What would be the most offensive word in the English language now?

The Rape of Lucretia · 28-02-2019 7:13pm

P*C has to be one of the most recent offensive term to come into common usage, and is flung around without any consideration for its deeply embedded abusive appropriation of a characteristic as basic as colour.

OK, its an acronym, but 'p***le *f c****r', with its inherent claim that those who arent P*C have no colour, are blank non-people in effect, is one of the greatest acts of arrogance by one people upon another. The exclusive club of only one colour of person classifying as being of the correct by their own reckoning is outrageous. Yet seems to be gaining ground as a passive aggressive term of abuse by the day.

Ted Johnson · 28-02-2019 7:31pm

Going up to an actual handicap and shouting 'retard!' in his face would be a bit ****ty alright. But calling people retards online is just slagging.

My two cents anyway.

Hercule Poirot · 28-02-2019 7:33pm

Ted Johnson wrote: »

Going up to an actual handicap and shouting 'retard!' in his face would be a bit ****ty alright. But calling people retards online is just slagging.

My two cents anyway.

This is the thing, I've only ever heard retard used as an insult to someone who wasn't retarded - it's like calling a white person a ******, it defies logic and is therefore deemed more acceptable

Sorry about that · 28-02-2019 10:31pm

Hercule Poirot wrote: »

This is the thing, I've only ever heard retard used as an insult to someone who wasn't retarded - it's like calling a white person a ******, it defies logic and is therefore deemed more acceptable

Fair point, it's not meant as more than a harmless insult- but it has jarred with people for years. It's the most crude description of a person who has a learning disability, used to make fun of someone who doesn't.

Yes I am obviously extremely emotive about this, but so is the entire movement of the Special Olympics. It is more important to those who are affected than those who are not. But yes, free speech and no harm meant, accepted.

AndrewJRenko · 28-02-2019 11:11pm

Ted Johnson wrote: »

Going up to an actual handicap and shouting 'retard!' in his face would be a bit ****ty alright. But calling people retards online is just slagging.

My two cents anyway.

Sorry, but what is 'an actual handicap'?

Wibbs wrote: »

You'd swear I'm advocating shouting "Spa!" at special needs kids for the craic. I'm not, in case anyone's conflustered.

Nope, no-one has sworn that you're shouting at kids. BTW, they're not 'special needs kids'. Please don't define people by their disability. They are kids with disabilities.

Negative uses of 'retard', as in 'that's retarded' continues to promote negative stigma around people with intellectual disabilities.

jimgoose wrote: »

Some of us are of the view that "helping" vulnerable individuals by grandstanding about stupid words is roughly on a level with neckbeards "helping" abused women by dressing up as giant fannies.

Have you tried listening to many people with intellectual disabilities to hear their views?

animaal wrote: »

You may choose to believe that the Boards moderators have no problem with insults to people with disabilities. I choose to believe that Boards decides not to ban words that have some valid use in today's world.

I don't think the words themselves are the problem, I think it's the degree to which the speaker intends to hurt/insult.

"Retard" has a number of uses, most of which are not meant in an insulting way. As mentioned before, in aviation, plus perhaps "fire-retardant". I'm sure there are others.

And for both that word and "the 'N' word", I do think the intent is what's important. And that can't be automatically filtered.

I should be able to be able to use "the 'N' word" in a number of contexts - e.g. to quote an older literary work, or to debate use of the world in today's world. Neither use is me attempting to insult anybody.

On the other hand, banning a word just leads to other proxy words in their stead. If you ban these words, and people instead start more widely using insults such as "spook" or "golliwog" or "mongoloid", are we any better off? It's the intent that's the problem.

If you search for references to retard, you will see that the vast majority of uses (outside of this particular thread) are in an insulting context

https://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?sort=newest&date_to=&date_from=&query=retard&page=3
This promotes negative stigma for people with intellectual disabilities.
Uses of the technical term are few and far between, and there are plenty of alternative words that can be used in these contexts.

There is no reason to block other words and allow 'retard'.

One eyed Jack · 28-02-2019 11:40pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

BTW, they're not 'special needs kids'. Please don't define people by their disability. They are kids with disabilities.

You have to be taking the piss now Andrew at this stage. You know well the intent of Wibbs post, and you still had to try and find something to make yourself feel morally superior. There’s nothing wrong with referring to special needs kids if that’s what we’re talking about. That’s not “defining people by their disability”, it’s referring to a specific group of people who themselves are defined and categorised by their disability.

You’ll get some desperate fcukwit along any minute now to correct you on your use of the term ‘disability’ instead of referring to special needs kids as challenged, or “differently abled” or some other such nonsense in an effort to appear even more morally superior to you!

What you’re attempting to do is use “people first language”, and making a complete balls of it tbh. The idea of people first language is rejected by many disabled people, including organisations which represent deaf, blind and autistic people, and there are other models such as identity first language -

The most common alternative to person-first language is usually called identity-first language, as it places the identifying condition before the personal term. For example, while someone who prefers person-first language might ask to be called a "person with autism", someone who prefers identity-first language would ask to be called an "autistic person". There is no common term for use of identifying conditions as nouns, but it is not usually preferred apart from select communities, such as dwarfs. Others have proposed "person-centered language", which, instead of being a replacement linguistic rule, promotes prioritizing the preferences of those who are being referred to and argues for greater nuance in the language used to describe people and groups of people.

Hello cognitive dissonance my old friend :pac:

AndrewJRenko · 01-03-2019 12:07am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You have to be taking the piss now Andrew at this stage. You know well the intent of Wibbs post, and you still had to try and find something to make yourself feel morally superior. There’s nothing wrong with referring to special needs kids if that’s what we’re talking about. That’s not “defining people by their disability”, it’s referring to a specific group of people who themselves are defined and categorised by their disability.

This is the exact issue that is caused by the constant, repeated negative stigmatising of people with intellectual disabilities. People with disabilities are absolutely NOT defined by their disability. They ARE people first, just like you and me, with all the ups, downs, strengths, weaknesses of everyone else. Some of them are fantastic, some of them are lazy as hell, some of them are obnoxious.

The term 'special needs kids' defines those kids with their disabilities - not by their hair or their size or their football skills or whatever.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’ll get some desperate fcukwit along any minute now to correct you on your use of the term ‘disability’ instead of referring to special needs kids as challenged, or “differently abled” or some other such nonsense in an effort to appear even more morally superior to you!

What you’re attempting to do is use “people first language”, and making a complete balls of it tbh. The idea of people first language is rejected by many disabled people, including organisations which represent deaf, blind and autistic people, and there are other models such as identity first language -

Are you the 'desperate fcukwit' given that you've come along and corrected me?

I have come across this issue in the autism sector, where there is a hot debate about people with autism vs autistic people. I haven't seen the debate in other sectors in Ireland - have you? What Irish disability organisations have rejected people-first language?

Wibbs · 01-03-2019 12:13am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Nope, no-one has sworn that you're shouting at kids. BTW, they're not 'special needs kids'. Please don't define people by their disability. They are kids with disabilities.

And yet you go right ahead and define them. :pac: One would struggle to make this up. And yet...

01-03-2019 12:20am

niggerape

AndrewJRenko · 01-03-2019 12:27am

Wibbs wrote: »

And yet you go right ahead and define them. :pac: One would struggle to make this up. And yet...

Nope - the difference is that I identified one aspect - something they HAVE, not something they ARE. You defined them as BEING disabled, not HAVING a disability.

That's the difference.

01-03-2019 12:55am

Andrew, you blew every bit of credibility you possibly could have by calling out Wibbs on that.

You're just a whinger. If you had to say something about that, it means you'll say say something about everything. So there's no point listening to you.

One eyed Jack · 01-03-2019 12:55am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

This is the exact issue that is caused by the constant, repeated negative stigmatising of people with intellectual disabilities. People with disabilities are absolutely NOT defined by their disability. They ARE people first, just like you and me, with all the ups, downs, strengths, weaknesses of everyone else. Some of them are fantastic, some of them are lazy as hell, some of them are obnoxious.

They are Andrew, as I’ve just shown you, and as I’ve also just shown you, in speaking for themselves, many deaf, blind and autistic people reject your linguistic gymnastics. A deaf person or an autistic person isn’t anything like me, because I’m neither deaf nor autistic, and “Jack who is blind in one eye” is a bit of a mouthful :pac:

Unlike you Andrew, I can use people first language, or I can use identity first language, I’m not so up myself that I imagine myself to be the language police and everyone should conform to the way I want them to speak. I make allowances for the fact that other people don’t express themselves the way I do, and I take my cues from the way they speak about themselves.

The term 'special needs kids' defines those kids with their disabilities - not by their hair or their size or their football skills or whatever.

Because their disabilities are relevant in the context in which they are being spoken about! If we were talking about their hair or their football skills, then their hair or football skills would be relevant in those contexts. It’s similar to the way in which you refer to people as gammon - you’re defining people by their politics and their skin colour. You’re defining a group of people by what you perceive to be a common identifier.

Are you the 'desperate fcukwit' given that you've come along and corrected me?

I haven’t corrected you Andrew. I was making the point that someone else who wants to appear morally superior to you would be along to correct you. That’s how these things generally go - someone always has to up the ante to make themselves out to be even more woke than the last guy :pac:

I have come across this issue in the autism sector, where there is a hot debate about people with autism vs autistic people. I haven't seen the debate in other sectors in Ireland - have you? What Irish disability organisations have rejected people-first language?

I’ve had the debate in many other sectors in Ireland, in employment, education and healthcare. I’m not aware of any Irish organisations which have rejected people first language, but that was never my point. You said that we should listen to people with disabilities, I pointed out to you disabled people who don’t share your opinions, and now you’re doing the same as you did on the thread about transgender people and trying to nail it down to Irish organisations only.

What? American disability organisations aren’t good enough for you, but you don’t mind using terms like gammon where they make no sense in an Irish context? As I already pointed out - cognitive dissonance.

AndrewJRenko · 01-03-2019 1:08am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I haven’t corrected you Andrew. I was making the point that someone else who wants to appear morally superior to you would be along to correct you. That’s how these things generally go - someone always has to up the ante to make themselves out to be even more woke than the last guy :pac:

Yeah, that's exactly what what happened - somebody upped the ante to appear morally superior. It's actually hilarious that you can't see that this is EXACTLY what you did. PMSL here.

One eyed Jack · 01-03-2019 1:13am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yeah, that's exactly what what happened - somebody upped the ante to appear morally superior. It's actually hilarious that you can't see that this is EXACTLY what you did. PMSL here.

That’s not what happened Andrew. I don’t care about appearing morally superior to you because we couldn’t possibly be more different, we have nothing in common other than I’d imagine you’re as gammon coloured as I am.

01-03-2019 1:36am

Person with disabilities. Person of colour. etc.

The only way to argue for it is to define everyone like that. "He's an altruistic person." should be frowned upon as well and replaced with "He's a person with altruistic tendencies."

Otherwise, you're saying disabilities are worse than altruism. There is no getting around it, and that's why so many people hate this condescending wordplay.

old_aussie · 01-03-2019 1:52am

The word "moderate" in front of islam

rgodard80a · 01-03-2019 7:31am

Tranpedonigger

AndrewJRenko · 01-03-2019 7:43am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Person with disabilities. Person of colour. etc.

The only way to argue for it is to define everyone like that. "He's an altruistic person." should be frowned upon as well and replaced with "He's a person with altruistic tendencies."

Otherwise, you're saying disabilities are worse than altruism. There is no getting around it, and that's why so many people hate this condescending wordplay.

I'm not saying anything about altruism. I'm talking about a well established principle for around 20 years for anyone who respects people with disabilities.

AndrewJRenko · 01-03-2019 7:44am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s not what happened Andrew. I don’t care about appearing morally superior to you because we couldn’t possibly be more different, we have nothing in common other than I’d imagine you’re as gammon coloured as I am.

Fair enough Jack. I believe you.

One eyed Jack · 01-03-2019 8:33am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm not saying anything about altruism. I'm talking about a well established principle for around 20 years for anyone who respects people with disabilities.

And identity first language has been around even longer, and just like people first language, doesn’t indicate anything about a person’s views on disabled people. It’s linguistics Andrew is all, and as I’ve demonstrated already - numerous organisations which represent disabled people reject the idea of people first language - an idea which originated in the US, rejected by disabled people in the US.

It’s not that commonly used here in my experience - special needs assistants, social workers, employers, legal professionals, they’ll still generally refer to disabled people by their disability, as that for them is treating disabled people with respect. They’re not afraid to acknowledge a disabled person, as opposed to this idea that a person cannot be defined by their disability - they can, and they generally are defined by their disability. It’s how we identify their needs, as opposed to treating them as though they don’t have special needs.

seekenee · 02-03-2019 10:47am

if you're insulting someone by calling them "X"

you're implying that "X" is inferior

therefore it is offensive to anyone identified as "X"

doesn't matter if "X" is a previously official term (now slang) or the currently used word - it amounts to the same thing

AndrewJRenko · 03-03-2019 11:00am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And identity first language has been around even longer, and just like people first language, doesn’t indicate anything about a person’s views on disabled people. It’s linguistics Andrew is all, and as I’ve demonstrated already - numerous organisations which represent disabled people reject the idea of people first language - an idea which originated in the US, rejected by disabled people in the US.

I'm not sure that you've actually demonstrated this. YOu have claimed it, but I don't recall any evidence - though given that it is largely a US phenomenon, it is really a moot point when it comes to appropriate language for an Irish discussion board. Do any of those organisations that you're referencing suggest that it's a good idea to use 'retard' as a casual, derogatory term?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not that commonly used here in my experience - special needs assistants, social workers, employers, legal professionals, they’ll still generally refer to disabled people by their disability, as that for them is treating disabled people with respect. They’re not afraid to acknowledge a disabled person, as opposed to this idea that a person cannot be defined by their disability - they can, and they generally are defined by their disability. It’s how we identify their needs, as opposed to treating them as though they don’t have special needs.

Certainly, the 'special needs' terminology is deeply embedded in the education sector, with SNAs and the EPSEN Act and more. This certainly contributes to the often patronising and infantilising attitudes experienced by students with disabilities in schools here.

And you've fallen into one of the age-old trap of making assumptions about people's needs. If you want to identify a person's needs, ask them what they need. Anything else is an assumption.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And identity first language has been around even longer, and just like people first language, doesn’t indicate anything about a person’s views on disabled people. It’s linguistics Andrew is all, and as I’ve demonstrated already - numerous organisations which represent disabled people reject the idea of people first language - an idea which originated in the US, rejected by disabled people in the US.

It’s not that commonly used here in my experience - special needs assistants, social workers, employers, legal professionals, they’ll still generally refer to disabled people by their disability, as that for them is treating disabled people with respect. They’re not afraid to acknowledge a disabled person, as opposed to this idea that a person cannot be defined by their disability - they can, and they generally are defined by their disability. It’s how we identify their needs, as opposed to treating them as though they don’t have special needs.

gormdubhgorm · 15-03-2019 6:52am

Ted Johnson wrote: »

Going up to an actual handicap and shouting 'retard!' in his face would be a bit ****ty alright. But calling people retards online is just slagging.

My two cents anyway.

'Going to an actual handicap'

Well...

Ah I won't bother.

Paddy Cow · 15-03-2019 11:18am

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

'Going to an actual handicap'

Well...

Ah I won't bother.

He means well

Deebles McBeebles · 15-03-2019 11:22am

Gobermouch

gormdubhgorm · 15-03-2019 1:39pm

Here is a list of ethnic slurs according to wikipedia.

From a worldwide perspective - some of them are fairly creative/dare I say it amusing!

They even have 'Taig' and 'Knacker' on the list! (Is it blurred out by boards?)

Ethnic slurs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs

It would be interesting to see what words boards.ie blocks out from this list.

'Taig, Pickaninny, Paki , Spic, Chink' are perfectly fine?

I remember poor auld Mary O'Rourke got in trouble for saying 'working like blacks'.
In the thick of an election.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/orourke-sparks-row-over-blacks-remarks-26403140.html

Is that racist or just a slip of the tongue? Colloquialism??? Ignorance or latent racism?

Profanities list

There is a list of profanities as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Profanity

I never heard of this one 'CHWDP' I will have to try it if I ever meet a polish policeman. Oh sorry police-PERSON.

CHWDP or HWDP (read ha-voo-de-pe) is a frequently used acronym of the Polish phrase chuj w dupę policji, literally meaning "(put a) dick in the police's ass."[1][better source needed] It can be seen as a Polish equivalent to the English-language phrase ACAB ("All Cops Are Bastards"), although is more accurately translated as **** the police. policeman.

CHWDP ???? I never heard of ACAB either ? Should we use AGAB in Ireland?

LGBT slurs

There are even more Gay slurs or LGBT slurs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LGBT-related_slurs

ACDC ? Back in black will never be the same for me again.
That's a gas one.
Also 'Diet Gay' ? surely that would make any potential target laugh not be insulted?

Disabled related terms

Disabled related terms with negative connotations (there is a list for that too)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disability-related_terms_with_negative_connotations

According to the disabled list retard has become 'tard'. I am not sure it could get much shorter!
'Window licker' sounds like the potential name of a window cleaning company to me.
Be careful when using 'Differently abled' by the way!
Daft is even on the list...
The use of the phrase 'Deaf people' is perfectly fine still.
It is not an insult.

According to wikipedia they are a different grouping entirely:

"In Deaf culture, person-first language (i.e., "Person who is deaf", "person who is hard of hearing") has long been rejected since being culturally Deaf is seen as a source of positive identity and pride. Instead, Deaf culture uses Deaf-first language: "Deaf person" or "hard-of-hearing person".Capital D -Deaf is as stated prior, is referred to as a student who first identifies as that. Lower case d- deaf is where a person has hearing loss. Typically, those that consider themselves Deaf, first and foremost prior to any other identity."

But then again if you you shout at a deaf person they would not hear you. So I cannot see much of a problem here.

Misogynistic slurs

There is a mysoginst list as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Misogynistic_slurs

Who heard of Virago?
I suppose it is better than 'good girl yourself!?
And there was me thinking he was a former snooker player now commentator?
I pefer my auld fellas one 'she's no clocking hen' thankfully I did not see that on any list so I assume it is still OK?

So there is plenty there for people to enjoy/get offended by/to tell other people to get offended by.

Potential boards list?

I was thinking there should be separate boards.ie list that people seem to get offended by.
'Back seat modder' 'SJW' 'Straw man' etc

Personally I find 'have you a source for that?' the most offensive thing that can be said on boards.ie

Feisar · 15-03-2019 1:56pm

****** or ****

Fifty grades of shay. · 15-03-2019 2:00pm

"Work".

gormdubhgorm · 15-03-2019 2:01pm

Feisar wrote: »

****** or ****

The whole ****ing thing is blurred out you ****ing white ******, ****, retard, knacker of a poster.

(used sarcastically mods - by the way)

Feisar · 15-03-2019 2:04pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The whole ****ing thing is blurred out you ****ing white ******, ****, retard, knacker of a poster.

(used sarcastically mods - by the way)

Yea but I bet you know the words I typed!

Lux23 · 15-03-2019 2:04pm

It's still moist.

gormdubhgorm · 15-03-2019 2:09pm

Ted Johnson wrote: »

Going up to an actual handicap and shouting 'retard!' in his face would be a bit ****ty alright. But calling people retards online is just slagging.

My two cents anyway.

Just to let you know that I think the use of the word handicap does not seem offensive in your post of itself - as in context is it well meaning when judged by the rest of the post.

However, what is amusing and possibly offensive to 'handicaps' maybe the use of the word 'actual' before the word handicap.
Which gives the implied sense that you have limited contact with 'actual handicaps' and view them as a collective sub-species.
But it is good that you do not call the 'handicaps' - 'retards' all the same!

Feisar · 15-03-2019 2:10pm

Lux23 wrote: »

It's still moist.

I googled it, apparently there has been a lot of study into why people dislike the word.

gormdubhgorm · 15-03-2019 2:12pm

Feisar wrote: »

Yea but I bet you know the words I typed!

I assume the N word is in there somewhere

So

Paddys ?

Noel?

Feisar · 15-03-2019 2:15pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I assume the N word is in there somewhere

So

Paddys ?

Noel?

Patty's, now that sh!t is offensive!

gormdubhgorm · 15-03-2019 2:18pm

If someone called me a Sassenach/Seoinín I wouldn't be too pleased.

Brexiters on the other-hand would be delighted (if they had google translate handy)

I suppose it does not count in this thread because the OP only said English language?
But I call my brother a 'Sassenach' he lives over there and has intermarried with them. I think I should disown him when I think of it....

Feisar · 15-03-2019 2:23pm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

If someone called me a Sassenach/Seoinín I wouldn't be too pleased.
Brexiters on the other-hand would be delighted (if they had google translate handy)

I suppose it does not count in this thread because the OP only said English language?
But I call my brother a 'Sassenach' he lives over there and has intermarried with them. I think I should disown him when I think of it....

No, keep in touch, you can call his kids plastic paddy's!

gormdubhgorm · 15-03-2019 2:27pm

Feisar wrote: »

Patty's, now that sh!t is offensive!

Oh yeah it is that time of year.
The worst part is when American's correct you online for writing Paddy's day...
and saying Patty's.

This Irish American website tried to clear thinks up for the yanks (am I allowed to say yanks?)

https://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/others/is-paddys-day-offensive

But as Irish people are grand with Paddy Wagon because people have forgotten its origins.

https://www.irishcentral.com/culture/entertainment/new-york-times-says-term-paddy-wagon-not-offensive-to-the-irish

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=paddy%20wagon

Talbot street is what people think of when they hear paddywagon now...