Author Archives: Amy Farr Robertson

Unknown's avatar

About Amy Farr Robertson

Civil Rights Lawyer. Dog Lover. Smartass.

Again with the offensive words.

10 Replies

Since blog comments had not been developed during the paleolithic period, my cro-magnon friend continues to respond via email.  He & his neanderthal colleague insist I come down one way or the other on the use of the word “idiot.”

If I’m candid, I have to admit I’m on the fence.  The history of “idiot” is just as noxious as that of “retard” but history does not supply the full answer.  It also matters how the word is meant and heard in contemporary speech.  I can say that when I hear the word “retard” I hear an effort to disparage the target by a comparison to a cognitively disabled person; when I hear “idiot” I interpret it to mean simply “stupid.”

So I would like to hear more from others — in the comments if you’re a modern human, email if cro-magnon — what you think when you say or hear the word “idiot.”

I was trying to think of other examples of words that have lost their true meaning as epithets, and are in general use without reference to an earlier offensive meaning.  It’s easy to think of examples in the opposite direction:  it doesn’t make the word “bitch” innocuous that its dictionary definition is “female dog.”  I’ve heard it’s a false etymology that has rendered the word “handicap” unacceptable.  It was thought to derive from a reference to begging — “cap in hand” or “hand in cap” — but in fact goes back to betting conventions involving the announcement of odds.  Its real meaning, in other words, is the one at the racetrack.  While I suppose it is mildly offensive to for a disability to be analogized to odds in betting, the ADA definition is “substantially impaired in a major life activity,” which seems much more explicitly harsh than being burdened with longer odds.   Or maybe I’m just remembering fondly our last vacation in Vegas.

One of the reasons I would like to hear from other folks is that I have recently been called on a couple of words that I now try not to use but have not gotten to the point of busting others’ asses for using (as I generally do with “retard”).  Among these are “crazy” and its synonyms and “lame.”  All of these disparage by comparison to people with disabilities, and there’s just no way to spin that comparison that makes it OK.  Seems to me disrespectful to use a group characteristic as an insult.   That is, until “Republican” is seen for the insult it truly is!

Happy 4th!

1 Reply

Here’s what I’m thinking about today, in addition to Tim’s excellent steak fajitas that we will share with the in-laws, and the ensuing patriotic display of vanilla ice cream with raspberries and blueberries.

The Constitution, and the fact that has been amended to increase our freedom over the years.

All of the people who argue about what it means to be free.

Our kick-ass miliary.  Seriously, while I may not agree with the way a certain just past president chose to deploy it, it seems deeply deluded to think we’d be protected in its absence.  In addition to talking back to the television, I tend to talk back to bumper stickers — for example, to the ones that assert that war is not the answer, I quote a rival sticker I’ve seen:  “except in cases of slavery or totalitarianism.”  Many ordinary — no, extraordinary — men and women sign up to put their asses on the line to protect us, and I honor them today.

I also honor the many other men and women who have put their asses on the line to protect and increase our freedom … whether facing the fire hoses of Selma, enduring the police batons of Stonewall, or sitting in a federal building til they enact the damn regs.

And the many other things that make us the free people we are today, including but (as we say in the law biz) not limited to:

People who sport bumper stickers with over-simplified political theories.

People who show up in parks with misspelled signs and no real sense of what the words on them really mean and those who show up to yell back at them.

Youtube

The Onion

Innovators and the people who believe in them.

People who sit in the front of segregated buses and people who park their wheelchairs in front of inaccessible buses.

Update:  People who teach their children about the First Amendment.

Everyone who calls bullshit on easy answers and accepted truths.

Happy 4th, everyone!

More on offensive words

5 Replies

A well-meaning neanderthal liberal dropped me a note asking whether “idiot,” “moron” or “imbecile” were as offensive as “retard.”

Good question — so I thought I’d see if anyone else wanted to weigh in on it.  My gut* says “idiot” and “moron” are OK; “imbecile” is not so OK, but I don’t have any idea why.  My best guess is that “idiot” and “moron” are much farther from their (unfortunate) clinical roots than “retard” is.  But I’m very much open to being called on that.  Honestly, I seem to recall hearing that “hysterical” has its roots in an internal organ that women have but men do not, and should thus be avoided.  In light of the crap I have to read every day, though, I don’t plan to stop saying things are hysterical.  Or maybe I’m just reclaiming words of female disempowerment . . .  bitches!

Ultimately, there is some keeping track to do — I have learned only relatively recently that “gyp” and “welsh” are inappropriate as epithets and have stopped using them.  But it seems to me it’s no more arduous than all the keeping track we have to do if we generally want to be thoughtful people:  who is “Dr.” and who is “Mr.” or “Ms.;” who might have had personal experiences that make certain topics of conversation painful or awkward; whether and which cuss words are appropriate for the context (e.g., court hearing; lunch with in-laws; drinks with co-counsel, in order of increasing profanity).

What do other folks think?

* Update:  A cro-magnon colleague of the aforesaid neanderthal wrote to point out my gut’s total historical ignorance.  None of these three words —  “idiot,” “moron” or “imbecile” — is ok, he writes, because  “back in the day, mental retardation was defined based upon severity as idiot, imbecile and moron.  Those words all define levels of retardation and were even politically incorrect about 40 years ago.”  So was I supposed to do research & shit before blogging?  I skipped that page of the instruction manual!

Seems to me, though, that in current usage, “retard” is meant to compare the target of the epithet to a person with cognitive disabilities, whereas “idiot” and “moron,” at least,  have taken on a more general meaning of “stupid.”

One of these things is not like the other

2 Replies

Opposing counsel in one of our wheelchair access cases complains that our refusal to recite their position in our brief deprives the defendant — a multinational chain of fast food* restaurants — of its “right to due process.”

I’m thinking of putting them in touch with a client of ours with a due process claim:  an inmate with mental illness who has been in solitary confinement for 10 years based on a system of secret demerits that he has no effective way to challenge.

This has been another episode of Stupid Opposing Counsel Tricks.

*  Sorry, “quick serve.”  Commercial correctness, I guess!

If we’re going to defend hetero marriage, let’s do it right.

10 Replies

Folks opposed to marriage equality argue that if gays and lesbians are permitted that state-sanctioned status, it will have the effect of destroying heterosexual marriages.  In response, they promote legislation ostensibly designed to protect this venerable institution.  Most liberals campaign against these measures, on the grounds that they are unfair (what part of “equal protection of the laws” is unclear?) and irrational (straights have done a pretty good job of marriage destruction all on their own).

My view is:  if we’re going to use the legislative process to protect heterosexual marriages, let’s pass laws that might actually reduce stress and promote harmony in those marriages.  These measures would “save” those marriages in the sense that the people in them would remain happy with one another and therefore married, rather than in the way that opponents of gay marriage think it works:  that we’ll only stay together if we can smugly monopolize the legal label for our relationships.

Warning:  what follows traffics in the basest of gender stereotypes, derived directly from my own 16-year experience with heterosexual marriage.

The Home Bathroom Separation Act.  Husbands and wives were not meant to share the bathrooms in their home.  The vast genetic differences in cleanliness perception and many practical differences in paraphernalia make sharing facilities a source of stress in 55% of heterosexual marriages.*  Under this proposed legislation, all new homes will be required to have two completely separate bathrooms adjacent to the master bedroom and money will be allocated from the federal budget to retrofit houses of married heteros with one extra master bath. [2024 note: I wrote this long before people started freaking out about trans people in public bathrooms. I still don’t want to share my home bathroom with my husband – beard hairs in the sink! – but have no problem peeing in a public restroom stall next to anyone of any gender. I’ve added a bit of verbiage to clarify.]

The Laundry Technology Act.  All new washers and dryers will be equipped with control panels of equal or greater complexity to a sound system of comparable price.  In addition, federal regulations will require garment labels to include one of the following two statements, as appropriate:  “This Goes In the Light Wash,” or “This Goes In the Dark Wash.”  At least 43%* of the bickering in hetero marriages concerns lack of laundry participation by one of the two genders commonly found in those unions.  This measure will not only promote increased participation, but will ensure that the result is not uniformly pink.

Music Parity Regulations.  FCC regulations will require at least one station in each broadcast area to play folk rock and heavy metal tunes on a strictly alternating basis.  Imagine the heterosexual marriages — not to mention lives — saved by not having driver and passenger switching constantly among stations in search of (to take a completely random example) Boston or The Indigo Girls.

Quality Motion Picture Act.  At least five movies each year will be required to have both exciting action sequences (car chases; explosions; zombies) and a plot with believable, grown-up dialog and characters.  Hetero marriages will flourish when husbands and wives not only attend but enjoy the same movies.

Full Funding for Public Education, Universal Health Care and Assisted Living Act.  Approximately 95%* of the fights in heterosexual marriages concern the kids’ schools, the doctor’s bills, and how to care for the in-laws without having them actually move in.  The FFPEUHCALA will ensure high quality public education, availability of heath care without forgoing food and heat, and a comfortable, safe old age for your in-laws** somewhere other than your home.  This legislation will avoid at least 3.2 million* heterosexual divorces each year.  In addition, just imagine all the quality time hetero couples will have in lieu of the hundreds of hours they now spend filling out insurance forms, fighting with insurance companies, filling out more forms, waiting on hold to insurance companies, and figuring out how to pay for things they already bought insurance to pay for.

Let’s see if those anti-marriage-equality folks really want to protect hetero marriage — let’s see if they’ll support all this crucial legislation.

* All statistics in this post are invented out of whole cloth.  They sure sound about right, though, don’t they?

** Love ya, Denver & Nora!

In which I start my new blog by offending everyone

8 Replies

Next time you are tempted to call someone a retard, or a [clever neologism]tard, or even accuse them of riding the short bus, stop and substitute one of the following offensive first-letter-only words: the N one; the S one; or the K, C, or J ones.

I’m actually going to make the argument that calling someone a r****d is worse than calling an African-American a n****r or a Chinese person a c***k.  Because it is not generally people with cognitive disabilities who are being called r****ds.  It’s not just a word of derision for the minority in question.  It is more commonly used to disparage people who are not cognitively disabled.  It’s saying “you are bad because you are like a person with a cognitive disability.”  Like calling white people n*****rs or c****ks:  “you are bad because you are like a black person . . . or a Chinese person.”

And liberals, I’m looking at you.  Mostly I’m looking at you because you’re all I read these days.  I know I know … echo chamber blah blah blah.  But when I want to read illogical ad hominem bullshit, I’ll stick with opposing counsel’s filings — which I have to read anyway.

I’m also looking at you liberals because you’re supposed to know better.  Remember?  We’re the ones who respect everyone.  Everyone.  Not “I’ve learned the words I’m supposed to use for black people and brown people and girl people but it’s just such a drag to have to learn the ones for disabled people.”  Everyone.

So, anecdotes, anyone?  How about the otherwise hilarious Wonkette, which insists on adding the suffix “tard” to turn random words into insults:

This is seriously like deciding that it’s hilarious to insult people by adding “igger” to the end of other words.  Pauliggers.  Libiggers.  Conserviggers.  Palestiniggers.  That last one is just awful on so many levels, eh?  Now, do you get how truly awful Palestinetards is?

I’m predicting a common response.  Maybe I underestimate you, but what I predict is the response above:  it’s just such a drag to keep track of all this!  I just learned to say Negro, when I was told to say Black, then it was Africa-American.  Oriental? Asian?  Ooooo noooooo!  It’s just so confusing!

A while back I had an email exchange with a fairly prominent liberal blogger who had used the word “retarded” as an epithet.  I called him on it — saying it was equivalent to offensive expressions such as “jew him down.”  Here is the rest of the colloquy – quoted at some length because I think it typifies the common reaction, and sets out my views succinctly:

Prominent Liberal Blogger:  “Unfortunately, it’s hard to keep track of all the words that offend some subsection of the population these days.  I’ll watch myself in the future, although I have to admit that I have a hard time equating this to such a plainly offensive expression as ‘jew him down.’”

Me: I hear you, and I confess that I predicted this response.  The “keep track of” argument segregates groups whose rights and feelings are worth worrying about (Blacks; Jews) from those who aren’t really on the radar screen (people with cognitive disabilities).  The term you used is plainly offensive to a large subsection of the population; just one that you don’t really think about.

PLB: I really don’t think you can dismiss the issue like that.  It really is hard, and there really are lots of groups who get offended over things.  It’s just impossible for any single person to track it all.  It’s not as if there’s some clear rule for figuring out whether a term is legitimately offensive, after all.
Here in [his location], for example, it’s considered offensive to display the flag of Vietnam.  Big Vietnamese population, you see, and they insist that only the old South Vietnamese flag should ever be displayed publicly.  Is that legitimate? Or is the flag of Vietnam the flag of Vietnam, whether you like it or not?

Me: I would argue that there is a difference between using a term in a disparaging or pejorative manner and a political dispute.  I am firmly of the view, for example, that if you think affirmative action is wrong, or that gays should not be allowed to marry (both positions with which I disagree) or that one political system is or is not legitimate in Vietnam (a position on which I am sadly ignorant) there is nothing offensive about asserting and defending your political views.  I’ll argue anything on the merits.

Politely.[*]

On the other hand, you used a slang term that refers to a type of person and you used it in a pejorative sense.  You were not (I hope) expressing a negative political or other substantive view about people with cognitive disabilities.  I think common courtesy, rather than political correctness, would suggest that the word not be used that way.

Hell, even in the political context, a bit of forethought and courtesy would not be a bad thing.  If I were going to be a guest in the home of a Vietnamese person, I might look into the matter and not wear, say, a tee shirt with the wrong flag.  I really do think people with different views can speak to one another politely and respectfully.

* [Full disclosure:  Politely, but with occasional, okay fairly common, use of cuss words.]

Hello world!

4 Replies

So yeah I’m starting a blog.  Hasn’t everyone?  As with basketball fandom and pedicures, I’m sort of late to the game.  Not sure it will go anywhere.  Thought it would be the right thing to do after years of  (1) formulating literally dozens of hilarious one-liners while walking the dogs, marveling at what great blog posts they’d be if only I had a blog, and promptly forgetting them; and (2) talking back to the television.

My goal is to achieve the perceptive commentary, tireless research skills, and overuse of the work “fuck” that would be produced if Dr. Frankenstein somehow merged Matt Taibbi and Dahlia Lithwick, and the resulting creature had a blog.

What an incredibly cool creature that would be, eh?

Well, here goes!