Retards: An Inquiry into Values and Everyday Language The following describes my ideas on the association between value and ordinary language. Basically, it considers a few more consequences of the non-existence of value. A call to rationality is again put forward as a “solution.” Whenever someone asks me what it is I do for monetary compensation, I'll reply somewhat wryly, "I work with retards." Thinking that I'm joking around, they may give a smile; all the while in darkness regarding my true thoughts. "Isn't that a little politically incorrect?" as they said in 'Something about Mary.' You know what? I'm sick and tired of political correctness. As a child, adults used to tell me, "Sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never hurt you." Let's practice what we preach eh? What is it about words that can tearily prostrate the fragile? Take the word "retard." It is simply a back formation of the word "retarded:" A slowing down or hindering of progress, a delay. It's a medical definition for a genetic disorder in which physical and mental processes are delayed. I call a retard a retard because he's retarded, what's wrong with that? Perhaps it isn't nice to let people you know of their inferiorities; like telling a fat person they're fat. The problem is that despite all appearances - no pun intended - a mere visual description is always laden with hidden value judgements. Telling someone, "you're fat," is heard as "you're fat, and fat people are lazy gluttons. Fatness is not a desirable quality at all." Yet why do people do this? The fat person already knows that they're fat and they already know that other people know they're fat and they already know that fatness is not a desirable quality. So why is there the emotional offense taken with a simple reiteration of a plainly known fact? If I were to say to you, "You're fat," there is no need to make a value judgement out of it. It is simply an observation that is either true or false; taking offense is completely uncalled for. Let's get off the obese for a second and continue on with a more common slur: homo. If you are to be called a homo, either you are or you aren't a homosexual. If you are gay, why would you be offended at being called gay? It’s just a descriptive adjective, like effeminate. If you aren't gay, why would you be offended at being called gay? Perhaps you are exhibiting homosexual characteristics. But either you are or you aren't, there is no reason to put self-sensitive value judgements into the mix. Now something about the origination of negative connotations. America is homophobic, and in it gayness is considered a negative quality. For a gay to be offended at being called a fag is for him to perpetuate the belief that being a fag is bad. Or to take a step even further; say I were to call you a nigger. "Nigger" is a term handed down from slave days used to denote a black's inferiority. Say we define "nigger" as either 1) a black person or 2) a slave. A black's reply, depending on the definition used would be, "Yes I am black, thank you.” Or, “no you are mistaken, I am not a slave." Again, either you are or you aren't. Taking offense at being called a nigger would be synomynous to me taking offense at being called white or honkey or tall or pretentious. The only difference is that the connotation is not present; and if it were present, my ignorant reaction would only exacerbate and reinforce the negative connotation. Basically, political correctness is a slave morality. The problem lies not with the offender but with the weakness and shame of the offendee. Please remember this and quit taking yourselves so seriously. In the prior, I didn't manifest any of the latent connotations because I didn't want to speak of them for length's sake. In reality, I do agree with some of the negative connotations. I agree that if you are fat, then you have at least a small character flaw. If I were to say this to a fat person, even that would not be a reason for offense. They would simply say fatness is not a character flaw and cite some reference to genetic fatness. I would then cite contrary evidence and if the debate continued in a logically rational way, eventually we would reach a conclusion. The problem that the very reason I have to state these facts proves that there is an irrationality involved here. Basically, my underlying thought is: 1. rationality is good. 2. irrationality is bad. 3. emotion and offense are irrational. 4 Therefore, emotion and offense are bad and are to be unprefered in a choice between the rational and emotional. However, I'm not sure that rationality is "good" for everyone. Either way, I feel that it is good subjectively for me, and I will continue with my unabashedness. I actually find offense amusing and would be saddened if everyone were to attain the rationality which would result in the extinction of offense. Or perhaps I'll recant when I'm savagely bludgeoned by a nigger?