snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Rantidote

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #261  
Old 22 January 2019, 04:22 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,368
Default

I haven't either. I also don't think that was the original claim.

I think the complaint was that autistic is now being used the way the r-word used to be used. As in, something like, "What are you, autistic, or something?" Perhaps especially where the questioner does not actually think the person being asked is autistic.

I can't say that I've heard that either, but I don't really doubt it. I think the r-word has become solidly out of bounds for most people, and of course something else is moving into that space. Ugh.
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 22 January 2019, 05:02 PM
Blatherskite's Avatar
Blatherskite Blatherskite is offline
 
Join Date: 06 February 2006
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 4,066
Default

I have, unfortunately, heard people using the word autistic that way. It's depressingly common on reddit.

It's not used in entirely the same way the word 'retard' is used, but the result is the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
It used to mean the same thing as "delayed" in the phrase developmentally delayed. There's nothing inherently offensive about the word.
Another reason it might have fallen out of favour in the medical community is that it paints an inaccurate picture. It implies that somebody with learning disabilities is just mentally aged-down rather than having disorder-specific differences in some areas and typical development in others.

I could see it being offensive in that sense even without the contribution from terrible people.
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 23 January 2019, 11:05 PM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 26,443
Default

It's also inaccurate in that it implies that the person might eventually "catch up", which of course in most cases they won't.
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 05 February 2019, 08:42 PM
WildaBeast's Avatar
WildaBeast WildaBeast is offline
 
Join Date: 18 July 2002
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 15,915
Default

This was actually a bumper sticker, but bumper stickers are kind of like memes so I will post it here. Yesterday morning I saw an older Acura modified in the typical "tuner" fashion, with a sticker that read "Panty dropper". The concept was helpfully illustrated by a pair of legs and lowered women's undergarment. I guess the implication is that the owner thinks his car is just so impressive that women will immediately remove their underwear and have sex with him at the mere sight of it. Classy.
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 05 February 2019, 11:55 PM
Esprise Me's Avatar
Esprise Me Esprise Me is offline
 
Join Date: 02 October 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,948
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard W View Post
It's also inaccurate in that it implies that the person might eventually "catch up", which of course in most cases they won't.
Doesn't "delayed" carry the same implication, though? I'm not sure we've gotten around that.
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 06 February 2019, 04:50 AM
Richard W's Avatar
Richard W Richard W is offline
 
Join Date: 19 February 2000
Location: High Wycombe, UK
Posts: 26,443
Default

Do people use "delayed" as a substitute? I've not heard that. Here people mostly talk about "learning difficulties" of one sort or another, which (while it covers quite a wide range of things) is at least mostly accurate. The objections I've heard for "learning difficulties" are basically from people with dyslexia or similar things that used to be mostly what was meant by learning difficulties, who don't want to be lumped in with people who have more severe problems.

It's still not a great term, but it seems better than any other I can think of, unless talking about an actual specific diagnosable problem. But some people (like one guy I know) have nothing specific wrong - at least, nothing with a common name - but are still "mentally handicapped" to the extent that they need extra help in life. ("Mentally handicapped" seems to have gone right out as a descriptor too). Short of calling him "really dim" or something like that, I don't know of a better term. "Learning difficulties" is the term people use in relation to him.
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 06 February 2019, 04:51 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,368
Default

After posting in this thread earlier, I did a little research on what the people in question tend to prefer. IIRC, the preferred terms were, in no particular order, person with (specific name of condition), person with a developmental disability, or person with an intellectual disability. There is a preference for "person first" phrasing.

I heard the term "delayed" for a while from people working in social services fields, which makes me think it was a preferred term for a time. (They were people who tended to be pretty careful about that sort of thing).
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 06 February 2019, 04:59 PM
Esprise Me's Avatar
Esprise Me Esprise Me is offline
 
Join Date: 02 October 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,948
Default

Variations on the word "delay" are what I hear social workers around here using most often. It's not incompatible with person-first language; you could say "a person with developmental delays" instead of "a developmentally-delayed person." I was more commenting on the implications of the term, as it seems to suggest the person might catch up. If my flight is delayed, I still expect to arrive at my intended destination; if my child is delayed, I might have to recalibrate my hopes and expectations for her future.
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 06 February 2019, 05:16 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,368
Default

It may be viewed as more that the person is behind in development, but is still developing (as are we all). So at any given point, they may be "behind" the typical development, but they may still catch up to *that* point. So a person who is delayed may not learn to speak, read, or count money, at the same time as their peers, but they might still learn it a while later. That is a delay.
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 06 February 2019, 07:35 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 13,155
Default

Yeah, as far as I know terms like "delayed speech" and "delayed motor skills" are still used for people who are expected to eventually reach average capacity for those abilities, just a little later than a neurotypical individual would be expected to.
Reply With Quote
  #271  
Old 06 February 2019, 08:26 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,368
Default

Is there a separate term for someone who is not expected to be able to further develop in a particular area, though? Or is "delay" just a descriptor for the fact that the person is behind typical peers in certain areas, without necessarily attaching a prediction either way?

I'm saying delay doesn't necessarily imply that the person will ever "catch up" to peers. I suppose "deficit" is used sometimes to mean a more permanent state.
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 06 February 2019, 08:46 PM
Esprise Me's Avatar
Esprise Me Esprise Me is offline
 
Join Date: 02 October 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,948
Default

I've seen it used to refer to adults who are not expected to "catch up." Perhaps that's not proper, but it's common.
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 06 February 2019, 11:33 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,368
Default

I have too, and I'm questioning whether it has anything to do with whether there is an expectation of "catching up." (And I'm asking what is meant by "catching up.")

In the kind of use I've seen, anyway, I might be a bit surprised if people were supposed to be making a distinction about whether they thought the person could ever progress, or reach milestones.
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 20 February 2019, 01:53 PM
smittykins's Avatar
smittykins smittykins is offline
 
Join Date: 27 December 2003
Location: Seneca Falls, NY
Posts: 2,744
Default

Over a caricature of Obama:

ďI tried to destroy the country. But Trump won the election and the libs are still crying. And my wife is a man.Ē
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 20 February 2019, 04:30 PM
Blatherskite's Avatar
Blatherskite Blatherskite is offline
 
Join Date: 06 February 2006
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 4,066
Default

There's too much stupidity to unpack in that one,smittykins, so I'll just address the 'Trump won the election and the libs are still crying!' comment because that sentiment pops up a lot and it confuses me.

Putting aside the whole criticism=crying/whining thing, if 'the libs' weren't still 'crying' then it would mean that they never really opposed his politics in the first place but instead just didn't want him to win because they wanted to win - like politics is all just a game and only winning or losing matters. 'The libs' are still 'crying' because Trump is still behaving exactly like people thought he would when they didn't want him to win the election in the first place! They're still 'crying' not because Trump won and they can't get over it but because Trump won and he's still bloody Trump. People's political views don't go away just because the person they voted for didn't get in. It's not just the election results that people were unhappy about, but the prospect of the presidency, which is still (alas) ongoing.

It's like telling somebody with an abusive husband that they should stop complaining because the wedding day is over now.
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 20 February 2019, 04:57 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,695
Default

It is like Mouse is fond of saying. For many Republicans, it isn't enough that they win, they can't be happy unless they can taste the (imaginary) tears of the losers.

Also, like everything else with these Republicans, it is all about projection. They never stopped bitching that Obama was not really president due to being foreign-born, so they think Democrats must be doing the same thing.
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 20 February 2019, 05:14 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 13,155
Default

And, as I like to point out, he didn't win the election, either. He lost rather badly but became president anyway due to our undemocratic electoral college system that was theoretically designed to keep blatantly unqualified candidates like him from being elected in the first place.
Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 20 February 2019, 07:17 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,695
Default

Much as I don't like him (I very much don't like him), he did win the election. He lost the popular vote, but the popular vote is not the election.
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 20 February 2019, 11:38 PM
Avril's Avatar
Avril Avril is offline
 
Join Date: 07 August 2002
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 10,547
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blatherskite View Post
Putting aside the whole criticism=crying/whining thing, if 'the libs' weren't still 'crying' then it would mean that they never really opposed his politics in the first place but instead just didn't want him to win because they wanted to win - like politics is all just a game and only winning or losing matters.
Some of this is projection. Elements on the right have demonized Democrats for so long as pure hatred of the "other side," as if it were a sporting contest, that they assume that's just how it goes. One opposes for the sake of opposing. And yet they are also the "get over it!" crowd in spite of never getting over their own election losses.

And there is the strong element of trolling others have mentioned--you also can't enjoy a victory unless you know someone is suffering--plus toxic masculinity that thinks the worst insult imaginable is to accuse someone of having a feeling other than unbridled rage and expressing it in some way. Sadness? Anger channeled into action? Oh, so unmanly.

I'll never quite figure out how anyone believes the "Michelle Obama is transgender" rumor, though maybe they don't actually believe it and it's just another way of insulting someone.

But our own media, right and left, are also to blame for treating politics like sport. Who's playing? Who's winning? These are not the topics that should be covered as much as what the candidates/officials think and operate and what they want to do/are doing, whether they are truthful, and maybe whether it would work. But no. All they know to do is endless speculation on which horse is going to win whatever race is right in front of them.
Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 21 February 2019, 02:10 AM
Mouse's Avatar
Mouse Mouse is offline
 
Join Date: 10 July 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 7,591
Mouse

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
It is like Mouse is fond of saying. For many Republicans, it isn't enough that they win, they can't be happy unless they can taste the (imaginary) tears of the losers.
Thatís sort of correct, but I use it more to refer to the Rightís constant whinging and carrying on about how they are the most persecuted ones ever! because controlling most of the government and being able to buy the world ten times over, just isnít enough for them. Hence why they have to steal the tears of losers, because how dare they be allowed to have anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
And, as I like to point out, he didn't win the election, either. He lost rather badly but became president anyway due to our undemocratic electoral college system that was theoretically designed to keep blatantly unqualified candidates like him from being elected in the first place.
I make a point of reminding myself and everyone of the Popular Vote thing as often as possible, because it illustrates an important point. No matter how much Trump and his followers kick and scream, the truth is the majority of the population didnít want him to be president.

Heck, the majority of Americans oppose all of Trump and the GOPís goals. Most Americans supported Net Neutrality, yet the GOP overturned it. Most support Obamacare, yet the GOP has tried repeatedly to overturn it. Most donít want Trumpís stupid as shit wall, yet the SOB is throwing a national emergency hissy fit to get it built. The GOP only wins by cheating; never forget this.

Out of curiosity, is the Electoral College one of those things the Founding Fathers put in to appease the slaveowners, like the whole thing counting slaves as 3/5ths a person? I know itís probably a reflection of their belief that the vote should only go to rich, property-owning White Males, but I wondered if slavery was also involved.

Obligatory video about how the Electoral College sucks and is terrible.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Memes that annoy you WildaBeast Rantidote 1078 29 March 2018 04:21 PM
What would Stone Age memes have looked like? DawnStorm Fun House 58 10 August 2017 05:46 AM
Memes that annoy you Little Pink Pill Rantidote 13 10 March 2016 01:07 AM
Memes that annoy you Amigone201 Rantidote 1020 22 February 2016 12:05 PM
Memes that annoy you Amigone201 Rantidote 1000 04 August 2014 10:45 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.