so would it be ok for me to ask everyone to never use the word autistic, even as a descriptor, because it had hurt me in the past? 
This is the issue for me, is that I think the split in perspectives exists because people use the word as an insult in some places, whereas in other places it was a descriptive tool, and though I believe we should ere towards the side which could get hurt by the usage of the word, this may hold true to any number of words in the English language. So my question would be at which point does it become too difficult to distinguish whether a word is hurtful or not? 
For some words, it’s much more clear, as the intention of the word itself was used solely for harmful purposes (such as racial slurs), but in the case of words like retarded, or even gay, and queer, based on regional differences, the intentions of those words may be very different. 
Though I’m Bi, I have a hard time even saying “gay,” and it surprised me that “queer,” was even a pc term, considering i only ever heard it as a very very rude insult. This is because both words meant very different things to me as a child and teen. 
It’s ok to call out those who use the term offensively, but why is then ok to call out those who use it because of their regional culture, and furthermore would that also be culturally arrogant to the large group of people who have only ever used the term in non-harmful ways, because they were taught it was non-harmful? Wouldn’t this be akin to calling out black folk who use the n-word colloquially, as the meaning has changed due to their regional culture? 
I don’t know. I don’t use it anyways, so I don’t have much paid to this issue in the first place, but I also generally think it’s a bad idea to eradicate words. >

You are right. Words don’t hurt, it is the way those words are used that can hurt. Context matters, as much as people would like it to be, language is not black and white. We will never all agree, there will always be debate. Controlling language is the playground of authoritarianism. We should celebrate the diversity in language, try not to be easily offended and understand context over taking offense to a word rather than how it’s used. >

Considering I'm actually not moving through life at the pace I want, then by the literal definition of the word I'm retarded, yet I have no learning disabilities. There everyone happy? >

Ahh, the euphemism treadmill.  Arguably, only one of the words you mention have been swept up into that treadmill and that would be "retarded" and that is why people shame others for using it while giving a pass to the use of those other words. Those other words have not yet been thrown onto that euphemism treadmill, so they aren't offensive yet. They likely will be, in time. >


Those other words have not yet been thrown onto that euphemism treadmill, so they aren't offensive yet.

i would argue they already have been on the treadmill, and just got thrown off. the reason the useage kept changing is because people wanted to not use offensive words, so the powers that be kept changing "acceptable" words. idiot, imbicile, moron, handicapped, retard, are all the same. >

My grandmother cared for 6 mentally disabled adults in her home for decades.  I grew up around these folks and I cared about them as much as my grandma did.  They were a part of the family.  It would be super offensive if someone were to call one of her residents retarded.  It would also be offensive if someone used the term derogitorily referring to a mentally healthy person.  
However, there needs to be a term to describe people who willfully suspend their own education, intelligence and enlightenment.  Just calling them a retard to liken them to disabled folks is inaccurate and degrading.  I am not opposed to the term "self retarded" though.  It accurately portrays the situation and does not liken them to truly disabled folks.  
What I don't know is, if society in general has the ability to understand the nuance, adopt it widely, and shun those who abuse or misuse it.  Or, maybe I'm a jerk and this is a bad suggestion.  Anyhow, I hope this helps you with your personal frustration. >

Being offended is on the responsibility of the offendee, not the offender. Only you can choose whether or not your feelings are hurt. If something somebody says upsets you, unless that was their intention, that is entirely your fault. >

You can choose how to react outwardly to pain but you can't choose to not feel hurt at all as an immediate reaction to a negative stimuli.
If I whacked your leg with a hammer, you would feel pain immediately, although you may feel some control over your ability to stifle your tears or yell for example.
Over time if I whacked you with a hammer every day, you may become "desensitized" to the pain as you suppress the urge to respond. You may become accustomed to ignoring the pain signals from your neurons and over time become less afraid. You may start to feel proud of how much being whacked by a hammer doesn't even affect you anymore because you're tough. 
Or maybe instead, your nervous system responds by being hypervigilant for when I'm coming with the hammer, and feels pain even if I miss a day of hitting you. It's true that with a lot of practice and mindfucking yourself, you may be able to choose to reframe it as purely a sensation, neither negative or positive as a way to cope. 
You may be able to stop taking it personally by imagining/assuming that I just have an upbringing where it's ok to hit people with hammers and if I got hit with a hammer I wouldn't even think it was bad.
Does this mean that it's your fault if the hammer continues to cause you pain? >

You’re trying to draw a comparison to physical stimuli (a hammer) and a word.  The person has decided they want to be offended by a word.  That is in no way analogous.  I can hit 100 people with a hammer and all 100 will not like it.  I can say a word to 100 people and get wildly-different reactions; differing because each has an internal dialogue/filter of what they decide will rile them up or not.  The fact that some of them won’t care at all while some will lose all chill completely, shows it’s each person’s choice. >

Pain and emotion are responses to stimuli which are interpreted by sensors in your body and relayed through your nervous system to let you know that you're in danger so you can decide how to keep yourself safe.
If you've grown up being conditioned to associate people who call you a slur with some kind of threat, your neurons wire together in a way that recognizes that specific auditory sensory input as a danger and relays the message to your brain that you need to be extra vigilant to keep yourself or your painful area safe. It's a biological warning signal to your body that something isn't safe.
Human beings have evolved as social beings and not too long ago in our evolution, being outcasted from a group would result in death.
Also currently people are still being beaten up for having mental disabilities, so for many people it is literally true that a slur like that indicates hatred toward them for something they cannot control. Using words like that is a pretty good sign you're gonna try to hurt their social standing within a group at the very least.
Actually there are people who enjoy being hit by hammers, it would depend on the 100 people you select. >

Seems you just tried to put forward a biological basis for being ‘triggered’.
A huge part of many therapy treatments for some types of disorders is a recognition that you choose how to respond to events.  That a person has an inner “conversation”, so to speak, about an event and how to respond to it.  In many cases unrealistic and irrational standards are set and enforced that can lead to being upset at things others wouldn’t.  Sometimes they’re of a “never/always” bent.  For example your girlfriend breaks up with you and you get extremely upset about it.  If you examined your inner thoughts about it you might find you’re thinking things like “I’ll never find someone as good as her again!”.  Or you’re being disrespected by your child and you think “disrespect to a parent is intolerable!”.  Or similar such absolutist statements.  Having these inner beliefs/standards violated, despite them being irrational (because they’re almost never true) leads to outsized reactions to events, and explains why the same stimuli given to different people result in different responses (some have inner absolutes for the thing in question and others don’t).
The end result of all of this is you should retrain yourself to challenge these internal absolutist assumptions about what can/should/will happen, or what’s acceptable/unacceptable.  In the end, you are always in charge of how you feel and respond.  
Want proof?  We’ve all seen two people (maybe you were one of them) arguing and screaming at the top of their lungs when, suddenly, someone’s phone rings.  One of the people arguing immediately answers “Hello…?” completely calmly.  Proving they were in control the whole time, and had chosen to care about some inner absolute standard/belief and get angry accordingly.
So people who get “triggered” aren’t doing so because of the physiological/neurological wiring you’re suggesting, but because of their inner beliefs related to the event (or in this case, word), and are choosing to be angry about it. >

Lol there IS a biological basis for being triggered.
Humans respond to things based on genetic predisposition to anxiety etc, and social conditioning. These affect neurodevelopment or the structure of the brain can also be rewired by trauma.
I'm sorry that you don't want to accept the science but the original claims I made about responding to a danger stimulus are true. Whether you choose to outwardly show it or not does not stop a stimulus from sending danger signals to your nervous system and causing an immediate emotional response. Which you then have some control over how you display that emotion and with hard work some people can condition themself to associate that sensory input with a positive judgement value on that experience.
You can choose not to interpret pain as a negative input when you get hit by a hammer. You can practice not reacting to pain. You can actually minimize the negative sensations of pain using CBT for pain management and this is regularly done. I have done this myself.
I think most women would agree that childbirth is painful, however some women practice meditation in order to "disconnect" their mind from the sensation of pain and view it as a bodily process. Some women don't even realize they're in labor until they feel the head sticking out. For some women childbirth doesn't hurt.
For some people (according to you) being called a retard by anyone you just met is not hurtful. That doesn't make it another person's fault if you call them a retard and causes them a flash of hurt. That's the natural default emotion for most people when they're called a term that is widely considered to be derogatory. 
The point I'm making is that it's not some kind of moral failing if childbirth is painful for you just because other women have hacked their biology with a guru or whatever. Or if CBT and meditation (or whatever therapy you like) aren't accessible or aren't working to disconnect your body from listening to the natural danger signals of your nervous system.
This is also arguably harmful, as ignoring warning signs about people who make you feel uncomfortable and reframing it as your own "oversensitivity" can put you in danger of falling victim to manipulation, emotional abuse and exploitation. >

Society changes what’s right and wrong. You can say whatever you say, but societally, it’s not going to come off the best. We have a different definition of dumb and the r word. And enough people have at least come around to the idea not to use the r word to the point that word is now societally unacceptable. I don’t think this response just came from thin air, I bet mentally disabled people had grievances and their opinions matter a lot in these scenarios. >

Should there not be pre-emptive change? Must there be a huge social movement to bring about change?
I understand that the world does not revolve around the US, but I will use it as an example. In the 60s interracial marriage became legal. Did it mean that only interracial marriage was morally right? No. So was gay marriage. That was not legal in the US for quite a long time though.
Should the same be true of the other words, whose opposers may have too weak a voice to bring about societal change? >

I don't know about anyone else, but I am actually trying to use those words less too. R*tarded is generally one of the words that is still used to  bully disabled people still. While lame or mad aren't as commonly used for their original meaning, dumb is one that I think is still bad. If it can still be used to disparage people with disabilities, I think it should be used less. >

I went to school with a mute person. While I was an asshole in my own right, using "dumb" was not a line I had even the remotest desire to cross. >

I think a lot of people don't realize the impact their language has on others. Even dumb as an insult about intelligence is harmful. One of my best friends has been bullied and called r*tarded and dumb. I don't ever want her to think of herself that way. >

Let me try and change your mind on this: You seem to be set on "how meanings have changed" and how the word "retarded" has changed. A counterpoint would be that the word doesn't matter (no matter the word) and that it all depends on context.
So I don't think it's necessarily wrong to say "retarded" if you're using it the way most people do which is just a synonym for "dumb." But it would be wrong to call a disabled person or refer to disabled people as "retards."
Another example would be the N word. I know this probably sounds controversial, but think about it. Is the N word really bad, or is the context in which it's used bad? So, for instance, if one of the white actors in 12 Years a Slave says the N word, did that actor do something wrong? I don't think so because of the context. Similarly, is it any better to call a black person a "monkey" (which isn't a slur) than the N word? Both of them convey literally the same racist message, though one is labeled a slur and one isn't; it entirely depends on the context as "monkey," in and of itself, is not a slur.
So is it ok to say "retard?" I suppose it depends on the context. Are you using it as a pejorative to refer to people with mental/physical disabilities? Then, no, it is not. Are you using it as a synonym for "dumb; idiotic?" Then, yes, it is.. >


So is it ok to say "retard?" I suppose it depends on the context. Are you using it as a pejorative to refer to people with mental/physical disabilities? Then, yes, it is.

Not sure this part tracks. >

Haha, my bad lol. 
I'll edit it, thanks for pointing that out. Funny thing is I proof read it, too lol >

Fair enough! Glad I didn't jump down your throat lol. Take care! >

The idea that the slightest hypocrisy destroys any person's position is utter nonsense. >

As far as I know, mental retardation is still a recognized diagnosis in the DSMV, where dumb, mad, and lame are not medically recognized any more. I'm not deep into it and don't know about ICD9 codes. But if one is still a recognized illness and others not, that's a decent distinction. >

Look -
I grew up and we said “f*ggot” as an insult as preteens and teens. 
We also called stuff we thought was not cool, “gay”
The first had a much stronger connotation. 
Even my most red GOP friends stopped saying the first a decade ago. It’s just a realization of well, other people are uncomfortable and the connotation has shifted. 
The use of things being “gay” is also considered wrong these days, but it’s so much milder I still see it used a lot here in MO. Not saying it’s right, but words aren’t black and white. Language isn’t black and white and ALL communication is both subjective and CONTEXT like body language, setting, and a million other factors matter. 
I’m sure you could find something in Bernie Sanders past that looks racist and would get a someone else “cancelled”. But he’s got literal decades of history fighting for civil rights, and that context matters. You can’t just compare two things this way when the reality is tens of millions of Americans still say retarded in certain company. However most would never say it around a disabled person. Again not saying it’s right, just stating that’s the reality. And the reality matters more than your theoretical black and white false logical language argument. >


Dumb refers to those who are mute. Mad refers to those driven insane. Lame refers to the physically disabled.

They do not anymore.  Nobody would call a mute person "dumb" anymore, and nobody would call a real human person with mental illness "mad" anymore.  "Lame", maybe, but it's a neutral term.

Such has been the case with"retarded" as well.

No, it has not.  "Retarded" is a term that specifically -- and only -- describes people with mental disabilities.  The word does have other definitions, but if I say that you're retarded, I'm directly comparing you to a person with mental disabilities.  That's not at all true of those other words.  If I call you dumb, for example, I'm not saying that you're as terrible as a mute person; I'm saying that you are making unintelligent decisions, with the implicit understanding that you're not actually of low intelligence.  If I call you retarded, I'm insulting the mentally disabled as a class; if I call you dumb, I'm only insulting you.
Note that this is not dependent on intention, really.  It doesn't matter if I call you retarded but mean no disrespect to people with mental disabilities; that word when used as an insult still refers specifically to them.  A similar word is "negro", which in Portuguese and Spanish just means the color black but in English refers specifically to Black people.  I can't use the word as the color in English because it's tied to the people it refers to, now in a pejorative way (even though it used to be a respectful term, similar to "retarded").  But "dumb" and "mad" have lost their pejorative associations with people with disabilities, to the point that it would just be confusing, not insulting, to refer to them that way.  "Lame" I think is borderline, but nobody really says that people with physical disabilities are "lame" anymore, and even when they do, it's a neutral word rather than a pejorative one.
So, to summarize: "retarded" is an insult to mentally disabled people; "dumb" and "mad" don't actually describe people with disabilities anymore at all; "lame" is not an insult to physically disabled people and isn't really used anymore anyway.
I think your method of determining hypocrisy here was too reductive.  You're seeing situations that are similar in some ways but have important differences and not noting those differences.  Just something to think about for next time. >

They would not be hyopcrites. They are not who I am referring to. >

What more right do you have to say "these terms are all equally offensive" than others have to say that they are not? I already see the nuance you're missing in that "lame" for instance is a word I've only heard used about horses that can't walk and more offensive terms in that category exist. Mad's alternate definition of 'angry' isn't really an insult, dumb's usage for someone who is mute is a bit of a secondary definition these days, honestly the only time I've heard it to describe a mute person is in the phrase "Hellen Keller was deaf, dumb, and blind!" It's like how we know mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell. 
Anyway, that you consider these things equally offensive is an opinion of yours that others are not required to share in order to have their "moral rights." Their morals are their own as are their judgments on the relative offense generated by words. Changing your view is going to require you to be able to admit that your rationale for declaring that they should be treated equally is only subjectively better in your mind than my rationale for distinction. It is as a matter of fact, your opinion only that your conclusion is more rational. I'm not declaring mine to be more objectively rational either, just that it makes more sense to me as proof that the appeal of the argument itself is subjective. >

Retards colloquial origin stems from it's adoption as a clinical term from the original Latin meaning, to delay or hold back, Retarded Mental Development. Or in other words delayed or held back mental development. Prior to the 60's words like idiot, cretin, moron, and imbecile we're all considered genuine, non insulting ways to refer to a mentally disabled person. Around that decade people decided those words were negative so retard became the socially acceptable way to refer to a mentally disabled person because of it's clinical use. 
So where are we now? Now it's offensive! So what'll happen next? If I had to guess, once the word has gone through a sufficient period of shaming people are going to say disabled is offensive and some new clinical term will become the polite term, based on what's going around I'd predict "neurodivergent" (which isn't technically an official word) or something similar is going to be after disabled as the new PC way to refer to someone of hindered intelligence. And on and on it'll go people getting outraged about a word every couple decades or so, it's a cycle fueled by the Tom Sawyer effect. The more negative you make the word out to be the worse it becomes.
This thread is nonsense because words change meanings across time, context, and regions. The issue isn't the word it's our culture. >

Your whole text screams ableist to me, "Now it's offensive!" Because that's how it's used.
Neurodivergent IS a word by the way. 
And, the r word is still used as a slur, as a disabled person, it's been used as one forever. People like to point and go "that's so (r-word)" specifically to ME. 
Do you think that's nice? No? Is it nice to make fun of a disabled minor? Yes? >

I find it hard to believe that you are in any way mentally challenged if you're able to articulate your ideas like that. I used to have a step brother with special X which is a protein mutation in the brain, he can never live on his own or even express his ideas at  even a moderate level. I've seen a trend of people my age and slightly younger playing off as if they have a learning disability when they don't, ADD is not disabled, I'm ADD and dyslexic and it's an inconvenience at worst. If you believe it's debilitating then you will behave that way because your beliefs shape your behavior. So if you're comparing yourself to someone with special X or similar severe genetic abnormalities I'd say you're making yourself a victim and it's far more offensive than any word or slur I could use innocuously.
That being said no I don't think it nice to bully anyone. But go back to what I said because you're missing the point. When you fight against something and make it out to be horrible then it will be, when you normalize something you take away its bite and the discomfort it causes. Such has been the case for many words that once held a similar status, it's cyclical. 
What I'm saying is that words are tools to convey ideas and aren't good or bad. The way we use them and how we behave as a culture is the real issue. The words I gave examples of before have no other meaning than a stupid person yet those are more acceptable? Even though Retard was the word we adopted to replace those words. So the issue of bullying and using language abusively is entirely a cultural issue and should be treated that way instead demonizing words, does that makes sense?
Furthermore if you're using neurodivergent to describe a person who is mentally challenged that is also not correct because that's not what it means. it refers to any neurological function that is different form the norm. Just as the word retard means to delay or hold back. The way we use retard is the exact same way we use "slow" as an insult. 
I would bet that in a few decades or so society is gonna come down on calling people disabled. You can easily twist it to make it seem offensive. For example, how can you call someone disabled? Should they and everyone else ascribe the belief that they are incapable of anything in general? Because that's not true either, there are mentally challenged people with wonderful unique abilities. So therefore the term disabled is ascribing them the connotation of being useless. And if you think I'm an ableist that's so fat off point too I have friends with high functioning autism clinically diagnosed that struggle to do certain things sure but I acknowledge how amazing they are at whatever their unique talents are.   And I'm not neurotypical myself but I'm not disabled. I don't even see my friends who are labeled as disabled, as disabled. You could say I'm retarded though and it wouldnt even be an insult or offensive I'm just held back from where I want to be in life, technically retarded. 
Don't twist my words I'm not saying bullying is okay I'm just saying you're fighting the wrong battle. >

I'm not mentally challenged, I have a physical and a speech disorder. Not ADHD or ADD, (If you'd like these specific diagnoses, it's around 15+ of them and I was originally found out to have a few straight after birth when tiktok did not exist. 
But I can see i won't get to you, I see the r word as a slur the same way I see the m word as a slur, I don't see disabled as a slur, I was raised with the m word and the r word as a slur, I guess we can ambically go on our ways internet stranger.
Edit:
No, I do not compare myself to someone with syndrome x, seeing as we don't have the same condition and have completely different medical needs. I'd be more likely to compare myself with someone with cerebral palsy or some other disability like that(and I don't, because i don't have that and our experiences are different.) >

You’re forgetting that personal perspective based on regional differences plays into how much someone cares about the meanings of words. 
I don’t think you would disagree that if a word were used against someone frequently as a form a bullying, then that word - to them - would be pretty offensive regardless. 
The issue lies with the fact that a large number of people did and still do have that word used to bully them, and though probably a larger amount of people have used the word in the descriptive sense such as “dumb”, “lame”, and “mad”, my question to you would be if you know it could harm someone, why use it? 
Language evolves over time, and is filled with hypocrisy, and frankly this is a dumb hill to die on, considering all other examples of hypocritical language. 
I would think that in the same sense that it’s someone’s “moral right” to ask someone to call them by their own name, it would be the same “moral right” to ask not to use any specific word around them, regardless of how engrained in your personal dictionary the word is. 
Sure, you could call someone else by a different name, but why would you? And sure, you could use the word around those who ask you not to, but again, why would you? 
Is the usage hypocritical? Yes.
Do people have a moral right to ask others to use language they feel comfortable with? Yes. 
Whether or not you continue to talk with said people, is up to you. >

Fair. I was thinking about people who make it their mission to stop anyone from using it, whether they are part of the conversation or not, in a social justice warrior way. I was not thinking about people politely requesting that word not be used because they were personally not comfortable with the word. 
I failed to specify.
!delta >

I agree that there are similar issues to consider related to the r-slur and other ablest language. However, I imagine that many people who prefer that other do not use the r-slur have concerns other than consistency-- like, "Who around me is hurt by this language and how hurt do they feel by it?" or "How have I seen people use this term and to what extent was it being used with the intention of being an ablest slur?"
As someone with a sister who has Down syndrome and has been the target of the r-slur in a way that was 100% clearly being used as a slur (she has also very clearly explained to many people why their casual usage of the r-slur is shitty), I am definitely more aware of the r-slur in the context of ableism than I am around other potentially ablest language. I can imagine other situations where other forms of ablest language would feel particularly salient and important to be attuned to based on the context and/or company involved. (You yourself mentioned in the comments that attending school with a peer who was mute impacted the salience of some terms in your understanding of ablest language.)

It is the hypocrisy that I find to be utterly disgusting.

Personally, I would definitely find someone who avoids slurs that they know to be particularly harmful to their community but does not always consistently avoid all forms of ableist language to be far less "disgusting" than someone who uses all forms of slurs with complete disregard to who in their community might find that harmful. However, this is based in personal values, not objective reality about what is 'better'. Nevertheless, I think it is important to point out that this is related to personal values because it is likely that there are other people's values who also differ from yours. 
Consider, further, Kantian/deontological ethics vs. consequentialism. I feel like you are making a fairly Kantian/deontological argument here-- if there is a fundamental insult in the use of ablest language/a slur, we all have a categorical imperative to not use any of them (and if there is not, there is thusly no categorical imperative). But there are certainly many people who read Kant and still wander back into something more aligned with consequentialism-- in this case, assessing to what extent the language causes harm and determining what is ethical based on the likelihood of harm. I would never argue with a deontologist and try to talk them into being a consequentialist-- that seems fairly likely to be fruitless, lol. But I do think it's reasonable to expect a deontologist to be open to the fact that there are other schools of thought on ethics that are valid and worthy of consideration. >

I'm so sorry your sister has been a subject of so many slurs, personally for me, as a disabled person as well, I can never see the r word or the m word to evolve, because they still are used that way.
That means they haven't, whereas "gay" for example, used to mean happy, but it means a same-sex couple, typically two males, being together. 
That word has evolved but it was never a slur. >

I think it is not used as a slur because it does not roll off the tongue well. Synonyms in noun form are used as slurs instead. >

My HS was progressive. We had a special department which sounds bad also. I think when you're talking about such sensitive things no matter the word, it'll be slightly offensive. Even in a world where everything, for example, was labeled as "Room B" for special ed, that'll be labeled as wrong eventually. >

It’s a matter of impact, not a purely academic exercise in linguistics. Most of us will live our entire lives without ever meeting someone who is offended by the mere use of the words dumb, mad, or lame. On the other hand, many of us will encounter someone who is hurt by the use of the word retarded. So people may refrain from using that word as a kindness to the people who would be hurt by it. >

Seeing as people tend discover the original meanings of dumb, mad, and lame well after using them I think it's pretty clear they are different. If someone calls someone dumb they aren't saying they can't speak. When you call someone retarded you are likening them to mentally handicapped people that is a what people hear. >

FYI reddit has made it policy that the mere mention of that word is worthy of a site wide ban. This is part of a few specifically enforced topics under a vaguely worded rule. >

Its a reddit account; I'll live. Ty though. I personally think it is more offensive to make that word taboo. It almost implies those with the condition are taboo as well. >

It's not taboo, it's banned >


Forbidding the usage of one arguably offensive term while using others reeks of hypocrisy.

I care for 2 special needs adults. Here is the main difference that I see in "retarded" vs "dumb": the 2 people I care for weren't bullied with the term "dumb". They, themselves, will call things dumb, like a sweater they don't like, etc. "Retard" or "retarded" was a term that they received with hostility throughout their life. So that word cuts a lot deeper. Its also a word that hurts their parents and loved ones, because of the derogatory connotation. So being a part of that world, I've made it a habit to not say it. >

It isn't like someone made this decision and now we all have to obey. The word has become socially unacceptable. Get over it. >

Depends on your social circle I guess. Where I’m from it’s used really commonly, so try not to ambush someone oblivious. >

Yea, I've seen some groups (e.g. ones that'd call you out for being racist/transphobic/sexist) use it occasionally without backlash. >

I think better words for this CMV would be "idiot," "imbecile,"  or "moron," all of which were used the same way and more recently had their original meanings in common usage than the three in your title. >

Exactly this! Idiot, imbecile, moron, retard all started off as a medical term.
I think the problem stems from the nature of slurs - you intend to tell a healthy person that they are lacking despite them not being disadvantaged by likening them to the actually disadvantaged people, who are not at fault for their limitations, and eventually it becomes offensive to the actual disadvantaged people.
Just check out the wikipedia page for intelectual disability > history > terminology. Apparently, it's called euphemism threadmill  - each time a slur gets replaced to not be a slur, it eventually becomes a slur again.
What I find extremely HILLARIOUS is what they have to say about the phenomenon on the euphemism page in lifespan section:

Another example in American English is the replacement of "colored people" with "Negro" (euphemism by foreign language), which itself came to be replaced by either "African American" or "Black".

So, colored people was replaced by negro because it was offensive, yet nowadays negro is an absolute taboo and the term people fight for to be used is... people of colour ? Kind of ironic.
All this being said, I'm on OP's side. Retard is no special and whatever you replace it with, eventually it will become the new slur, so... is there a point in getting offended at the word?
Also seeing from the comments, the biggest issue here is the cunts harassing disabled people, whatever word they use to do it. Another issue is people getting offended for someone else. I once volunteered for Special Olympics and was horrified when I heard the caretakers and coaches refer to the kids as the mentos (like the candy). I found it quite fucked up and offensive, but is it any of my business? No. >

"That's lame/dumb/mad" and "That's retarded" are not comparable. Hearing the former, one does not think of lame/dumb/mad people and how being lame/dumb/mad is undesirable. This is not the case with the latter. The word "idiotic" has the same meaning as "retarded" without the offensive evocation of developmentally disabled people. I think you can generalise this using the concept of the "dead metaphor" - a dead metaphor no longer invokes the original meaning. If I call you laconic, few people will think I mean you are from Sparta. If I call something "fishy", maybe you are dimly aware that there is a reason for that (old fish smell suspicious). If I call you "a spastic" the image of someone with cerebral palsy is likely to be invoked. >

I suppose it would depend from place to place. Some do not know the meanings of the words I listed.
However, "mad" is still fairly commonly used with its original meaning. If you exclaim to someone "you're mad!" you are calling them crazy, even if driven there by anger. 
If someone has trouble speaking, they might be called dumb. People may think they are stupid because they have trouble speaking, when in reality they may be very intelligent but with a speech issue. It is just as mean. >

I agree that it changes from place to place. Dumb, for instance to me means mute, and I would usually not use it to mean stupid. And I agree that mad still also has the meaning of insane, but my point is that if I say you are (e.g.) mad to go out in that weather, there is no comparable invocation of the image of (e.g.) "the madman" involved in either your mind or mine. So all your point means is that we have to acknowledge that dead metaphors can exist even while the literal meaning continues to apply in appropriate cases (as in if I ask my friend "did you actually go mad" when he was in the psych ward). That's the crux of my argument - that dead metaphors are - by definition - no longer offensive. >

Hey man, props for sticking it to that hot chick you were totally going to bang because she didn't like a slur >

A slur that only suddenly became too hot to handle 30 seconds ago.  
I didnt even know this was a thing when this happened. 
And honestly, my thoughts werent, omg i love this word.  They were, what other things is this person going to impose on me if they want to argue with me  same day i met them about something so trivial. >


A slur that only suddenly became too hot to handle 30 seconds ago.

Perhaps if you've been living under a rock, or just assume everyone who doesn't correct you is okay with it. Or that they're super hot and want to bang.
The main point with my comment was that it was hilarious seeing someone non-ironically describe this weird "I definitely was gonna bang this hot girl" situation.
You being unempathetic and using this particular slur because anecdotally people seemed to not care around you when you use it came second. >

Why would i have cared?  Nobody i know cared and i have 0 interaction with anybody who is mentally disabled.  I literally live in an oil and gas town and very rarely does this stuff even come up.
Im not even trying to be edgy or fight with you. This is literally my reality.  
Even people up here who probably  SHOULD care dont generally about stuff like this. >

Has the meaning of r* changed, though? Dumb used to mean people who are mute, now it means foolish/unreasonable/pointless/etc. Mad used to mean unstable or psychotic and now it means “angry” or “very”. Lame used to mean unable to walk and now it means boring/uncool. R* used to mean developmentally/intellectually disable and now it means ..... nonsensical/foolish/a bunch of things that imply a lack of intellect/discernment/rationality. It hasn’t changed that much, the implication is that someone is acting as a developmentally disabled person might. It came into use as a direct comparison to developmentally disabled people and then stopped being clinically appropriate terminology for those people and kept being used with a very similar implication. It’s just more derogatory than the examples you gave. >

You don’t have censor the word man. We know what you are saying. We’re talking about that very word. >

I just personally would prefer not to type it all out since we all know what word I’m talking about and I don’t have to 🤷‍♀️ It’s just not a word I want to use. >

Interesting. I’m not trying to antagonize you just curious. Does it cause you to feel personally guilty to type out the word? >

I mean, I don’t know that it would make me feel guilty necessarily, since I’m just acknowledging that the word exists and not using it in my own context. I just find the word in question unpleasant and I would rather simply reference it by censoring it than actually use it. Maybe it has more to do with the way I read text in my head, that a censored term doesn’t bring the full pronunciation of the whole word really directly to the front of my mind but I still know what it says. I want to be respectful of how many people feel strongly that the word is extremely derogatory and so it feels to me like it would be flippant to throw the whole word around when, since we all know what word I’m talking about, I don’t have to. Censoring in the way I did is just the most grammatically simple way to not use the whole word. >

Not to compare it to the N-word because they are not the same, but “retarded” has also historically been wielded as a tool for hurting and discriminating against a specific group of people. In this case, people without the ability to stand up for themselves. 
“Dumb” or “idiotic” don’t hold the same historical and prejudicial baggage as “retarded.”
I get why particularly people who have close family who are developmentally disabled would feel very uncomfortable with people using that word. Because they’ve seen it used to hurt people who can’t defend themselves. 
Not all words in a culture are equal. I know you’d like to see them that way, but they are not. >

Literally all of the examples of colloquial uses for those other words are so different that they would no longer apply to the original "groups" 
No one would call Mute people "dumb" or say that an INSANE person is simply "mad" or say that disabled people are lame.
But retarded means the SAME THING IT ALWAYS HAS! People still use the word "retard" for people with mental retardation, there's virtually no difference in the usage of calling your friend retard and calling a retarded person a retard.
Mute people are not dumb in the sense that they are not smart.
Insane people are not mad in the sense that they are angry.
Disabled people are not lame in the sense that they are not cool.
Your examples are literally NOT WHAT THEY MEANT. That's why it's not the same. It's not that complex.
Now allow me to step off MY high horse and admit, I still use the word retard sometimes, not as a serious insult, only around specific friends, and I have not done a thorough job to remove it off my vocabulary because, well, I've never said it around someone who might be hurt by it. So I'm not one of those "hypocrites" I say every single word you listed, and even I can tell the difference. Just say you're not willing to change your vocabulary. >

To continue to use a word that causes offence to people is stupid. If someone tells me that the word magenta causes them offence, then I'll do my best to avoid that word around them. It doesn't matter that I don't understand/agree. It's an easy concession that hurts noone.
It's a weird hill to die on with near zero implications on your part to adjust your language. We're lucky to have evolved to the point of having a huge lexicon with near unlimited ways to express ourselves, to bed yourself into one word is dumb, mad, and lame. >


Dumb refers to those who are mute. Mad refers to those driven insane. Lame refers to the physically disabled.
I bet there will be some to say "wEll mEAninGs cHAnGe." Yes. Of course they do. Such has been the case with"retarded" as well. However, for whatever reason, some have decided that it was to be the magic word, the exception.

The difference is that retard(ed) is still being actively used to attack people with mental disabilities, while words like stupid, idiot, moron, dumb etc. have moved pretty much entirely into the social sphere.
If you look them up, most dictionaries will actually list the old medical connotations of words like idiot, stupid etc. as obsolete/dated/archaic/old-fashioned etc., because lexicographers have found that those are not commonly used to insult people with mental disabilities anymore.
Example for the word "idiot":

informal a stupid person
archaic a person of low intelligence

This change may over time also be observed for the word retard(ed), but such changes typically only happen organically, not by fiat. >

Yeah because some snot-nosed kid who picked up a dictionary or with a decent education is not going to call the one mute person in their class "dumb." The poor mute kid definitely isn't going to have to suck it up because there is not much they can do about it, especially with a bad teacher. If they express themselves without words, they definitely aren't going to be called the crazy/mad dumb/stupid kid. >

This doesn't just apply to people who happen to use dictionaries.
Dictionaries are descriptive of the actual use of language by a representative sample of all English language users. If the medical slur usage of a word specifically mentions "archaic" or "outdated", that means that the lexicographers have observed that this usage is now very uncommon. The current predominant use for dumb seems to be foolish/unwise, as in "That's so dumb".
It is therefore not hypocritical to treat dumb different to retard(ed) - the latter is still one of the most common medical slurs against people with a mental disability. >

They’re trying really hard to get those words banned too. I believe all three were in the Stanford Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative. >

You're missing the function of language policing. You see, over time society keeps trying to tell the majority ethnicity upper class that they're not allowed to discriminate against foreigners & minorities. So instead they (unconsciously, for the most part, I believe) find the most irrelevantly small group of people for whom they can build the most complicated set of rules around "out of compassion." This ensures that they will be the only ones who can follow those rules, especially as they will keep changing them as fast as possible.
So, for example, if you want to discriminate against a middle-eastern coworker who speaks English as a third or forth language, you no-longer can say "get out towelhead" or something so explicitly racist. However, you can simply wait until he repeats the phrase "that's gay" referring to something uncool, & then you can cause him as much grief as you want. He can even be homosexual himself, it won't save him. By the way this example is real & happened at a big-tech firm in San Francisco.
This is the function served by this behavior. Once you understand it, all sort of other strange things become readily comprehensible, like why we suddenly have to think about the pronouns of serial rapists.  It's because the Chinese immigrant who might take a white American's child's job doesn't even get normal pronouns right (since they don't exist in Chinese).
Again, they're not consciously coming up with this evil plan. But the reason these ideas spread so easily is because it's really fucking convenient for the folk who spread them.
I've heard a version of this called "Luxury beliefs", which is a bit broader. Basically elites express a set of beliefs (monogamy is outdated, e.g.) which if implemented would cost them, but which they can afford to pay more than the non-elites can. In this case it's artificially reducing one's vocabulary of common words, making many of them instantly status-reducing if used. A certain level of education & native-speaking makes that a small cost relative to the working class & foreigners for whom it's completely unreasonable & will keep them from gaining any status. >

Sorry, u/StarbucksLover2002 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:

Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.  

If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. 
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards. >

My mom's brother has Down syndrome. She grew up hearing from everyone that her brother was a "retard" and "retarded" in a derogatory manner. Hearing anyone use it as an insult to other people reminds her and him of everything he had to go through growing up. My mom was ridiculed for having a brother with special needs. 
So yeah. I won't use the word and I will correct people who use it. There is a whole world of grown, adult people with special needs who have been hurt by this word. 
Be aware of the world around you and don't use labels or call someone something that may hurt them. >

They have the 1st amendment which is a morally right isn't it? >

This is the internet. Not everyone has the 1st amendment >

I assume precedence. It literally is not inherently a bad word and should not be inherently offensive. It is an actual condition... >

So it is >

Wow.
As a physically disabled person, I have never once been called "lame" in that way. 
The r word is constantly used to refer to those with cognitive disabilities, or any sort of visible or non visible disability.
I've been called the m word and the r word, both are still slurs.
Language evolves, it just hit a point where "lame" means "wow, you don't know what a (meme) is? That's lame!" It's less of an insult and more of a joke.
Words like the n word, the r word, and the m word, will never evolve past their purpose. A slur word. Yes - some people apart of said minority may be able to use that slur, but others are still deeply affected. >

Those with issues speaking may be called dumb, albeit for perhaps for the wrong reasons. Those who cannot speak well are often categorized as stupid, whether it be true or not. Using dumb as stupid implies those who cannotnor have trouble speaking are unintelligent idiots. That is not nice. >

Absolutely, I have a speech disorder (appraxia I think is how it's spelled?) And if someone were to call me dumb in that way, I would call it a slur, I don't really like calling people dumb either, because it's insulting intelligence. I think of lame more of a "joke" to make with close friends or family that are 100% okay with the word, and if they are not, that's totally fine. 
I agree with you OP, on some things, I see lame as something when people refer more to other animals, like a horse. "That horses leg is lame." Whereas in internet culture it's "changed" to mean something like a meme. 
I'm very tired of arguing with the bigots on here (not you, but so far I've been called the r-word around four times. After openly admitting it's been used as a slur against me, so they know it's a slur.) So personally you've changed MY view. >

Lame is likely one of my poorer examples. I have seen many who are lame joke about their affliction. I do not see such with those afflicted with the other conditions.
How does it feel for people to call one disability off-limits but to disregard your own? Would you prefer consistency? Assholes are assholes. They have always been around and always will be. However, I imagine that it must be worse to see those who claim to be moral and virtuous deem your condition negligible.
I almost think of it as saying the n word is offlimits but continuing to sling around other racial slurs for other races. This was an analogy inspired by arguments against me by other commenters. >

Give someone something to stand for that's completely inconsequential to the life and well-being of themselves and others, relevant to them or not, and they will. 
Everyone wants to play when the stakes are nothing and the potential winnings are justifying their shit morals and poorly constructed ideals. 
They're mainly just stepping stones, you'll know if there's a cause that's not just a fad because it'll actually make sense. It'll actually have real consequences, not consequences that are entirely based on people's feelings and that bullshit. 
I don't know what the next big change will be, because we already kind of figured out that, man, woman, black, white, gay, straight, and all othervariations, are human, which apparently was an odd thought to have back then... if I had to guess, this ongoing shit with abortion will be next. In 20 years, people will slowly be coming around to the decided upon side (like Christians and catholics will come around to determine the Bible allows abortions and slowly start adopting that theology/mindset, or the people for abortion will slowly come around to thinking "okay, a fetus is technically a human, a fetus can't just transform mid pregnancy to a seal or a chipmunk, it's genetic material is encoded and it is entirely a human embryo/fetus, and for some reason, it has rights even though it doesn't exist yet technically...")
Yeah, who knows. Bill Gluckman is down with the bitches and hoes (and abortion) >

Hm. Interesting take. 
I’ve been brewing on my opinion about all those forms of ableist language, and I am generally against it, but I’m not sure I’d make that equivalency argument. >

What other words would you support? >

I am not supporting any word in this. I am saying choose whether you wish to be ableist or not and stick with. Do not pick and choose which disabilities are protected or not as if one were at the grocery store. >

Your argument suggests that we shouldn't say "black" either since we can't say the N word. >

Black means black. It is not a disability. How is it used colloquially in a way that differs from its original meaning? It does not. >


"People who say you can't say the N-Word have no moral right to say Black or African American or Person of Color!  It reaks of hypocrisy!"

Like comeon man do at least a little plug and play to understand what exactly you're saying before ya go and post it. >

Say whatever you want to say, but someone might call you an asshole. >

I'm gonna argue this one on a technicality.
I am against the colloquial usage of retarded. However, I'm against it being used in its medical meaning. The reasoning is simple - it's easier to change technical terminology than everyday speech. Psychopaths and sociopaths don't exist anymore, now it's people with antisocial personality disorders.
Simply based on dominant use, I would argue that the primary meaning of retarded nowadays is to be stupid and not it's medical meaning, thus using it to refer to the disability is offensive and should absolutely be stopped. >



now softened to colloquially reference general unintelligence [sic]


It’s never been “softened,” except maybe in the minds of people who believe it should be used in daily conversation, social conventions be damned. >

I take this to a generalist conclusion by arguing that no consideration should be given to someone being "offended". Ultimately what matters is the persons intent when they say it, and how well it describes the thing they are trying to describe. 
Thus any world could be unacceptable if the person is using it to be a dick, but if a person isn't intending to insult but someone else throws a fit because they are offended? Who cares that's their problem to flush in the morning. >

Unless you are in direct conversation with someone who finds it offensive, such as someone with a disability who gets offended by the word I wouldn’t worry about it’s meanings. When it comes to posting on the internet, and not to certain individuals their triggers are their problem, I have ADD and I don’t get upset if I’m called a retard I’ll start to laugh as I use that word often myself. I don’t need to limit myself on the internet to make you feel better, just scroll past. >

Your gay >

Yes I am. Not an insult though. >

Look at the white boy complaining. Go buy some dairy and pay with your credit card. The world is just and good, and anybody with a different oppinion is a walking hate crime. >

“retarded” is a slut against mental retardation. “mad” is an feeling, or quantity. (“i’ve got mad dollar bills, yo!”) “dumb” can be used to signify one thing or person is inferior to the other. “lame” is just a measure of how interesting or not something is. this post is lame. >

Inane is the better word >

The other examples meanings have changed. Lame no longer implies disability, it implies boring. when you colloquially use the term retarded you're still implying stupidity >

This thread is incredible! >

That’s crazy >

I am strongly against using the "retarded" word. In many parts of the world - English speaking - use the word to imply mental state (as if speaking in medical terms). It becomes a label. I recall when I was a kid- my grandfather had taken me his friend's house who son's house- who had some delayed development. I recall my grandfather telling me not to drink the water in the "retards" house- as if it was something contagious.
I agree with you on the word dumb. As for mad and lame, to me it seems that their no implied "medical label", unlike the word "retard". >

The word "dumb" has a complex etymology. However, the Dutch "dom" and the proto-German "dumbaz" both of which predate the English term "dumb" mean "dull or stupid" not "mute."
While old Saxon "dumb" and Gothic "dumbs" meant only "mute," Old High German "thumb" mean stupid. Which later became "stumm" in Modern German, which means only "mute" or "speechless."
The English phrase "Dumb Ox" first appears in writing in 1756, and means "stupid person," not "mute person."
In other words, the term has a long history across multiple ancestral languages of Modern English with multiple meanings. And it has a long history of being used in both ways of referring inoffensively to someone who is mute and to someone stupid.
"Retarded" is different. Retarded has meant "slow or delayed" back to its inception in the late 1400s. It comes from the French "retarder" which means "to hold back, or restrain." This is directly from the Latin "retardare" which means "to slow down."
In the mid-to-late 1800s, psychologists started using the term, without offense, to describe developmental issues. Along with terms like "imbecile" and "idiot." Its application to people wasn't to slow or stupid people generally but to developmentally disabled people specifically. 
In the 1970s, this inoffensive term started being applied to developmentally disabled people in the USA for the express purpose of being a term of insult.
Note that all of the terms "imbecile," "idiot," and "retard" are not considered merely descriptive when applied to a person in today's language.
In other words: "dumb" had an organic history of meaning both "mute" and "stupid" from multiple languages, and in Modern English it retains both meanings. It isn't considered offensive in either usage. "Retard" had an organic history of meaning merely "slowed down" and was only recently applied to people. It was intentionally latched onto in living memory as a term of insult and degradation.
These are not equivalent paths of how a word's usage develops, and language is contextual. So, that context does in fact matter. >

The words that you give as an example have multiple meanings to include how they are used colloquially, which makes them grammatically and socially correct. 
Any deviation or slang usage of the word retarded was used colloquially to insult based on the original condition. 
The word is actually wholly offensive now, even when used to refer to a mental incapacity. >

I love saying retard and I’ll never stop saying it. Snowflakes have ruined too much these days I won’t let them take this too. >

Why are Vikings and Pirates appropriate for children's cartoons and more recent groups who committed comparable rates of rape and murder are not?
Time. >

I don't care about the history of the words I use as much as I care about the impact they have on people today. I don't use the word "retarded" because it seems to be harmful to a large group of people to my understanding. I don't believe that the other words you mentioned have the same impact on people, so I leave them in my vocabulary. I would be willing to cut out words from my vocabulary if I thought they were harmful to a group/type of people because it isn't ever my intention to target them. >

I work with disabled people. You should see the hurt on their face when they hear the word used or even worse, when someone calls them that. That’s enough for me to not want to ever say it. 
That word has more of a connection to its negative connotation than the other words do to theirs. >

I am not advocating the usage of the word. I am saying that they should not be cherrypicked and there should be consistency.
I do not know if you work with mute people. They are the same as everyone else with the caveat that they have trouble speaking. I knew a mute person who was intellectually brilliant. Those who are mute or with speech issues are still, as they always have been, called stupid or dumb. Not being able to speak should not be equated with stupidity. >

But I’m talking about how they perceive it and how both words differ in the English lexicon. If a person who does not speak is sitting in the room with me and someone says “Hey please mute the TV.” Does
That person get offended? Many of the disabled people I work with also cannot speak, and I have no memory of them ever being offended by that. However, I have seen those same people recoil when someone in public calls someone else a “retard” or calls something “retarded”
Also, I noticed you actually typed out “a mute person” and “mute people” when talking about someone who can’t speak.  Is that because people who can’t speak are less offended by the word potentially? I can’t say one way or the other, but I have a feeling they perceive it differently when it is in the context of “hey mute that tv” right? Whereas an intellectually challenged individual is more likely to perceive almost all usages of the word “retard” as offensive. 
I am not saying I know why or how one word is still perceived as derogatory in all contexts and why the other one is only derogatory when referring directly to a person. But the “moral high ground” of being able to use “mute” in certain circumstances comes from how the potentially affected parties currently perceive the word. >

Are the people trying to control our words REALLY trying to control our thoughts? >

Not sure what you mean but I assume it may be a conspiracy theory. Foil hats help. >

I forgot to add the /s at the end.  Im used to people seeing the stupid look on my face when I say stupid things.  Terrible attempt at poking fun at the ones that wear hats of foil. >

Lol “More than anything I abhor HYPOCRISY, you fucking retard!” >

Are you yourself a person with an intellectual or  developmental disability (I/DD)? Are you writing on behalf of someone who is?
If not, arguably you lack standing to explain what their moral rights are.
Setting that aside for the moment - in what context do you wish to use the word? Obviously from your post, you intend to use it as an adjective synonymous with "stupid" to critique someone's behavior. This is analogous to the way "Jew" was often used to describe someone who was cheap or "Gyp" was used to describe a fraudulent deal.
I am against it because I advocate for my autistic son. He is offended by it for perfectly sensible reasons; a clinical diagnosis with which he was born should not be used to describe people with poor judgement. >

Why is everyone asking me why I want to use it. It is not the argument of my post at all.
I want people who are against it usage to also be against the others so as to not discriminate against those with the other disabilities. 
As for those who use all of them, at least they are treating all disabled people equally. Still not nice of course. >

Words can have worse meanings than other words, and that fact can change especially quickly when it's a term addressing a group who decide it is offensive.
If a group of people decides a word describing their situation is offensive, it is considered the morally correct thing to not use it. Therefore, people against using such a word may be against it in support of that group of people (rather than against it for moral superiority reasons).
I've never met anyone who is offended by the word "dumb", so I would use it. However, if that were to change then I would stop because I care about the feelings of those around me. People are offended by the word "retarded" because they may have friends/family/or the social awareness to know that a group of people would be hurt by it's use. Knowing that people in their lives or company would be hurt by its use, they would feel morally obligated to stop its use in any situation. Their moral right is in knowing that it could hurt others.
If you knowingly are using words that hurt others and comparing them to words that don't hurt anyone, you're not gauging your comparison's correctly. >

‘Retarded’ is still in use for its original meaning. That’s the difference. >

That’s literally the best defense of literally I’ve ever read. Frankly, I hadn’t even thought of it that way. 
Delta! >

“Retarded” was a medical term to describe people who are severely cognitively delayed in some form or another. “Dumb” used to mean someone who did not speak, who was mute for one reason or another. One word originated as a medical term and one as the definition of someone who does not speak. Taking either of these words and turning them into insults or slurs insinuates that the people the original meaning applied to are “less than,” hence the slur. However, it has been so long since “dumb” was widely used to describe someone who is mute, that it is disconnected from the original slur (people who don’t talk are of lesser intelligence). “Retarded” has not been disconnected this way. It was still the preferred medical term for people who are cognitively delayed until very recently and is still used to imply that people who are cognitively delayed are lesser than, whilst also being used as a slur to insinuate that someone is also cognitively delayed and therefore lesser than. We haven’t moved far enough away from this, and probably never will. The difference between a slur and an insult is what you need to look at here. >

people need to grow up and stop letting words offend them so much jesus >

First off, the use of “retard” is often intended to be numerous. And, frankly, I’ve found it funny in the right context. That said, I think the primary reason there’s pushback against the term is that  many people who are now adults grew up knowing someone who was diagnosed with mental retardation; the name of a legitimate diagnoses from the DSM until 2013.. My wife grew up with a brother who was diagnosed with mental retardation. She’s had to stand by, as his younger sister, while groups of older bullies yelled “retard!” At him. It’s understandable that she doesn’t find it funny when people use that word. So the term, in a modern context where it’s intended to be funny, falls totally flat for her. She’s not on a crusade to police anyone out of using it, and she even tolerates the times it slips out of my mouth. But I’ve essentially eliminated the term after thinking about it from her perspective.
By contrast, terms like moron, imbecile, and idiot were retired in the 1970s. Anyone growing up with someone diagnosed with one of those would be 60 years or older; not really participating as much in the PC discussion. It could very well be, after enough time has passed, nobody who grew up with a “mentally retarded” friend or family member will be participating in culture enough for their feelings to matter in the broader conversation. Once that happens the word could very well take on a meaning that’s entirely colloquial, as the other words you listed have. Until that happens, there will always be people like my wife out there. >

Language just changes over time. That's how it's always been. It doesn't mean every word changes meaning at the same rate. That one changed and some other ones didn't. There are words we use today that had the exact same meaning 200 years ago and others we don't even use at all anymore. Morals in this case just have to do with whether or not that word is hurtful to people. "Dumb" and "lame" aren't, but that one is. There's really no reason to use a word that's hurtful to a large number of people when there are tons of other words to use that have the same meaning. >

Yeah I’m with Ralphie May still on this one too >

Same thing for gay. Gay means stupid, but Ohno alphabet ppl cry wolf when I use the word >

I've never actually met anyone in real life who freaks out or even acts bothered when they hear the word. It's only a bunch of people virtue signaling online. >

A fortunate life free of SJWs, to some extent, you live. >

I mostly agree with you. 
I think it’s ok to call things “retarded” if they meet the definition. And wish it was ok for us to use that word more when appropriate. 
Not ok to refer to any human as “a retard,” though. 
So I guess it boils down to context. But none of it is allowed. >

I'm pretty much against all 4 so sure. I have used 2 and 4 before and probably need to remove them from my vocab. >

The issue with the comparison of retard with dumb, mad, and lame, is that "retard" (to mean mentally disabled) is used as an insult because it means to be mentally disabled. The mental disability is the insult.
Dumb, mad, and lame are used in completely different connotations, not as insults based on their medical usage.
Ie., people don't call someone dumb intending to insult someone because they can't speak, or mad because they are mentally unstable, or lame because they can't walk - they use a different definition of that word.
If someone was insulting someone who is dumb because they are mute, then in that situation it would be analogous to calling someone retarded for doing something they didn't think through, for example. And in that case the folks who say we should use the word retard because it is insensitive should likely acknowledge that analogy. >

Yes they do. Especially dumb. People who are bad speakers are called stupi/dumb. >

I admit I've never heard any person with poor oratory skills called dumb because of their difficulties speaking, rather it is normally because they said ignorant or ill-thought things. 
I can't speak for your experiences, but I admit I am skeptical that that expression of dumb as an insult specifically regarding one's inability to physically speak clearly is even an uncommon expression.
In any case, would you mind addressing the overarching point I brought up, or are you only focused on that specific word in what I suspect is a very specific and potentially isolated expression probably outside the purview of the kind of broad strokes topic you brought up? >

Yeah, it's just SJW virtue signalling, but bullshit like this happens all the time. It doesn't hurt me to not use words like retard, idiot, faggot, or n*, so I don't use them. I literally can't even write one of them.