Special Olympics aims at ending the derogatory use of the "r-word"

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Semantics rears it's ugly head again. Changing the name without changing the intended meaning only makes people feel better until they realize that the same thing is being said. Now "special" has an ugly sound to it.

Exactly.

[UGAalum94]

Yeah, and it's an area of life when people do need to understand what the are dealing with to understand the urgency of taking advantage of the programs offered.

Intellectually delayed may imply that time alone will resolve the issue and the parent may not actively pursue early intervention programs. It's not just about people's feelings.

Again, I'm not saying it's okay to insult people, especially by misapplying the name of their condition to insult someone.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Semantics rears it's ugly head again. Changing the name without changing the intended meaning only makes people feel better until they realize that the same thing is being said. Now "special" has an ugly sound to it.

Already there. My sister bristles if I call someone "special" meaning slow.

I feel like this is like trying to make casual names for women. The b-word is highly unacceptable with a lot of people, but some don't mind it being applied where (by definition) it shouldn't be. Others replace the word with "female," but some women have a problem with that. Some prefer ma'am and others hate it, some like "Miss Lady" but one girl didn't like that either...people will get insulted by just about anything, depending on their individual idiosyncrasies. I'm all for banning words that are blatant insults, no one word is going to gain universal popularity.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by CobraKai

It's not just the word - it's what the word contributes to.According to Special Olympics, less than 10% of people with intellectual disabilities in the United States are employed, compared to 50% of U.S. Special Olympics athletes, compared to 92% of the general population. By using the r-word, people indirectly help ostracize those with intellectual disabilities – by increasing awareness of the issue, we can help foster a greater acceptance of those with intellectual disabilities into our community.

They are not employed because they are not functionally able to, which is why a greater proportion of Special Olympics athletes do.

Look despite my Aryan blood and great heritage filled with strong men and fertile women, we have two special ed people in the extended family. They are not capable of crushing cans (which was one of their jobs for awhile). Or working at Mazzios (which was the other one of their jobs for awhile).

And that's okay.

But dropping the use of the word retarded isn't going to improve anyone's mental ability (although it dumbs mine down from it's political correctness) or make employers more accepting. The employers who employ the mentally handicapped already deal with enough tards that don't have a doctors note.

[33girl]

Not only that, the parents/guardians/teachers who get their kids involved with Special Olympics are more likely to be instilling in these people a sense of self esteem and purpose in life that would exist even if SO didn't. I'm sure a lot of it has to do with economic level as well.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Semantics rears it's ugly head again. Changing the name without changing the intended meaning only makes people feel better until they realize that the same thing is being said. Now "special" has an ugly sound to it.

See: Welcome To The Dollhouse and Dawn's "Special People Club."

Tangent: IMO, here is no real danger or detriment to calling a 23 year old person who's been tested throughout life and who without any question has the IQ of a 3 year old a mentally retarded individual. There IS a real danger in labeling a child at too early an age and them having to carry a label forever that doesn't apply. Some of my friends are struggling with this - their kids are getting called autistic or Asperger's and they don't think it's necessarily true. It seems we are coming at the problem from the wrong end.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Tangent: IMO, here is no real danger or detriment to calling a 23 year old person who's been tested throughout life and who without any question has the IQ of a 3 year old a mentally retarded individual. There IS a real danger in labeling a child at too early an age and them having to carry a label forever that doesn't apply. Some of my friends are struggling with this - their kids are getting called autistic or Asperger's and they don't think it's necessarily true. It seems we are coming at the problem from the wrong end.

But there's also a real danger in not diagnosing someone at a young age, and not giving that child/young adult the type of educational support that they need (through IDPs, etc.). I have a couple of special education professionals in my family (including one who's very well-respected in the field), and they feel pretty strongly that the ability to diagnose early has been a big positive. Now, if it's a faulty diagnosis, or it's done by someone who has no knowledge in the field, that's a whole other issue...

I'm not saying this is the case with your friends, but I'll flip your statement a little - as I see it, there is a problem with parents who don't want to admit that their child is on the spectrum, or has some learning disability, etc. Whether it's because they blame themselves, or because they don't want to see their children as anything less than "perfect," I think parental resistance is a bigger issue than early diagnosis.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Tangent: IMO, here is no real danger or detriment to calling a 23 year old person who's been tested throughout life and who without any question has the IQ of a 3 year old a mentally retarded individual. There IS a real danger in labeling a child at too early an age and them having to carry a label forever that doesn't apply. Some of my friends are struggling with this - their kids are getting called autistic or Asperger's and they don't think it's necessarily true. It seems we are coming at the problem from the wrong end.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

But there's also a real danger in not diagnosing someone at a young age, and not giving that child/young adult the type of educational support that they need (through IDPs, etc.). I have a couple of special education professionals in my family (including one who's very well-respected in the field), and they feel pretty strongly that the ability to diagnose early has been a big positive. Now, if it's a faulty diagnosis, or it's done by someone who has no knowledge in the field, that's a whole other issue...

I'm not saying this is the case with your friends, but I'll flip your statement a little - as I see it, there is a problem with parents who don't want to admit that their child is on the spectrum, or has some learning disability, etc. Whether it's because they blame themselves, or because they don't want to see their children as anything less than "perfect," I think parental resistance is a bigger issue than early diagnosis.

I think, in ways, you're both right. I've seen major issues with parental resistance. You're right that when you're talking about the autism spectrum, the earlier the diagnosis the better. But it doesn't help if you have random people who (1) don't really know what they're talking about or (2) aren't in a proper position (teacher, school counselor) to be offering that kind of advice.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by CobraKai

It's not just the word - it's what the word contributes to.According to Special Olympics, less than 10% of people with intellectual disabilities in the United States are employed, compared to 50% of U.S. Special Olympics athletes, compared to 92% of the general population. By using the r-word, people indirectly help ostracize those with intellectual disabilities – by increasing awareness of the issue, we can help foster a greater acceptance of those with intellectual disabilities into our community.

And while I'm no expert on the full spectrum of intellectual disabilities, I can imagine cases where one with an intellectual disability is not retarded. Off the top of my head, I pose dyslexia. Dyslexics have an intellectual disability (or "challenge", if you prefer), but most are NOT retarded. Some autistic individuals, IIRC, have intellectual disabilities, but are not retarded. Others are.

So lumping them all together to make a case for social engineering based on labels is, in my mind, somewhat suspect. It seems a case of finding "facts" to "prove" something.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DGTess

And while I'm no expert on the full spectrum of intellectual disabilities, I can imagine cases where one with an intellectual disability is not retarded. Off the top of my head, I pose dyslexia. Dyslexics have an intellectual disability (or "challenge", if you prefer), but most are NOT retarded. Some autistic individuals, IIRC, have intellectual disabilities, but are not retarded. Others are.

So lumping them all together to make a case for social engineering based on labels is, in my mind, somewhat suspect. It seems a case of finding "facts" to "prove" something.

Exactly - from what I've heard about autism, many people who have it are anything BUT retarded and often have very high IQs. It's sharing the knowledge with the world in general that is the problem.