Retarded.

Turtwig wrote: »

Quoting this because it's somewhat relevant.



The poster clearly did not intentionally insult any poster posting in the thread. If he had replaced the R word with 'idiot' most posters would likely have had no objection to his post. That says a lot. He didn't intentionally go out of his way to offend someone. Rather it happened by a choice of poor wording. If this was because he fell into the camp of the poster above it would have been excessively harsh to card him. All a card would have served to do is annoy and irritate him and possibly even lead to more cards and thread disruption. It was, most likely, not meant to offend anyone. We've all had situations where we've used a poor choice of wording, or our tongues slipped, and we'd want others to give us the benefit of the doubt. That's all that's happened here.

This way the ball is in still court, the line has been clearly drawn in the sand and there's a chance this whole situation can be resolved amicably.

That was my reasoning,

He used the word in several posts and when called on it clarified that it was exactly the right word to call a named equality officer of the equality authority. So I don't know how you conclude its not intentional. I don't agree with the equality officer decision in this case either, but that's irrelevant. Defaming a named officer several times, while using a very unacceptable term for people with special needs and care, and who can't defend themselves, is not really on. The defaming posts and terms of abuse used still remain on the thread. The persons last post on the subject remains "[she] fully deserves the application of the name retard." I don't see any withdrawal of the term as you requested, never mind an apology for using same.

Dades wrote: »

I don't believe you really care about a potential defamation issue. If the poster had called that public officer an "asshole" would you have started this thread? I'm guessing no - so it's frankly unhlepful to bring the legal aspect of things into this.

Public figures get called names all the time on internet forums. It would be ridiculous for us to go around deleting posts every time someone had an axe to grind with say, a politician, and called them an asshole or something.

We've agreed the actual word involved was distasteful and have made a declaration in public of same. I don't expect an apology from the poster or require one, as I know that term is ubiquitous amongst a certain generation. That's just a fact - on the Internet and on the street. What we can do is ask in future that it not be used on our forum - which is what has been done.

Using the word retard is indeed the issue.
I don't agree with her decision or opinion, but that is irrelevant.
The defamation of a named person in public is a secondary, but important issue, especially considering the word used to defame her.
The person is not a public figure, she is a public sector employee. There is a world of difference.

I was asked to report it if I had a concern . . . I reported it.
I was asked to go to feedback if I had a concern . . . I went to feedback
I was asked in feedback did I report it . . . I explained I did.

I have reported it, and given the feedback, and answered all questions I've been asked.

Curiously, a lot more, I might add, than the poster who (a) used a completely derogatory term for people with special needs and (b) used that term to defame a named person in public, has been asked to do.

You don't like the feedback ?

C'est la vie.

I can do no more.

At the time of writing this post, the poster has still failed to edit and retract the remark as requested by the moderator, and the posts remain, that's an issue facing boards and the poster concerned and the equality officer and special needs Ireland, not me.

When following boards in the past, I haven't seen this tip toe method applied to other posters before, so what is the reasoning in this case ?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think you might be missing the point that the verb "retard" or the adjective "retarded" have meanings that have no connection with developmental psychology - for example, in electronics or mechanics.

The problem does not lie in the word, but in some instances of its application.

And calling a person "a retard" is a no-no.

I think you might be missing the point, terming something dislikeable or objectionable gay or f.aggoted does not mean it's happy or a bundle of twigs. The problem does not lie in the word gay or f.aggot which can mean entirely different things. People are well able to tell the difference.