That Retarded Political Correctness!
Harry Reid is a few bricks shy of a load.
-
Tools:
It's always entertaining to see liberals hoist by their own petards and we've recently seen two classic examples from the realm of political correctness.
First, a new tell-all book revealed that Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) referred to Barack Obama as (shock!) a Negro. That this elementary observation is objectively and scientifically true availed the Senator not at all; he was forced into the usual abject bowing and scraping before the usual suspects.
No sooner had that contretemps blown over when Obama's famously foul-mouthed Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was overheard calling anti-Obamacare conservative Democrats "f***ing retarded." No, it wasn't the "f***ing" that stood people's hair on end - thanks to Hollywood, we're all used to that. It was the "retarded" - an unforgivable insult to such luminaries as Special Olympians who had already extracted an apology from President Obama himself over a similar slur.
Emanuel immediately followed the same Very Sorry Trail as so many have before him, but this time with a twist. It wasn't just the usual guardians of political correctness hollering for his hide. It was none other than Gov. Sarah Palin, arch-enemy of the politically correct, and mother herself of a child who is - how else to say it? - retarded.
Just as we'd be appalled if any public figure of Rahm's stature ever used the "N-word" or other such inappropriate language, Rahm's slur on all God's children with cognitive and developmental disabilities - and the people who love them - is unacceptable, and it's heartbreaking.
It is uncouth and unworthy of high office to use playground insults. By calling for words to be banned, whether they be the N-word, the R-word, the G-word, or words denoted by any of the other 23 alphabetical letters, we aren't helping things; we're only making them worse.
All the more so because the mentally retarded are under a far worse threat than mere words.
Humans All - Except for Some
What is it about the N-word (the real N-word, not the one Harry Reid used) that makes it such an appalling slur? There's a simple answer: historically, it was used to refer to black people specifically to demean them.
By calling someone a "n****r," a racist was saying that they were inherently of low worth, undeserving of equality before the law or in any other way. Really, they were saying, a black person was not fully human - why else was slavery such a right and natural institution?
Of course, we all know and recognize what should have been obvious all along: one's skin color does not affect one's humanity. To say that because someone is black they are worth less than someone who is white (or the reverse) is bigotry of the vilest sort, no matter what word you use to express it. There is no inherent reason why a black person should not have the same rights, opportunities, and responsibilities as anyone else.
That is not true for the mentally retarded.
There is no rational reason why any qualified black man should not be a brain surgeon, military general, airline pilot, or President of the United States.
There is, however, every rational reason why you would not want to find a mentally retarded person holding any of those jobs. Is this bigotry? No - it's common sense, though our Justice Department seems to have forgotten this: they are actively recruiting mentally retarded lawyers for the Civil Rights department.
In point of fact, it is simply not possible for most of the mentally retarded to profitably contribute to society in any meaningful way.
Many must spend their entire lives institutionalized at great expense. Others can perform such essential and vital roles as Wal-Mart shopping cart collector or greeter, while residing at group homes in the company of trained professionals able to guide them through the complexities of brushing their teeth. Aside from the occasional "idiot savant" who is a genius at one superlatively useful thing but dysfunctional at everything else, the meager pay earned by their efforts doesn't come close to covering the cost of their care.
Why does this matter? It doesn't, and shouldn't - precisely because the mentally retarded are human beings. Simply by virtue of being human, each individual person "is endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." This is why conservatives are so strongly opposed to euthanasia and abortion: both involve the willful murder of an individual, innocent human being.
It's all too tempting to make comparisons with Nazis; but how can you not? It is a matter of historical record that Nazi Germany, with the eager support of most of the mainstream German medical establishment and no little agreement from America, encouraged the abortion and infanticide of mentally and physically disabled infants based on the absolutely accurate fact that they could not contribute to the economy of the Reich.
Then, the insane asylums and homes for the feeble-minded were emptied out, using the same unassailable rationale. Then, the Nazis cast their eyes on the old folks' homes - and there they met resistance, as ordinary Germans weren't quite so willing to bump off Großvater and Großmutter. The principle had been established, however, and once Hitler's propaganda had convinced most Germans that Jews were a negative to the Reich, the Final Solution was obvious and logical.
"Retarded" is not a slur, not in the same way that "n****r" is, any more than calling a person of Hebraic ethnicity a Jew is inherently a slur. It's an observation, which if based on fact, is nothing more nor less than truth.
Yes, a retarded person has no control over their condition any more than black people can change their skin color. But unlike blackness, mental capacity really is relevant to a person's usefulness in society and in the economy. Mental capacity is highly pertinent to what jobs can be held and what level of education is sensible. "No Child Left Behind" can spend all the money in the world, and the mentally retarded will still be left behind.
The Lord God Made Them All
Which is precisely why it is so frightening to see people's worth as human beings judged on the basis of their economic value as individuals. In a nation where abortion rights are the law of the land, the overwhelming majority of handicapped pregnancies are terminated. If the "fetus" is not a person, such an action is nothing less than logical and rational.
But an unborn baby is still a baby. If not a human being, what is it? A dog? A pig?
Glad you asked! PETA has an answer for you:
A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.
- PETA President Ingrid Newkirk
If you are sitting in your chair nodding in agreement, there's not much anyone can do for you. If, however, you are as horrified and offended in total disagreement as we are, then we share an important truth: Human beings are not like animals. They are different in nature and in kind. The smartest dog can never rank above the most severely retarded human being.
Unfortunately, an increasing number of deep-thinkers don't feel this way. We all know the nuts at PETA want to remove the benefits which humankind has received by testing medicines on laboratory animals before trying them out on people. The Spanish government has now granted rights to apes. It's silly, disturbing, and harmful, all at the same time.
But the worst effect of granting "rights" to animals who have no capacity to understand, appreciate, or reciprocate them, is that by exalting beasts above their natural state we cannot help but deprive less-advantaged human beings of the rights that should naturally be theirs.
Once upon a time, Western culture believed strongly that, unlike any other creature, mankind was made in the image of God. This made all men brothers in a somewhat nebulous but philosophically very real way.
Modern, rational, scientific liberal man doesn't believe anything of the sort anymore, so we feel free to off the "useless eaters." A well-trained dog is more useful than a human vegetable; so, expensively-trained K9 Fido should get a doggie-sized bulletproof vest, but pull the plug on Terry Schiavo to save taxpayer dollars!
It's natural for Sarah Palin to defend her beloved child just as it's natural for Rahm Emanuel to demean those whom he holds in contempt. The true problem isn't those who use a descriptive word for those blessed with less brains than the norm.
The real threat is the ever-increasing power and influence of those who find nothing wrong with terminating the lives of human beings that they, in their august wisdom, deem to be inferior.
Who's the barbarian now? Or, not to put too fine a point on it, who is truly retarded in every sense of the word?
-
Tools:
What does Chinese history have to teach America that Joe Biden doesn't know?
Eventually you will be reduced to describing it as "the word that dare not speak its name."
Quite simply, we don't want some real racist Googling that word and finding Scragged buried knee-deep in the listings amongst truly bigoted websites.
If PCness goes so far that the word becomes "the word that dare not speak its name", we have sufficient faith in human irreverence and independent thought so as to think most ordinary people would find the situation rightly ridiculous, and rebel. "He Who Must Not Be Named," hah!
Figures. No one understands what voting is anymore. Every living breathing Thing should be allowed to pull the lever. For some reason, everyone is okay with keeping the lever away from felons but no one else. There's a REASON we keep the lever away from felons. That reason should logically be extended to others. Or - in reverse - if one's lifestyle, societal contributions, achievements, or mental ability don't matter, then we shouldn't be restricting felons either.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/the-franchise-for-felons/
And goodness knows, you don't have to be breathing in order to vote, at least not if you live in a Democrat-run district.
Or next to, say, passages from Huckleberry Finn and an essay by Carlyle. ;)
I grew up in a family here the N-word absolutely was not used. I arrived at public school completely unprejudiced. In fourth grade my school was integrated, and I was shocked to hear all the black kids call each other that. By the time I graduated high school, I had been the victim of several racist attacks. By that point I didn't care what you called them, I wanted nothing to do with them. I have since structured my life so that the only time I must interact with them, they are handing me something over the counter.
I have a relative who is a high school teacher who informs me that her students - of all ethnicities - routinely use the word "n***a." Perhaps this practice will defang the word.
The word was imported into the language by the Dutch along with their importation of illicit human cargo in 1619.
There are perhaps a quarter million words in the English language, but the N-word is sooooo terrible that newspapers will not print it, it's bleeped out even when spoken by blacks on cable TV shows.
We can't even use the word "niggardly" anymore, a word completely unrelated to the dreaded N-word, without running afoul of the enforcers of PC.
This year we find out that the word "Negro" - a scientific, technical term used on US census forms - must also walk the plank due to its power to offend.
The N-word is redacted on web sites whose publishers fear being beaten about the head and shoulders by diversity police wielding the "racism" club. In my opinion, redacting it merely reinforces the word's enduring power to offend.
Not even race-realist American Renaissance or white nationalist Stormfront allow its use on their sites.
When blacks routinely call each other this word, I don't even notice.
If for some reason I really wanted to agitate a black man, I wouldn't even drop the N-bomb; I'd call him a "boy." It would sting even harder without implying that the speaker is trailer trash.
Do you know who owns the registration for n*****.com? The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. (BTW, shouldn't they change their name to "National Association for the Advancement of People of Color"?)
I find the whole business amusing.
I have ADD, very mild ADD admittedly, but ADD. I also have an IQ of around 134 according to tests I've taken. Yet I've copped it with everything under the sun- "retard", "spastic", you name it. And there's the rub. Retard these days doesn't just apply to those who are clinically classed as mentally retarded- it's a slur that gets thrown around right across the spectrum of neurological disabilities- many of whom are capable of studying to be brain surgeons- heck, I'm planning on getting myself 3 doctorates and am well on my way to getting the first.
That's the problem with this article. It claims that "There is, however, every rational reason why you would not want to find a mentally retarded person holding any of those jobs. Is this bigotry? No - it's common sense-"
Yet the term retard doesn't just apply to the mentally retarded, and there are many who have other neurological disabilities, including learning disabilities who have high IQs and high levels of cognitive function, with minimal impairment. There is no reason why they, or I couldn't be lawyers or neurosurgeons. Yet your post here proves how trapped in Nazi/eugenic ways of thinking, even those fighting against this form of biggotry, truly are. It basically moves from a "they're worthless and a drain, let's wipe them out" stance to one of "they're worthless and a drain, but they have intrinsic worth as human beings os let's throw them a pity party".
In both cases, the disabled are still seen in a negative light.
It wont be until we start looking at the disabled in terms of our potential rather than our limitations, that the the scourge of eugenic discrimination can finally begin to end. When that actually starts to happen across mainstream society though, is anyone's guess.
@Andrew - you are correct in saying that the term "retarded" is used far too loosely. I've never heard of someone with an IQ of 130 being labeled "retarded." As I understand it, ADD means Attention Deficit Disorder which means that you have trouble paying attention to matters which other people believe you ought to pay attention to. If your IQ is 134, you would OF COURSE have trouble paying attention to any presentation, course, lecture, or written material aimed at people with an IQ of 100. Anything geared for IQ 100 would bore you silly.
Some kids who have been diagnosed with ADHD, which I guess is considered to be more sever than ADHD, have been found to have brain waves which are characteristic of yogis meditating during their episodes. If a kid is trapped in a totally boring classroom, with no escape, and has to spend days there, zoning out into a meditative state is a perfectly rational response to an otherwise intolerable situation. So is acting up to add a little variety to the situation.
Unless I totally misunderstood what you said, your ADD is due to your IQ being far above that of the peers with whom you're forced to associate.
Go to the internet and learn there. You can go as fast as the material will download. I bet your ADD would melt away if you drink from a fire hose instead of from an eye dropper.
It's all about bandwidth.
Nate, you are partially correct, but your response point out a significant issue with ADD - that most people do not understand what ADD is.
To understand it, the best analogy is to look at a diabetic. A diabetic's reflexes, strength and all other functions are often optimum- in fact diabetics can even be athletes. However diabetics had the problem that their bodies do not produce enough insulin.
Likewise with ADD - it is not uncommon for ADD sufferers to be highly intelligent, however their bodies are do not produce enough neurotransmitters, meaning that messages may not be transmitted correctly to and from the brain. The result is that messages may, either in part or in full, be lost in transit. In short, you have a highly intelligent brain that's hamstrung by a highly inefficient nervous system.
In computer terms, it's like taking a quad core processor and hooking it up to a 16-bit bus. I hope that clarifies that for you and anyone reading this.
Are you SURE it's the I/O bandwidth of your sensory system and not just the fact that you spend too much time in classes, etc., which are set at too slow a speed for you? Lots of ADHD kids do very very well with extremely complex video games that interest them. Have yo utried finding a high-bandwidth bus to hook to your processor?
Yes Nate, I'm quite sure (btw, I have ADD, not ADHD- despite the clinical tendency to lump both in together, they are similar yet different conditions) - I test at 134 normally and in those rare moments when I'm at full capacity, I surprise myself with how brilliant some of the things I come up with are. I've had plenty of experiences of things either half registering or not registering at all. Neurological activity scans have also confirmed lowered neurotransmitter levels.
But then why is the notion of people in the gifted-genius ranges being what some people would class as "retarded", so unacceptable to people in general? That's a much deeper question to ask in light of this discussion.
@Andrew
There's nothing unacceptable about it. It's quite common. Most people understand that there's a fine line between genius and insanity. The more your brain makes space for some things, the more other stuff gets pushed out. It's normal to hear people say "...well, he's really bright, but you know how those sorts can be in social situations...".
As for the sentence that made you upset:
"There is, however, every rational reason why you would not want to find a mentally retarded person holding any of those jobs. Is this bigotry? No - it's common sense"
Being 'smart' is not the only qualification for work, even at places where smart people are appreciated. There is only so much lack of focus that employers will tolerate. If you're a 130 IQ and but are "retarded" at focusing on tasks, most employers would be right in not wanting to hire you. The sentence stands.
"There's nothing unacceptable about it. It's quite common. Most people understand that there's a fine line between genius and insanity. The more your brain makes space for some things, the more other stuff gets pushed out. It's normal to hear people say "...well, he's really bright, but you know how those sorts can be in social situations..."."
"Being 'smart' is not the only qualification for work, even at places where smart people are appreciated. There is only so much lack of focus that employers will tolerate. If you're a 130 IQ and but are "retarded" at focusing on tasks, most employers would be right in not wanting to hire you. The sentence stands."
Congratulations- people like you are living proof as to the very reason why the Holocaust happened and Hitler rose to power. Your ignorance is truly astounding. I feel sorry for you.
You bring up that IQs are not the only factors involved with successful employment and bring up focus. Well here's another factor which affects how successful someone is in life- ignorance. Do yourself a favour and check out the following links: http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVVNPAvCfH0 - you might actually learn something.
Then again from what you have said (and don't bother saying something along the lines of "you don't even know me" because what you've said here speaks mountainous volumes about your character), I have no doubt that if you lived in Nazi Germany you'd be one of Hitler's most vocal supporters while spouting sub-human garbage like "would you want too live if you were like that".
You're missing the forest for the trees, Andrew. Calm down and focus (sorry :-D) on what I said again.
Focus, like IQ, isn't the only thing that matters. There are lots of things employers want from their employees - communication skills, loyalty, imagination, ability to get along with others, experience with tools - all of which are understandably desirable. Focus is only one such desirable to look for in potential hires. I speak from experience here, having had good and bad employees.
Given his explosive nature, we may have figured out the *real* reason Andrew has problems being hired. :-)
Ifon, have you been clinically diagnosed as a psychopath? If not I can only wonder how long it will be before you are (the clinical definition of a psychopath is someone who is utterly devoid of empathy). The person who is clearly missing the forest for the trees here is you- then again that's what happens when you're too busy looking at a situation while your head is firmly positioned up your ass.
You defend social stereotypes (which have seen their eventualities in the Holocaust and programs like compulsory sterilisation on the more extreme end of the scale, and which result in discrimination and child abuse on the lesser end of the scale) to someone who has experienced the ugly side of said stereotypes for much of their life (which if you had even a shred of empathy and common-sense - wow something highly valuable to employers which you have shown yourself to completely lack here), and then wonder why you get chewed out for it?
Then again, bigots like you (which you have clearly proven yourself to be, despite your passive-aggressive attempts to claim otherwise in your latest response) always find it easier to blame the victims of their bigotry (like you did here by claiming my entirely justified anger at your post is evidence of some "explosive nature"); than admit to the fact that in terms of their attitudes, they're no better than one of the most infamous monsters of the 20th Century.
Slight correction to my last post as I am unable to edit it in the interests of "clear communication". "which if you had even a shred of empathy and common-sense - wow something highly valuable to employers which you have shown yourself to completely lack here" should have read "which if you had even a shred of empathy and common-sense - wow something highly valuable to employers which you have shown yourself to completely lack here - you would have realised".
Hmm... More tree staring, more ad hominems, more red herrings.
I guess I rest my case.
PS. Gee, I wonder why no one would like hiring (or being around) this guy?
There are no red herrings- the entirety of your posts have been nothing but eugenic apologetics and all the pseudo-civilised depravity which comes with it.
You have literally been voicing the attitudes of a Nazi in your approach to the disabled.
Your first post justified bigotry against the disabled because they are "different", which considering the way it eventuates in the cases of children, actually defended instances of child abuse as being "acceptable":
"There's nothing unacceptable about it. It's quite common. Most people understand that there's a fine line between genius and insanity. The more your brain makes space for some things, the more other stuff gets pushed out. It's normal to hear people say "...well, he's really bright, but you know how those sorts can be in social situations..."."
The fact that you class this type of bigotry as "normal" and acceptable ("There's nothing unacceptable about it") proves your Nazi leanings in spades.
You then go on to argue "Being 'smart' is not the only qualification for work, even at places where smart people are appreciated. There is only so much lack of focus that employers will tolerate. If you're a 130 IQ and but are "retarded" at focusing on tasks, most employers would be right in not wanting to hire you. The sentence stands."
The use of the term "retarded" while equating ADD to not being able to focus (way to show how utterly ignorant a person you are when it comes to ADD by the way) only proves my point about not only your bigotry in the use of that term, but the fact you would make such a eugenically utilitarian argument only proves my point.
You then when called out as being the vile bigot you are, try and claim that your response is normal and that I'm somehow the one with a problem due to my supposed "explosive nature".
The only thing that happened there was you got a rightly deserved verbal smack in the mouth for sounding off like the Holocaust apologist you've proven yourself to be (and before you dispute that, do yourself a favour and look up the term "life unworthy of life").
You can claim ad hominems and claim red herrings all you like, but they don't mask your crimes of double ignorance here to anyone but yourself.
The difficulty, Ifon, is that few employers are able to deal with genius. the Asians are far better than we are at identifying smart people, pushing them through the educational system, challenging them, and expecting them to contribute to society. What do we do with genius? Tell them not to excel because it makes the dumb people feel bad because it harms their self-esteem.
We have HUGE issues which require genius. We have environmental problems, energy issues, medical science extending longevity at infinite cost. We have jobs vanishing, our educational system doesn't work even for the average, and so on. We can't afford to waste any genius at all.
If an employer can't use an IQ 134, they're going to go down to someone who can. Could the google guys have found employment anywhere? Probably not, the had to make their own company to get jobs. If Yahoo or Microsoft had been capable of hiring them, those companies would have got the benefit. But they weren't.
Jobs was fired by Apple; he was smarter than anyone else there and they couldn't stand it. Bone-headed business blunder. Iacocca was fired by Ford. He was smarter than Henry and Hank the Duce couldn't stand it. Bone-headed business blunder.
@Nate
Plenty of companies are able, and willing, to deal with genius, but they want to get their money's worth. Having fewer productive PhDs is more important in the long run than having more unproductive ones. Some Microsoft people once mentioned this in a TED.
Sorry to pop some bubbles here, but 130 IQ ain't genius. Not even close. The conventional definition of genius is 145, but the academic circles will tell you that it's 155-160. My wife is brighter than most - she hits 138/139 consistently, and she'll be the first to tell you she isn't a genius. I've been around enough really smart people in college to know that I'm NOT, and that experience has enabled me to tell who ELSE isn't smart. You won't be entering MIT or CM with a 130, not unless you have focus too.
"If an employer can't use an IQ 134, they're going to go down to someone who can"
I don't agree. IQ on its own really doesn't matter. It's nice to have smart people, but that alone is meaningless. The smart guys that have worked for me demonstrate the point. I would gladly trade 10 points of raw IQ for 10% more work ethic or 5% more imagination.
And that's the other thing - imagination and creativity. Genius and IQ are not mutually inclusive. There are MANY types of genius: creative or "originality" genius, associative or pattern genius, even athletic genius.
Andrew said that society is too quick to label smart people/retards as mutually exclusive concepts. He may be right. But society is also too quick in assuming that all genius is about raw IQ. Look up Latent Inhibition at some point, and how that differs from raw IQ. It's not a hard science, but none of this really is.
"You won't be entering MIT or CM with a 130, not unless you have focus too."
And here's where you fail miserably. For starters, any university worth its salt these days has a disability support unit, meaning that if someone has the aptitude and ability but has disabilities which represent barriers to achieving to the full extent of their potential; they will provide additional support to overcome those barriers.
Secondly, you presume that just because someone has a ADD that they suffer from a complete inability to focus and that in and of itself is utter ignorant fallacy. There are different degrees which a person suffers fro disabilities. In my case it's incredibly mild to the point where I no one could diagnose me for quite some time. In other cases it will be more extreme. Likewise with Cerebral Palsy - for every person completely incapacitated by the condition, there are others who have it in a much milder form and you wouldn't know they had it by looking at them unless they told you.
This too is at the heart of the problem - the moment society sees there's a problem (and some employers are the worst offenders here) all they see is the disability and not what the person offers.
Here's a hand grenade of a point to throw into the middle of this discussion. Stephen Hawking has suffered from a degenerative condition for years. If he were alive under Hitler, he would have been deemed "life unworthy of life". If he'd been alive in the US earlier than he was, he may even have been sterilised.
If society took the "he's lesser than us, but we should feel sorry for him" approach with him, then it would have placed him into a nursing him with a carer and never have given him the chance to thrive. Yet how much would the world lost in the field of astrophysics and quantum mechanics if it had done that?
You can't have it both ways here. Either the resources spent on Hawking were a waste and he should never have been employed, or society was wise to disregard his disability and focus on his potential. That's without discussing the likes of Thomas Edison who was the father of electronics. So which of the two is it?