Spread The Word To End The Word: http://www.r-word.org/

[UniBrier]

The pledge states: "I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities."

I just read the Seattle Timed editorial below and found out about this campaign. I did a search of the r-word on RSU/JC and got hits in 339 threads.

Their site is here: http://www.r-word.org/ . Looks like it's time to buy another t-shirt.


Rahm Emanuel right to sign pledge not to use the 'R-word'

Rahm Emanuel, President Obama's chief of staff, has apologized privately to disability rights advocates for using the word "retarded" in a derogatory way. He should apologize publicly, but at least he has signed on to a Special Olympics campaign to end such use of the "R-word."

Learn more

For more information, go to: www.r-word.org

IN the highest offices of the land, the chief of staff to the most powerful man in the world thoughtlessly makes a slur against people with intellectual disabilities.

Rahm Emanuel dressed down liberal activists for their strategy of criticizing more-conservative Democrats by saying, "That's f***ing retarded," according to The Wall Street Journal.

The profanity is not what is shocking, rather the derisive use of the word "retarded." This word should be discarded with all the other words that have denigrated people who are different — people of color or of certain religious or ethnic affiliations.

Yet, people with intellectual disabilities are still the safe scapegoats. In fact, less than a year ago, President Obama himself made fun of Special Olympics athletes on "The Tonight Show" when Jay Leno asked him about his bowling game.

Seems like the whole White House staff needs a sensitivity training refresher.

Though news of both gaffes was publicized widely, both Obama and Emanuel called up Timothy Shriver, CEO of the Special Olympics, to make a private apology. Wednesday, Emanuel met with Shriver and five other disability-rights leaders and again made a closed-door apology.

Though Shriver and the organization founded by his late mother, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, have done much to advocate for people with disabilities, he is not the oracle of the U.S. community of people with intellectual disabilities, able to dispense absolution for all Americans offended.

A private apology in either instance is not good enough. Not by a longshot.

At least Emanuel agreed to sign a pledge to end the use of the word "retarded." The pledge is part of the Special Olympics "Spread the Word to End the Word" campaign.

The pledge states: "I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities."

[johnfoss]

I'm with ya. And their day of awareness happens to be on my birthday!

If anyone thinks this is being too PC, I'll try to help educate you.

[maestro8]

I had a thread locked for no apparent reason (http://www.unicyclist.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58491) the last time I tried to "spread the word to end the word".

I'd be careful if I were you.

[TheAKDude]

Here's the deal, banning the "R" word will ultimately accomplish nothing but invent a new curse word for you to hear your children say. We as a society will always invent ever more exciting and creative ways to insult and degrade each other. It isn't meant as an insult to those who are in fact mentally handicapped, but to the so-called normal people as an insult to THEIR intelligence. So to sum it up, whatever you call the mentally impaired members of this world, you will also invent yet another insult. I do not have a problem with the campaign to ban the word, but I do believe it is a useless effort.

[wickedbob]

This thread has down syndrome.

[GILD]

Does anybody want to slap Bob?

Also wouldn't mind adding a positive spin on this:

I pledge to help and support people with such lacking vocabularies ...

That kind of thing.

[johnfoss]

Here's the deal, banning the "R" word will ultimately accomplish nothing but invent a new curse word for you to hear your children say.It already is a curse word. Curse words are not "banned," they are just words that don't have a place in polite conversation. And that get bleeped out on reality shows I guess.
It isn't meant as an insult to those who are in fact mentally handicapped...You're missing the point. It's not the ones saying it that are being hurt. It doesn't matter what someone means, what matters it the effect it's having on those offended. Here's a test to see if said people are being over-sensitive. Does the word in question refer to something about themselves that they cannot change? If it does, that qualifies it as offensive.

[SqueakyOnion]

Every minority group seems to go through this re-naming every several years. For the "differently abled," it's gone through a progression: crippled --> handicapped --> disabled --> "differently abled." All these terms logically refer to the same subject. They differ only in emotional connotations within a particular culture. Regardless of what the term is changed to, the negative social experience that members of the minority group experience isn't changed by the re-naming. Consequently, the new term eventually becomes associated with that negative social experience of discrimination and prejudice, eventually prompting another name change. Calling something by a different name doesn't change its nature - discrimination doesn't change when you slap a new name on it. A duck is a duck, even if you call it a cat.

We need to change (end) the discrimination and prejudice in our culture, not keep changing the name we call it by. Repainting an old house won't stop if from rotting and crumbling from the inside. A president calling a war a "military action" doesn't mean he doesn't need Congress' consent to wage war - war is war, regardless of what euphemism you use to whitewash the issue.

Name-changing, I think, actually damages the anti-discrimination movement. It gives the illusion of progress, when all it actually does is temporarily displace the discrimination. All the new names will eventually become offensive once the associated discrimination catches up with them.

Calling it the "r-word" is an attempt at creating a social taboo, similarly with the "n-word." Curiously, members of the minority group, at least in this case, are exempt from the social taboo and are "allowed" to refer to themselves with the "n-word." All this does is further divide people into groups - those to whom the taboo applies, and those who it doesn't.

All the sensitivity and exclusivity around naming leads to absurd cases such as this. (http://www.1010wins.com/pages/4374417.php?)


If anyone thinks this is being too PC, I'll try to help educate you.

Please do.


I use the r-word almost every day, but in Italian. It's printed all over my sheet music! There're a lot of ritards in music. Interestingly, even though the Italian word is pronounced almost the same as the English (slightly more emphasis on the a, rather than the i, but the Italian i is pronounced like the Engligh e as in "tree"), my professors and teachers pronounce the 'i' as in "written," producing "writ-ard." Due to its negative connotation in the US, the word is mis-pronounced because of its similarity to the "r-word."

I'm not saying that I'll call people retards in polite conversation just out of stubbornness, I'm just trying to call attention to the fact that whether you call someone a "retard" or "intellectually disabled," they're still going to be targets of discrimination. Re-naming doesn't change that. Discrimination is the problem, and is thus what needs to change, not names.

[ħǻřрέŗ]

These discussions seem to get kind of off track quickly. The first line of the initial post reads:

The pledge states: "I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities."

It is important to note the use of the word derogatory in this line. This pledge is not asking for the elimination of the everyday use of the words "retard" or "retarded" or to rename a segment of society.

[SqueakyOnion]

It is important to note the use of the word derogatory in this line. This pledge is not asking for the elimination of the everyday use of the words "retard" or "retarded" or to rename a segment of society.

The problem is that, increasingly, there isn't a non-derogatory use. Can the "n-word" have an everyday, non-derogatory use? Can I just say "this math test is retarded," without it being derogatory? Even when there is a non-derogatory use, such as in Italian musical language, that word gets changed because "retard" is perceived as derogatory.

It's re-naming a segment of society in that it is now not-ok to refer to the intellectually disabled as retards. Regardless of how I intend to use the word, it's perceived as offensive. Every use is derogatory, or is at least perceived as such, which, as John Foss has stated, "what matters the effect it's having on those offended."

The pledge asserts that we should no longer use the term "retard," and instead suggests "intellectually disabled." How is that [I]not re-naming?

I just don't see the force in your claim that re-naming isn't occurring. If I'm just missing it, please explain.

[ħǻřрέŗ]

The problem is that, increasingly, there isn't a non-derogatory use. Can the "n-word" have an everyday, non-derogatory use?

What immediately comes to mind is automobile ignition timing which can be "advanced" or "retarded" and is commonly referred to in this manner. One can "advance" or "retard" one's timing. Any use of the words "retard" or "retarded" in their common everyday use to mean "to place behind" or "to slow down" are perfectly acceptable. It would be crazy to ban the use of the words themselves, just the derogatory use as Steve quotes in his opening line.

As for the word, "nigger," I can't say whether or not it ever had a use other than derogatory. I would agree that it has no known non-derogatory meaning today.

[SqueakyOnion]

What immediately comes to mind is automobile ignition timing which can be "advanced" or "retarded" and is commonly referred to in this manner. One can "advance" or "retard" one's timing.

Ah, thanks for the non-derogatory examples. I couldn't think of any at the time. A friend also suggested that, in physics, one can speak of an object in motion being "retarded," or slowed down, or other similar such uses.

So, "retard" can refer to various types of motion in mechanical and physical objects. It also can, derogatorily, name a person with an intellectual disability.

I still see no force in your claim that re-naming isn't happening. Was your previous response intended to be illuminating? I may have missed something, I still don't see.

[ħǻřрέŗ]

I still see no force in your claim that re-naming isn't happening. Was your previous response intended to be illuminating? I may have missed something, I still don't see.

If there was ever a benign or non-derogatory use of the word "retarded" in reference to intellectually handicapped people then you are correct that this is a move to re-name a segment of society. I can't recall that ever being the case. Even 50 years ago when I was a kid, intellectually handicapped people were not openly or publicly referred to as "retarded" by anyone unless it was meant as a slur. If I am wrong about this, and it's scope is only within my sheltered upbringing, then I agree with you that this name changing will be neither permanent nor appeasing.

[JJuggle]

I am detecting a chink in some of your arguments.

[SqueakyOnion]

I think I finally see the force in your (Harper's) claim. I think my error was based on some misconceptions of my own. I'll elaborate, but need to do some research and thinking before I can come to a stable, coherent conclusion.

If there are any more criticisms of my argument, please let fly.

[Catboy]

I keep asking myself, "Who would support this dumb crap?" When the answer is right in front of me. Retards! That's who, and not just the kind that make funny noises and drool on themselves but the kind that think people should be hyper-sensitive of WORDS! It simply is not free speech if I can't use the n-word, r-word, f-word, and any other word I want to freely. I'll admit, each of these words has a time and place, and any of them being spoken publicly by someone in the presidential cabinet is definitely inappropriate. But campaigning to make everyone aware that we should not use certain words is retarded.

[johnfoss]

Regardless of what the term is changed to, the negative social experience that members of the minority group experience isn't changed by the re-naming.I think you're right in terms of the words wearing off. But the social experience is changed. Explanation below.
Name-changing, I think, actually damages the anti-discrimination movement. It gives the illusion of progress, when all it actually does is temporarily displace the discrimination.Not at all. By calling attention to use of the word in question, it also calls attention to the problem. In this case, it's giving some thought to people who are intellectually disabled (or developmentally disabled, or whatever other labeling someone chooses to use). Calling attention to the fact that this is a person, not a joke. Increasing understanding of the situations of other of people; people who's lives may be very different from yours though not by their choosing.

So by the process of the attempt to re-label, we also provide education about the people suffering from the label.

A joke word some people in the human services industry sometimes called the people they work with was "dislabeled." This is a play on "disabled" and "labeled". The point being, labels on groups of people are often unnecessary, or are used poorly. How about just people?
Calling it the "r-word" is an attempt at creating a social taboo, similarly with the "n-word." Curiously, members of the minority group, at least in this case, are exempt from the social taboo and are "allowed" to refer to themselves with the "n-word."Not in my house. You also won't likely find that exemption coming from anyone who played a part in the Civil Rights movement.
I use the r-word almost every day, but in Italian. It's printed all over my sheet music!If you're using it in context, there's nothing wrong with that. Some people may need it explained to them. I'm sure the root word is Latin, and is the same in English.
whether you call someone a "retard" or "intellectually disabled," they're still going to be targets of discrimination.True. But this is more about awareness than anything else, I think. Better awareness, or education, leads to more understanding and less discrimination.
It's re-naming a segment of society in that it is now not-ok to refer to the intellectually disabled as retards.Actually it never was. As far as I know, the word "retarded", like the words "idiot" and "moron" that came before, were developed by doctors of one sort or another to refer to people with developmental delays. Taking the "ed" off the end was never a polite term for anything. I think the same is true for the n-word. It was only ever meant to be demeaning, and to refer to someone as something less than "human".

It simply is not free speech if I can't use the n-word, r-word, f-word, and any other word I want to freely.There's a wide gap between free speech and not being a dick.
But campaigning to make everyone aware that we should not use certain words is retarded.How else are you going to know? When you were younger, if you said "f*ck" at the dinner table, somebody nearby probably "made you aware" not to use that word either. Possibly without using any words of their own at all! So a group of people wants to know they don't like a certain word; one that I used to use a lot too. Not based on a whim, but because it's a word that used to be applied to people like them by doctors, and they find it demeaning. Wouldn't you?

[Catboy]

There's a wide gap between free speech and not being a dick.
How else are you going to know? When you were younger, if you said "fuck" at the dinner table, somebody nearby probably "made you aware" not to use that word either. Possibly without using any words of their own at all! So a group of people wants to know they don't like a certain word; one that I used to use a lot too. Not based on a whim, but because it's a word that used to be applied to people like them by doctors, and they find it demeaning. Wouldn't you?

Very true, but the character I play on these forums loves being a dick, so expect me to use the r-word frequently until this thing subsides. Fuck has always been viewed as blatantly derogatory term, however, retard evolved from a medical definition into a derogatory term used to describe stupid behavior because retarded people often act in a foolish manner. I don't fault them for being born the way they were, but that is just the way things are. Being offended by something is a personal choice. Suck it up and find something better to complain about!

[GILD]

Does this mean that "douchetard", my current favourite road-rage expletive and describer of sponsored riders, is now off the menu as well?


As for the word, "nigger," I can't say whether or not it ever had a use other than derogatory. I would agree that it has no known non-derogatory meaning today.

Does it share the same root as "niggard (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1725/is-niggardly-a-racist-word)ly"?

[Spoonsnuggle]

Oh GILD, how i've missed you...

[GILD]

Spoonsnuggle!

Did you ever get that 36'er?

[UniBrier]

Today's the official Awareness Day.

Did anyone sign the pledge at http://www.r-word.org/ ?

I'm with ya. And their day of awareness happens to be on my birthday!

And Happy BD JF!

[BluntRM]

I think offensive words should be used sparingly so that they still retain offense when used.

But, then if notably abstaining from a word becomes a vehicle for addressing actual acts of offense, that's commendable.

[forrestunifreak]

I mostly just use the word "dumb".

Drives mute people nuts.

[MUniThomas]

You guys are so straight... Damn Heterosexuals

[johnfoss]

...evolved from a medical definition into a derogatory term used to describe stupid behavior because retarded people often act in a foolish manner.Actually, mostly they don't. Turn on your TV and you can see loads of people acting in a foolish manner, and most of them aren't even drunk! :p If somebody with CP is having trouble opening a door they're not being foolish; they're just doing the best they can. If anything, pointing such thing out makes the viewer foolish, not the person performing to the best of their ability.

I mostly just use the word "dumb". Drives mute people nuts.Not if they didn't hear you (usually goes along with being deaf). :D

[ezas]

If there was ever a benign or non-derogatory use of the word "retarded" in reference to intellectually handicapped people then you are correct that this is a move to re-name a segment of society. I can't recall that ever being the case. Even 50 years ago when I was a kid, intellectually handicapped people were not openly or publicly referred to as "retarded" by anyone unless it was meant as a slur. If I am wrong about this, and it's scope is only within my sheltered upbringing, then I agree with you that this name changing will be neither permanent nor appeasing.

+1

I'm 53 years old and as far back as I can remember, the R-word was known to be a pejorative term. As far back as Elementary school I can recall people being called a R* as a way to say they were stupid. It was meant to inflame, and it was known that was not the 'polite' term for some one was mentally handicapped (the term in favor back them). Of course I was raised in the liberal bastion of Los Angeles so perhaps that accounts for the progressive attitude toward the term.

After readings Maestro's thread and this one I am left with the feeling that there is nothing wrong with trying to raise awareness of a term that has fallen out of favor in polite society (whatever that means). BUT that it cannot be taken too far because A) as has been said it will always be a moving target, and B) some people will resist change, out of ignorance, stubbornness, or most importantly, they are embracing the derogatory, inflammatory nature of the term. They intend to inflict harm with the word and there will always be those among us.

I think use of some of these terms should be dealt with in school the same way a student would be dealt with who shouted F* Y* to the teacher. No more, no less than that transgression. Polite speech is polite speech. The gradiation need not be overly complex.

Yes, the word retard can be used in its proper context, and I see no need to change that. There is the matter of context and even young children understand context, even though they may not be aware of the concept.

The term 'boy' is a perfect example of a word that has two distinct meanings, but meanings that are clearly understood given the context they are used in.

Free speech has long been upheld to not include all speech. The example typically given is that you have no right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater.

Oliver Wendell Holmes writing for the majority of the Supreme Court wrote:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.


In challenges to this ruling the issue has come down the term 'falsely'. So to bring this back full circle the issue is using the term retard (or gay) falsely. As I tried to express above any child above ~13 knows when a term is being used falsely.

But as I think about it, it comes to mind that perhaps the difference we perceive is that of location. Myself, I see a distinction between saying it in class (generally held to be a location of decorum) and saying it on the playground generally known to be a place of at least muted chaos, that will never be fully regulated except perhaps in the most draconian of schools

If you read this far, thanks.

[TheAKDude]

I say let them ban the "R" word. I'm tired of it anyway. Can't wait to see what the next insult is! While we're AT it, why don't we ban the word "cool" too. Its been way over-used, and the majority of the time its been used falsely as well. I'd like a replacement for that too. Something more accurate maybe.

[ezas]

Very true, but the character I play on these forums loves being a dick, so expect me to use the r-word frequently until this thing subsides. Fuck has always been viewed as blatantly derogatory term, however, retard evolved from a medical definition into a derogatory term used to describe stupid behavior because retarded people often act in a foolish manner. I don't fault them for being born the way they were, but that is just the way things are. Being offended by something is a personal choice. Suck it up and find something better to complain about!

I kinda hope that this is interweb sarcasm which I have been known to miss. But not knowing your style of posting, and you seem sincere. . .


You, of course are right to point out the relative lack of harm in the use of words, compared perhaps to deeds. But I feel confident in saying (unless you are truly as you self-describe yourself) that as you grow in life experience you will come to find, like most people, that word choice does matter, on many levels.

As a noob here, and only becoming aware of you in your post above, I cannot help but be influenced by your choice to drop the F-bomb in a public forum. How cannot I not be?

For me, while I drop the F-bomb in conversation more than I like, I find it offensive to see it in writing where it is not being used carefully to make a point (which can be argued I suppose that is what you are doing)

Let me rephrase - It's a fine line between directness, as you seem to advocate, and disregard for other's people's feelings.

JF puts a point on it this way: "There's a wide gap between free speech and not being a dick."

(my use of the word 'you' below is just typing laziness to put this in 3rd person, I don't suppose to tell you how to live your life)

Let me put this in even simpler terms. Word choice, for the most part, is how you treat other people that you meet in public, and is how you will be perceived by those who you come in contact with. It's as simple as saying or not saying "Thank You" to the person working the drive-thru at your favorite fast food. Me, I like when someone hears the sincerity in my 'thank you' and give me the same sincerity in their reply. I would rather live in that world, than the opposite, where I grab my bag out of their hand, drive off, and they call me a D* under their breath.

[SqueakyOnion]

So by the process of the attempt to re-label, we also provide education about the people suffering from the label.
Point taken.

You also won't likely find that exemption coming from anyone who played a part in the Civil Rights movement.
Right...just their children. I can't even count the times I've hear the n-word thrown around by my fellow college students who are black, in reference to one another. Sometimes, it's used as a general descriptor of fellow black students. Other times, its used as a very negative, but general descriptor of someone, regardless of their skin color. I have, indeed, heard a black person refer with the n-word to a fellow white student. Maybe it's similar to the GLBT community "reclaiming" the word "queer," and I'm not sure how I feel about that.

If you're using it in context, there's nothing wrong with that. Some people may need it explained to them. I'm sure the root word is Latin, and is the same in English.
My point with that little story was that my professors are so afraid of saying "retard," that they purposefully incorrectly pronounce the Italian word so that it sounds different. This seems silly.


After rereading and re-rereading this thread, I think I see the trouble I've gotten myself into.

The "n-word" was once just a descriptor - an everyday term that carried no particular negative connotation (at least, in my historical understanding). On the contrary, you claim that "retard" has always been a pejorative, derogatory term. I, in all honesty, was not aware of this. I was under the impression that "retard" used to just be the term that was used to describe those who are, well, "retarded," with no real derogatory meaning implied. I feel this came from my awareness, on such things as official school or government documents, of the term "mental retardation" being the preferred terminology,and I see it still to this day. In fact, up until relatively recently (a couple years ago), I personally used the term "retarded," with nothing derogatory implied - it just seemed simpler and easier to say than trying to keep up with whatever the latest "preferred term" was (intellectual disability, intellectual handicap, cognitive handicap, delayed development, mental impairment, mental disability, etc). I've certainly recognized its derogatory use, but felt that this use was implied in the context and inflection with which the word was used. Hopefully I didn't offend too many people...

It seems that, perhaps under the weight of my inexperience due to age, my assumption was wrong.

The American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR) changed its name in 2007 to the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD). On the FAQ section of their website, it says this:

"Mental retardation and intellectual disability are two names for the same thing. But intellectual disability is gaining currency as the preferred term. In fact, the American Association on Mental Retardation changed its name in 2007 to the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

It is crucial that ‘mental retardation’ and ‘intellectual disability’ should be precisely synonymous in definition and in all related classification because current federal and state laws contain the term ‘mental retardation’. That is the term used in law and public policy to determine eligibility for state and federal programs..."

The derogatory term "retarded," obviously, comes from the term "mental retardation." It seems my argument doesn't hold a lot of water if limited to the term "retarded" since, based on your Harper's and others' experience (anyone else want to validate?), that this was almost always used as a negative, derogatory term.

I suppose I wouldn't be unsupportive of this pledge, but even if mostly eliminated, "retard" will just take different forms. This was evidenced to me recently while attending a weekend-long conference. It seems that a few of my friends have taken to using the term "REER!" in place of "reatard." While they acknowledge that this stems from the word "retard," they've never implied that they ever actually were referring to people who are mentally rertarded, but rather as a general descriptor of stupidity. I suspect that, at least to them (and perhaps me), that "retard" has taken a similar stance that "dumb," "idiot," and "moron" have taken in common usage: a general derogatory term, not applied to anyone with a handicap specifically, regardless of the fact that that is where its origins lie.

Like any symbol, "retard"'s meaning is in flux. It has, and does, mean different things to different people. While some segments of society may wish to agree on a meaning, others will resist. The problem arises when someone with one group uses the symbol to communicate one thing, and it is interpreted by another to have a different meaning. I guess all I can really agree with is that "retard" shouldn't symbolize mentally retarded people in a derogatory way. As to whether this symbol is phased out, or its meaning changed to a general descriptor, I am less concerned with.

[johnfoss]

On the contrary, you claim that "retard" has always been a pejorative, derogatory term.Still do, but we're splitting hairs there. As you pointed out, the "proper terminology" is mentally retarded or mental retardation. But not retard. Retard still exists as a verb, but mostly it will make people stop and take notice, and not necessarily be aware of it's older, Latin-based meaning.

Yes, the R-word does still exist in legalese, medical journals and names of at least a few other organizations, some of which may not have even changed them yet. But in terms of this latest trend, they are basically behind the times. Even for Harper and Ezas, who are a little older than me, the "formal" use of the R-word went unnoticed because it's not a part of most of our lives. The derogatory usage has been much more common.
The problem arises when someone with one group uses the symbol to communicate one thing, and it is interpreted by another to have a different meaning.To me it's still the attempt to educate the people using the word(s) in question that they are labels for the offended group, whether the speaker intends it or not.

[Seager]

I'm a SPED teacher, and we don't let our kids use the R-word because it's a trigger that makes other students mad and hurt.

On the other hand, if we educated around not being offended by words, the R-word would lose its meaning and go the way of idiot, imbecile, and moron - words that don't have the baggage that the R-word has, despite the fact that "Mental Retardation" is the term that replaced those three when referring to individuals with a low IQ.

http://dontclickthis.whatingods.name/idiot_imbecile_moron.jpg

Idiot, imbecile, and moron are shining examples of how time and common use can "disarm" an offensive word. I hope gay and retard one day are disarmed as well, but in the meantime I don't say those words because I prefer to function in society - even if I don't agree that they should be allowed to be offensive.

[Seager]

Yes, the R-word does still exist in legalese, medical journals and names of at least a few other organizations,

The word is still used in the Special Education field in the official diagnosis of "Mentally Retarded," but people generally use the term "MR" instead because we all feel dirty and wrong for saying the word now. It's kind of lame when being PC inhibits your ability to use the proper vocabulary of your profession. (Now that I think about it, is "lame" an offensive term to use?)

I suppose this isn't the fault of the PC folks, but more the fault of the people who co-opted the term to use as an insult. I say we change the official term and let the insult people have it as an insult - then we can all stop being offended because it would take away it's meaning. :)

[maestro8]

Now that I think about it, is "lame" an offensive term to use?

When the doctors get my bad leg working again, I'ma use it to kick your un-PC butt! :P