"retarded" and insult policing

[brimstoneSalad]

[EquALLity compared the use of the term 'retarded' and 'gay' as a derogatory insult]
Comparing the two is pretty offensive to gay people. Being retarded is not a good thing; there's nothing good about having a profoundly low IQ and developmental problems. Calling somebody retarded is like calling him or her stupid: it's using a word that represents a negative character trait as an insult.
Being gay is nothing like retarded; when "gay" is used as an insult, it irrationally degrades homosexuals based on widespread homophobia.

It's a sensible and rational thing to find retardation undesirable. The same can not be said for homosexuality.

I'm not equating them; I'm comparing them.

I know, and it's offensive because they're not actually comparable; the analogy you're trying to draw isn't there.

Turning something that isn't bad into an insult is completely different from turning something that's actually bad into an insult for a trait it's analogous to. A quality that is already devalued can not be devalued more by being used as an insult: it's devaluing the person who isn't retarded to call that person retarded.
When you use "gay" as an insult, you're devaluing gay people, because homosexuality isn't a trait that has lesser value.

Being mentally challenged is undesirable, but it's out of peoples' control, and it's a very difficult condition. It's adding insult to injury when you use the word 'retarded' to call people who aren't mentally challenged stupid.

Stupid and retarded are basically the same thing, but to varying degrees. Retardation is that which is below a particular intelligence threshold. Stupid people are unintelligent. Stupid is distinct from ignorant, which is just lacking in some knowledge.

stu·pid
ˈst(y)o͞opəd/
adjective
1.
lacking intelligence or common sense.
"I was stupid enough to think she was perfect"
synonyms: unintelligent, ignorant, dense, foolish, dull-witted, slow, simpleminded, vacuous, vapid, idiotic, imbecilic, imbecile, obtuse, doltish; More

The synonyms aren't 100% accurate, note ignorance is listed.

ig·no·rant
ˈiɡnərənt/
adjective
lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.
"he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid"
synonyms: uneducated, unknowledgeable, untaught, unschooled, untutored, untrained, illiterate, unlettered, unlearned, unread, uninformed, unenlightened, benighted; More
lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.
"they were ignorant of astronomy"
synonyms: without knowledge of, unaware of, unconscious of, oblivious to, incognizant of, unfamiliar with, unacquainted with, uninformed about, ill-informed about, unenlightened about, unconversant with, inexperienced in/with, naive about, green about; More

It's distinct from "stupid" or unintelligent.

People who are severely stupid are by nature mentally retarded (and may or may not be ignorant). People who are mentally retarded are stupid; you can't really be intelligent if you have a low intelligence.
It may be genetic, early childhood, or environmental; these can all affect cognition.

Equating or comparing retardation with stupidity is accurate. It's an attribute that is undesirable and of negative value. You aren't devaluing stupidity or retardation by equating them; they're both the same sort of thing, and intimately related. Retarded people by their very nature have an undesirable quality, it's appropriate that it be undesirable.

Equating homosexuality with a negative value is not accurate, and it devalues homosexuality, which should not be devalued. Homosexuals do NOT by their very nature have an undesirable quality, it's not appropriate that it be undesirable.

Now, it is also possible to say "you're being stupid right now" or "you're being retarded right now", which is a criticism of a particular behavior, and not your fundamental character or intelligence overall: that is, you are behaving in a way right now that makes it seem like you are stupid/retarded.

That's the same kind of thing with respect to how insulting it is to retarded people (it isn't insulting to them at all), it's just less insulting to the person you use it against.

You can also say "you're being gay right now", and if it was the case that the person you said it to was currently engaging in sexual activities with somebody of the same sex, it wouldn't be insulting to gay people because it's legitimate.
It may even be appropriate if the person you said it to was watching Glee or doing something stereotypical of gay culture. But NOT if the person did something stupid.
Gay = Homosexual (or behavior stereotypically associated with gay culture)
Gay ≠ Stupid, Gay ≠ Bad.

You could use "retarded" in a way that was an insult to retarded people by using it to refer to something very incorrect and far worse than mental retardation.

For example, if you found somebody raping somebody else, or murdering somebody, and you said simply "that's retarded!" as if that covered it, that would reflect a significantly lower value upon retardation than is warranted. That would be inappropriate, and it would devalue retarded people.
Retarded = Low IQ = Stupid.
Retarded ≠ Murderous psychopath.

In order to devalue something, you have to equate it with something that has lower value.

Even if it's inaccurate, that's true.

For example, calling somebody a cockroach as an insult: that doesn't devalue cockroaches, because the person is being called that in order to devalue the person down to the low value roaches already have.

Calling somebody a pig for eating voraciously doesn't devalue pigs: they are characteristically voracious eaters.
Pig = Gluttonous

Get it?

If a mother murdered her children, and you called her a bitch, that would devalue bitches: bitches are very protective of their pups.
Bitch = Mean (behavior of hormonal female dogs is probably where that came from)
Bitch ≠ Child killer.

That is, assuming we hadn't already mentally dissociated the words.

Calling somebody who is behaving in an apparently unintelligent manner (such that that person seems retarded) retarded does not in any way devalue retarded people; it's lowering the target of the insult to the already devalued position the retarded occupy by comparison by saying that person is (and he or she may be).

There are no issues with accuracy there: at worst it might just hurt people's feelings if you use those words around people who are clinically retarded (it shouldn't, but it might, so it's not really nice). Maybe just don't do that and be aware of the context of your communications (just like you might avoid cussing around children and elderly conservative Christian women).

Female dogs, Pigs, and Cockroaches have no idea what's going on because they don't understand most human language. It's mainly their caretakers who are insulted, and they probably need to chill out. Incidentally, this is also probably the case with retarded people: it's mainly friends and family of those people who are insulted. They need to chill out.

Don't be this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3pmMZDko60

There are much bigger issues.

[Red]

So lemme get this straight: If I use a derogatory term towards someone that actually applies to a certain group of people, and the person I'm using the term towards is doing something or acting/being in a way that is synonymous within this group?

For instance, off the top of my head, if I saw my white friend drinking grape soda, and I said "Grape soda? What're you, black?" as a joke/insult, is that something like what you're implying?

And it's actually bad to apply the same term that can be an insult that is not synonymous with the group? For example, "You call herpes cold sore? What're you, a girl?", is it something like that? And if it developed a different meaning in everyday use, that's okay?

Oh yeah, let's just say I have a relative with cancer. Is it okay to say that if I see something absolutely cringe-worthy on the internet, I can call it Cancer?

I mean, I never saw an issue with saying "retarded" or anything like that, especially since I'm not applying the term to an actual retard. EquALLity, what do you think about using the term "retarded" as an insult?

And that video you posted by the way was cancerific.

[PsYcHo]

Aren't both of those terms, when used without any direct condemnation towards the different groups from which they originated (homosexuals and autistic persons), mainly saying that something is outside of the normal realm?

I'm very familiar with both groups, but I don't believe being "retarded" is necessarily undesirable. Have you ever seen the face of an autistic child when there is a rainbow in the sky, or they get a hug from a loved one, or "Sponge Bob Square Pants" comes on T.V.? I wish I could feel that kind of all-encompassing joy.

Neither term when used as an insult is better or worse than the other one. I had a relative who was autistic, and I've raised thousands of dollars for an organization https://www.autismspeaks.org/ways-give?gclid=CKvmxYbR-c0CFTYW0wodr9ECrw that helped families care for an autistic relative, and I've supported many LGBT causes, (links are all NSFW... ), but in my humble opinion, an insult is supposed to make someone feel bad for not having the same properties as the insulter, so any term referring to a group of people could work, so it doesn't matter what term you use.

(Salad for lunch? VEGAN! Shrimp in your salad? CARNIST! Reading a bible? THEIST! Reading a different bible than I read? PAGAN! Sprite instead of Pepsi? BESPAWLER! )

Insulting someone is just you being an asshole. And when you intend to insult someone, being an asshole is what you are going for, so if they are offended, you achieved your objective.

[PsYcHo]

And that video you posted by the way was cancerific.

Separate note, are the clickylinks not working, or am I doing it wrong?

[brimstoneSalad]

So lemme get this straight: If I use a derogatory term towards someone that actually applies to a certain group of people, and the person I'm using the term towards is doing something or acting/being in a way that is synonymous within this group?

For instance, off the top of my head, if I saw my white friend drinking grape soda, and I said "Grape soda? What're you, black?" as a joke/insult, is that something like what you're implying?

That's not inaccurate, but I'm not saying it's nice or appropriate for the context. You'd have to use your best judgement. It does perpetuate a stereotype that may not be very accurate, but stereotypes aren't always harmful or negative.

Aren't both of those terms, when used without any direct condemnation towards the different groups from which they originated (homosexuals and autistic persons), mainly saying that something is outside of the normal realm?

Autistics are not necessarily mentally retarded. Some have very high IQs. In some cases they are socially retarded.

Mental retardation is an undesirable quality. Low IQs are detrimental to achieving life satisfaction through meaningful purpose and realization of goals, and inhibit contribution to society in general.

Autistics may contribute substantially to society in certain cases (if high functioning).

Neither term when used as an insult is better or worse than the other one.

Gay is frequently misused to mean "stupid" or simply "bad". Retarded is used synonymously to mean "stupid" -- it's not a misuse.

That's not to say it's any less hurtful, but it's more accurate. If "retarded" were used to mean "cruel" that would be a misuse, and a negative misuse which is worse than stupid so it's degrading.

Insulting someone is just you being an asshole. And when you intend to insult someone, being an asshole is what you are going for, so if they are offended, you achieved your objective.

I agree: An insult is in the intent.

If you insult and the person is offended, it's a successful insult.
If you insult and the person is not offended, it's a failed insult.

If you don't mean to insult and the person is offended... well, that's another problem.

Separate note, are the clickylinks not working, or am I doing it wrong?

I think you're putting a space after the URL.

[PsYcHo]

Autistics are not necessarily mentally retarded. Some have very high IQs. In some cases they are socially retarded.

Mental retardation is an undesirable quality. Low IQs are detrimental to achieving life satisfaction through meaningful purpose and realization of goals, and inhibit contribution to society in general .

My autistic relative (and just to put it out there, mental retardation was a clinically accurate term, but they changed the DSM definition to Autistic, but IMO a rose by any other name...) had a lot more "life satisfaction" than his uncle with the "superior" IQ. (My estimate is you sit at around 145, I hover around 120, but I punished my brain with a barrage of psychoactive chemicals for many years, so sometimes I don't word so good. ) Now did he ever contribute to society in a meaningful way? He never developed a product that made life easier, nor did he come up with a plan to reduce suffering among us more enlightened, but his positive attitude despite his many physical and mental limitations may have (did, in at least one case) directly contribute to those who do have the capacity to cause meaningful change to stop fretting over the condition of society while doing nothing about it, and take steps (however small) to make the world around them a little better.

Autistics may contribute substantially to society in certain cases (if high functioning).

Usually "high functioning" autistics have Aspergers Syndrome, but other than social inadequacies, they are able to adapt to differing life challenges and care for themselves, and I don't agree with the expansion of the DSM to encompass just about everyone with a social dysfunction as being on the Autism spectrum. They can contribute to society, but often are self-absorbed. (Not a study, just my personal observations)

Gay is frequently misused to mean "stupid" or simply "bad". Retarded is used synonymously to mean "stupid" -- it's not a misuse.

I've used the term "gay" to describe something within those parameters, and I am fully aware of the most common definition (homosexual), but if you said "Look at those two gay gentleman" today, it would have an entirely different meaning than if you said it in 1846. Language is constantly changing, and calling your vehicle's engine retarded could be offensive today because of associations with humans, but in 1946 it just meant that it was not running at its full capacity. I think the real problem is the ignorance of the people most likely to call something "gay" or "retarded". These are the same type of people who cannot differentiate between "there, their, they're/ plane, plain, /two,to, too, et cetera."

If you don't mean to insult and the person is offended... well, that's another problem.

Who would've thunk PC culture could have a downside?

Separate note, are the clickylinks not working, or am I doing it wrong?

I think you're putting a space after the URL.

Dammit! Always something simple, but that explains it. Thanks!

[EquALLity]

I know, and it's offensive because they're not actually comparable; the analogy you're trying to draw isn't there.

Turning something that isn't bad into an insult is completely different from turning something that's actually bad into an insult for a trait it's analogous to. A quality that is already devalued can not be devalued more by being used as an insult: it's devaluing the person who isn't retarded to call that person retarded.
When you use "gay" as an insult, you're devaluing gay people, because homosexuality isn't a trait that has lesser value.

That's a good point. The logic for attempting to justify each usage is different, so the comparison doesn't really work.

Stupid and retarded are basically the same thing, but to varying degrees. Retardation is that which is below a particular intelligence threshold. Stupid people are unintelligent. Stupid is distinct from ignorant, which is just lacking in some knowledge.

I know what it means to be mentally challenged, but I think it's unnecessarily cruel to people who are mentally challenged to use a word that used to identify them as a way to attack other people and call them stupid.

Why is it necessary? Why not just use a different word? What does it take away from the meaning of something to use a different word?

I'm not sure why you mentioned ignorance.

In order to devalue something, you have to equate it with something that has lower value.

Even if it's inaccurate, that's true.

For example, calling somebody a cockroach as an insult: that doesn't devalue cockroaches, because the person is being called that in order to devalue the person down to the low value roaches already have.

Yeah, I see what you're saying.

Female dogs, Pigs, and Cockroaches have no idea what's going on because they don't understand most human language. It's mainly their caretakers who are insulted, and they probably need to chill out. Incidentally, this is also probably the case with retarded people: it's mainly friends and family of those people who are insulted. They need to chill out.

I don't think anyone is offended by using words like 'bitch' except dogmatic vegans. Most dog-owners use the word.
The difference with the word bitch is, as you alluded to, we don't really connect it in our minds with dogs when we say it. It's different with the word 'retarded', everyone is basically aware what they're saying there.

So again, why not just use a different word?
There is harm in using the word 'retarded' (I'm not saying it's major harm). There's no harm in replacing it with a different word.

Don't be this guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3pmMZDko60

There are much bigger issues.

John Sakars.
I'm not watching that.

I'm aware there are much bigger issues. This is my opinion on this issue.

[brimstoneSalad]

My autistic relative [...] had a lot more "life satisfaction" than his uncle with the "superior" IQ.

People with higher IQs may have much more overall variability, with the freedom to make some seriously bad life choices. We have to consider averages, both in terms of quality of life, and contribution.
But even given that, with a condition like autism, that's unlikely: they have highs and lows. While they may seem very happy much of the time, they certainly aren't when they're throwing a fit. They exist on an emotional roller coaster, one minute in marvel, another in terror or rage and pain. Most people only see one side of that coin, and there's a tendency to play down the other due to love of the afflicted person.

his positive attitude despite his many physical and mental limitations may have (did, in at least one case) directly contribute to those who do have the capacity to cause meaningful change to stop fretting over the condition of society while doing nothing about it, and take steps (however small) to make the world around them a little better.

This is a silver lining, and I don't think it compensates for the unfortunate state; like praising the miracle of human cooperation after a natural disaster and how it brought everybody together. There is good to it, perhaps, but that's optimism speaking: there is far, far more bad.

There are a number of good articles and accounts from parents having to deal with this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ravishly/my-daughter-is-a-gift-but-her-autism-is-not_b_6763052.html
My Daughter Is a Gift, But Her Autism Is Not

While my oldest son has Asperger’s, and might just become a very dedicated computer programmer someday, my daughter can currently only attend school half days with the assistance of an aide. She is not a misunderstood genius who happens to be a little socially awkward. She is a child whose brain misfires seemingly without reason, who can cover her ears and scream in sensory pain three rooms away from the sound of an elevator ding, and who will turn her entire body away from a toddler complimenting her princess dress. She is also an astonishingly creative and expressive artist, who has the deepest relationship with her cat that you will ever see. She is both crushingly disabled by autism and absolutely, emphatically her own self. She is a gift, that much is true. But her autism, like my missing fingers or my damaged DNA, is not.

https://themighty.com/2015/03/when-people-say-autism-is-a-gift/
Please Don't Tell Me Autism Is a Gift

Many of our children are not savants. Many of our children are not even on target with their development for their age. Many of our children will live with us for the rest of their lives.

So, please, don’t tell me autism is a gift. When my child has been screaming every 30 minutes all day long and we have to go to the store and he screams at the checkout, the cashier telling me he’ll be OK and will be great with numbers when he grows up is not what I want to hear.

When I look into my son’s eyes when he doesn’t understand his surroundings and his anxiety and fear are palpable, there’s nothing in this world I wouldn’t do to take that fear away. You cannot look into his panicking gaze as he’s shaking and cowering from everyday stimuli and tell me this is a gift or an enlightening experience.

Please don’t tell me his autism is a gift when I take his little sister to the hospital for a concussion resulting from an impulsive outburst he could not control.

When I see his older brother with tears in his eyes yet again because his little brother doesn’t want to play with him or has lashed out at him, I don’t accept that this is a gift. He’s hurting and his needs are put on the back burner every day; I see no positive in that other than I’m hopeful it will build character and instill compassion in him.

Here's an even more depressing one on Down's syndrome:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2803834/I-wish-d-aborted-son-ve-spent-47-years-caring-s-shocking-admission-read-judge.html

[brimstoneSalad]

I know what it means to be mentally challenged, but I think it's unnecessarily cruel to people who are mentally challenged to use a word that used to identify them as a way to attack other people and call them stupid.

Retarded stopped being used casually to refer to the condition around those suffering from it when it became derogatory, then "special" was used, and now kids are insulting each other by saying "special".
The trait itself is inherently undesirable. What you're talking about is trying to shelter them from that reality.

While it may be that it is desirable to shelter them from reality, is that the job of society at large, or the job of the parents and caretakers of these people?
Or better yet, maybe they should just not be taught to be offended at these words, and to grow a thicker skin.

"Stupid" could also be offensive against stupid people. "Dogmatic" as a derogatory insult could be offensive against dogmatic people who regard that positively. "Blind" can be regarded as insulting to the blind, etc. "Ugly" could be offensive to ugly people. The list goes on. This is a slippery slope that leads to madness in terms of obsessive political correctness.

Here's an example of how far obsessive social justice warriors take this stuff, and this is only about "ableism":
http://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-w ... avoid.html

Among them are:
Crazy, Cretin, Daft, Derp, Dumb, Idiot. Imbecile, Insane, Lame, Loony, Mad, Maniac, Mental, Moron, Nuts, Psycho, Simpleton, Spaz, Stupid, Wacko.

And then this page goes on to give a list of approved non-ableist words.
All of which could easily offend people who suffer from those conditions, from ignorance to cowardice.

Why is it necessary? Why not just use a different word? What does it take away from the meaning of something to use a different word?

Any number of words could be offensive. This isn't like eating plants instead of meat; easily offended people are going to find a way to be offended, and the social justice warriors will continue to censor and shame until society pushes back. And if you're insulting somebody, isn't that offensive too?

If you're worried about hurting people's feelings, more so than degrading a group by misapplying a term to something derogatory when it otherwise isn't, that opens a huge can of worms.
You can just not use any of these words, and never insult anybody, OR any ideas. That's going to handicap you, though, and any message you're trying to advocate.

If the issue is protecting super sensitive individuals, they just need to stay in their safe spaces, rather than demand that society as a whole bend to their whims in order to avoid insulting them. OR just stop being so sensitive. All of this sensitivity and triggering is not psychologically healthy (I've discussed this elsewhere).

Well adjusted blind people don't have a problem with people using the term "blind". They know it's not a good thing and they'd rather be able to see, but they find value in themselves despite that. Retarded people don't have a high enough IQ to figure that out on their own, likely the only reason they care is because they've been manipulated into it by their caretakers, who were the ones actually being offended by this word useage.

I don't think anyone is offended by using words like 'bitch' except dogmatic vegans.

And only dogmatic anti-ablists and caretakers of the retarded tend to be offended by that. It's very widely used, and usually doesn't refer to clinical retardation anymore.
You'll hear occasional probably scripted encounters with retarded people speaking out against it, but probably only because somebody taught them it was offensive instead of teaching them otherwise.
Kind of like a dog owner teaching a dog to get angry and bark when the word "bitch" is used. Not a very credible reason to avoid it.

There is harm in using the word 'retarded' (I'm not saying it's major harm). There's no harm in replacing it with a different word.

If you give in, and you do that, you will likely find that you're bullied into replacing every word until you have none left.
A very good place to draw the line is using a quality incorrectly, and thereby giving it a more negative value, rather than bringing the value of the insulted down to a preexisting negative status.

Like I said before, it would be bad to refer to the actions of a serial killer as "retarded"; it's not retarded, it's evil. That's a lot worse, and that would incorrectly degrade retarded people by creating the implication that they're evil and inherently violent.

[EquALLity]

Retarded stopped being used casually to refer to the condition around those suffering from it when it became derogatory, then "special" was used, and now kids are insulting each other by saying "special".
The trait itself is inherently undesirable. What you're talking about is trying to shelter them from that reality.

I don't hear people use the word 'special' a lot. I actually don't even remember the last time I heard anyone say that, but apparently 'retard' used to be something people said all the time.

I think that teaching people why it's wrong to use words like that in a derogatory way will decrease the amount they use the word. Just teaching them not to use a word probably isn't useful, because like you point out, it doesn't address the mindset behind the word.

While it may be that it is desirable to shelter them from reality, is that the job of society at large, or the job of the parents and caretakers of these people?

I don't agree with the framing of this, but I don't understand the distinction here.

Or better yet, maybe they should just not be taught to be offended at these words, and to grow a thicker skin.

But the word is actually offensive. It is literally insulting people who are mentally challenged.

"Stupid" could also be offensive against stupid people. "Dogmatic" as a derogatory insult could be offensive against dogmatic people who regard that positively. "Blind" can be regarded as insulting to the blind, etc. "Ugly" could be offensive to ugly people. The list goes on. This is a slippery slope that leads to madness in terms of obsessive political correctness.

1) No people actually see themselves as stupid, so there's no one to be offended. It also isn't always referencing IQ; it's often about things like open-mindedness, and being open-minded or not is a choice.
2) Using dogmatism in a derogatory way encourages critical thinking (the opposite of dogmatism). Using 'retard' doesn't make people not mentally challenged, so it doesn't have the same utility.
3) I don't know about you, but I don't go around calling people ugly. Yeah, I don't think you should do that.

Here's an example of how far obsessive social justice warriors take this stuff, and this is only about "ableism":
http://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-w ... avoid.html

Among them are:
Crazy, Cretin, Daft, Derp, Dumb, Idiot. Imbecile, Insane, Lame, Loony, Mad, Maniac, Mental, Moron, Nuts, Psycho, Simpleton, Spaz, Stupid, Wacko.

And then this page goes on to give a list of approved non-ableist words.

Why did you put ableism in quotes?

The reason that list goes too far is because nobody associates things like 'crazy' with psychiatric conditions like schizophrenia. Everyone knows that 'retard' is a reference to mentally challenged people.

All of which could easily offend people who suffer from those conditions, from ignorance to cowardice.

I've never heard of anyone say that it's wrong to use the word 'stupid'. That's the fringe of the fringe of political correctness. It's like me trying to discredit veganism because of Freelee the Banana Girl.

Also, nobody is afraid of the word 'retard', it's just unnecessarily insulting to people who are mentally challenged.

Any number of words could be offensive. This isn't like eating plants instead of meat; easily offended people are going to find a way to be offended, and the social justice warriors will continue to censor and shame until society pushes back. And if you're insulting somebody, isn't that offensive too?

It seems like you're making assumptions about my position. I don't have some kind of dogma against offending people.

I'm not against offending people- I'm just against offending people when there is no actual utility to it, and you're just insulting a group of people who haven't done anything wrong (particularly about something that makes their lives difficult- it's adding insult to injury).

If you're worried about hurting people's feelings, more so than degrading a group by misapplying a term to something derogatory when it otherwise isn't, that opens a huge can of worms.
You can just not use any of these words, and never insult anybody, OR any ideas. That's going to handicap you, though, and any message you're trying to advocate.

This doesn't address my question (how does not using the word 'retard' hurt your messaging?) I've never said anything about being against hurting peoples' feelings in every situation or being against offending ideas, so I'm not sure what your point is.

I think offending people intellectually by challenging their beliefs is a good thing. I think inadvertently attacking mentally challenged people when you can just use a word that doesn't is bad.
Again, why do it when you can replace it with a different word? What is the purpose?

If the issue is protecting super sensitive individuals, they just need to stay in their safe spaces, rather than demand that society as a whole bend to their whims in order to avoid insulting them. OR just stop being so sensitive. All of this sensitivity and triggering is not psychologically healthy (I've discussed this elsewhere).

What?
This isn't about safe spaces, I don't usually agree with those.

I agree that safe spaces often aren't healthy, but it's also not healthy to essentially tell people to "grow a pair".

Well adjusted blind people don't have a problem with people using the term "blind". They know it's not a good thing and they'd rather be able to see, but they find value in themselves despite that. Retarded people don't have a high enough IQ to figure that out on their own, likely the only reason they care is because they've been manipulated into it by their caretakers, who were the ones actually being offended by this word useage.

'Blind' is different, because being unable to see isn't seen as the same as being unintelligent.

Why does it matter what provoked them to find the word insulting? And what about the caretakers being insulted?

And only dogmatic anti-ablists and caretakers of the retarded tend to be offended by that. It's very widely used, and usually doesn't refer to clinical retardation anymore.
You'll hear occasional probably scripted encounters with retarded people speaking out against it, but probably only because somebody taught them it was offensive instead of teaching them otherwise.
Kind of like a dog owner teaching a dog to get angry and bark when the word "bitch" is used. Not a very credible reason to avoid it.

I don't find it to be very widely used. It's certainly not used as much as bitch, and everyone knows it's a reference to people who are mentally challenged.

If you give in, and you do that, you will likely find that you're bullied into replacing every word until you have none left.

What?
This isn't some slippery slope in which certain people are in a conspiracy to destroy language.

I'm just saying that it's wrong to insult people by calling them 'retarded' because it's unnecessarily insulting to people who are mentally challenged.