Well, isn't this retarded.
 

Idiots boycott the word "retard" used in a "disparaging way" in new Ben Stiller film, Tropical Thunder.

What do you think about these people? What do you think about the word "retard?" Is it "hate speech," or just people wearing their panties too tightly?

Personally, I want to kick these assholes in the head. Sure, no one really likes a shitty Ben Stiller movie. But boycotting the word "retard?" Calling for the movie to be banned? Claiming the word "retard" is hate speech?

Fuck these guys.

I try to avoid using the word in the 'popular' way because that's not what it means. It has always been a faulty usage, regardless of how popular it is. This at least is using it in the original intended way, although there might have been better and less offensive terms the filmmakers could have chosen. Regardless of that I think this is a big old fuss over nothing. I also don't go along with the increasingly common usage of "gay" to mean "bad or deserving of ridicule", but I can't say either of them actually bother me that much... I certainly wouldn't let the usage of either of those words in a derrogatory sense to stop me from going to see a movie, much less call for it to be banned.

Although I appreciate there are limits to freedom of expression, this shouldn't be one of them. Some entertainment is tasteless and offensive. I may or may not choose to partake of it, but I support the right to make it.

Out of curiosity, where do you think the limits lie?

'Cause sticks and stones and all that jazz.

While I'm all about people being allowed to use their full range and color of expression, putting ANY type of "bad words" or stereotyping in a mass media item like a film is going to end up calling criticism upon its self.

And in this day and age, they knew this would attract attention. FREE PUBLICITY, in fact. Because, lets face it, who doesn't think of "Ben Stiller" and "retard" in the same line of thought.

The popular usage is the correct usage. That's how language works. The meanings of words are determinedly collectively by popular opinion. If reference books have failed to take these new definitions into account, the fault is theirs.

Doesn't surprise me. After all, there are people who think The Avalanches are a racist band because....

Well... Just see for yourself:

YouTube Video

tl;dr version: Niggas got way to much time on their hands.

One important thing to consider is the context too. From what I've read and seen, the use of 'retard' in this film is to do with discussions about actors who portray mentally ill characters as a means of Oscar-baiting. It's taking the piss out of Hollywood and by all purely mocking actors and not those who are mentally ill.

It's all just political correctness gone stupid and it's ridiculous. It's especially ridiculous in any country that claims to allow freedom of speech.

Edit: Ence I was about to prop your post for Avalanches goodness, but that video is fucking stupid and I can't in good conscience prop that.

The line is delivered by Robert Downey Junior in blackface. And they're taking it seriously.

THAT'S retarded.

Who's gonna listen to a bunch of retards anyway?

From IMDB: "We feel that the use of the word 'retard' throughout the film 15 or more times is done without any regard for the dignity of people with intellectual disabilities."

Theres two problems here

First off, they're only insulted by the number of times retard is said. It's *quantified*, which means that they're not offended by the use of retard if its under the number of 15.

Secondly - "intellectual disability"? We call that FUCKING STUPID where I come from. GFF is FULL of people with "intellectual disabilities" but none of them take offense to that. Why? Because people who have "intellectual disabilites" aren't "intellectual" enough to know when they should be insulted.

I suppose a rape victim is a VAGINAL INSERTION DISABILITY?

Going by that logic, I'd guess that a prisoner who gets raped anally would then be suffering from 'INVOLUNTARY SODOMY DISORDER'.

There aren't many limits I really would approve of, to be honest. I believe in the right of organisations other than the government to limit freedom of speech and expression within their premises. I think that's perfectly fine, because it stops at their threshold and you can just walk out... or in the case of an internet site you can log out.

I also recognise the logic behind limiting freedom to shout 'fire' in a crowded theater, or threatening to kill (for example) the American president. It is of course arguable that these represent consequences for freedom of speech rather than limitations upon it.

I also recognise that freedom of artistic impression is necessarily limited by laws such as the prohibition on producing sexually explicit imagery of minors. It's a matter of protection in that case.

I can't say that I support unfettered freedom of expression, because if I say that someone is bound to bring up such an example, and they would have a sound argument to make. I don't think there should be limits to safeguard people's feelings enshrined in law though. I don't believe that the types of film we can make should be limited by who it might offend. We have laws against discrimination, but it's not discriminatory to use a nasty word. It's sometimes inappropriate, but it's not a matter for the law.

Additional Spam:
You have a point, certainly. I understand what you're saying, and I am aware of examples of precisely such a shift. I don't really have a good answer, becuse basically you're right in what you're saying. If the definition of the word has shifted, so that the new meaning is just 'bad, stupid and deserving of ridicule' then I'm wrong and outdated. However, if that usage is by a vocal minority, then it might still be considered incorrect. As you say, meaning is by consensus, but consensus is by majority is it not?

Cognitive relativism: No one can know anything ever!!

That's how a lot of censorship occurs when it comes to language. It's not really the word itself but more or less how many times it is said. I guess the more times it is said, the more offensive it becomes. Imagine if Tropic Thunder had used retard 16 times! The horror!

Out of sheer curiosity, how many of the mentally disabled who were at the protest were actually aware of what was going on?

Not many! But man, there were so many people to hug.

Which doesnt make sense, since human nature makes us desensitized to something the more we do it. I can't stop saying the word "fuck" at work, for instance.

Or on the internet.

fuck fuck fuck retard retard retard hay soluzar freedom of expression rules freedom of expression forever 24/7 smoke weed 420

What the fuck was that?

Perhaps they should use the term 'minimally exceptional'.

Sounds like the usual extremist censors with allergies to even slightly insulting words, which, outside of their tiny world, is actually commonly used. ><

I don't know, man. Something about people being afraid to use "teabag" in an otherwise mundane sentence makes me all :sadface:

No, you can know things.

You just have to pay attention.

Not everyone is good at that!

And perhaps you shouldn't bother to post everything you think of.

Or plagiarize from George Carlin.