Lol. Fair enough 😆

LOL, I do think we can both agree that "conservative" is the best approach to belittling someone's intelligence. It also carries with it a number of other connotations, though (crazy comes to mind.)

As for the "r-word" being "flagged" by "that community". That's quite the overreaching statement. There is no single community to speak of here, and there was absolutely never a true consensus on this word by our society as a whole.

The reality is that the "r-word" campaign was a heavily monied thing pushed on billboards, tv ads, and online ads over the last 20 or so years. If you ask me, someone who is literally part of "that community", I think it was a bunch of Karen's behind the entire thing.

The word "retard" was clinical when I was growing up. People quite literally referred to mentally challenged individuals as "mentally retarded", and it was not an insult in any way. There is the core definition to this word, and it has a lot of other scientific and industry-based definitions. The fact it was separated from "mental" and then ostracized as a "bad word" by certain groups of people is downright ludicrous.

You could say "this process has been retarded to the point of complete failure", and it would (should) have no negative connotation targeting individuals who were born with "deficiencies" in the area of intellect. Instead, it uses the definition of the word: "To delay or hold back in terms of progress, development, or accomplishment."

This crusade against this single word in 2025 is simply asinine. We have huge problems to tackle in this world, and I really don't believe anyone of substance should care about this. I've never met an actual, neurodivergent individual that takes offense to it being used in a way that doesn't directly target them, or someone like them. That is to say, we're talking about the Michael Scott usage.

You don't call a paraplegic person "lame" because "oops", that's pretty messed up even if you didn't mean it that way. This said, I doubt that person would take offense in a situation like this. This is where we should be with the "r-word". There is simply no justification for making this word synonymous with a word like the n-word. It does not have that power, and I reject the monied campaigns trying to spread a narrative that it should.

the R word in relation to humans is considered a no no.

This isn't accepted by everyone, though. In fact, I'd argue that it's really only accepted by "polite society" at this point. This means that even in left-leaning communities like Lemmy, we're seeing a majority of individuals speak out and very clearly say "This does not offend me."

I avoid the use of the word typically because I aim to achieve something when I speak. By using a word that's being actively burned by part of a community, you risk being selectively censored. This said, I think those who might censor others for the use of this word are doing the people they censor a massive disservice. I think a lot of the people practicing this are younger, and they were taken in strongly by the monied campaigns to push this word over the last 20 years. People paid to change their minds, and it worked.

At the end of the day, however, we're looking at a word that means the exact same thing as a number of other words nobody cares to censor. This makes the entire ordeal nothing more than a mechanism to divide people who would otherwise get along. The world is becoming too small a place to allow for this sort of division, so I oppose this witch hunt. The word should either be tolerated, or we should see a true approach to protect disabled individuals - not this half-assed, virtue-signaling approach being enacted today.

eminem took back the f word, and then elton john played on stage with him making it okay again.