Just how offensive are the terms "retarded" and "gay"?

My college-age son and his friends use the terms "retarded" and "gay" pretty much interchangeably to mean substandard, bad, lame (in the sense of ineffectual or weak) or just plain wrong. I've suggested that he might want to be careful about where he uses such language, but he clearly isn't worried about being offensive with those terms.

Now add this to the equation: Last night we watched a recorded version of Comedy Central's "A Tribute to Sam Kinison." Comedy Central censors a lot of words, including names of body parts (although, curiously, they let "dick" remain unbleeped), terms for sex acts, and so on. And we could clearly see that the word "retarded" had been bleeped (it's a very easy word to lip-read). Note that Comedy Central does not censor the word "nigger" on the Dave Chapelle show, although this is a word Jon Stewart goes to great lengths to avoid saying on his own show (also, of course, on Comedy Central).

So I wonder: is the word "retarded" really that offensive? How about "gay" in the context described above?

UPDATE

From an Associated Press story (Young Jaded by Online Slurs) reported in the Boston Globe today (Sept. 21, 2011):

WASHINGTON - Young people immersed in the online world see racist and sexist slurs and other name-calling that probably would appall their parents and teachers. And most consider it no big deal, a poll says.

...

When the question is asked broadly, half of young people surveyed say using discriminatory words is wrong. But 54 percent think it’s OK to use them within their own circle of friends, because “I know we don’t mean it.’’ And they don’t worry much about whether the things they tap into their cellphones and laptops could reach a wider audience and get them into trouble.

...

Demeaning something with “that’s so gay’’ is so common that two-thirds of young people see it used, and the majority aren’t offended at all, despite a public-service ad campaign that tried to stamp out the anti-gay slang.

A similar effort by the Special Olympics and others to persuade kids not to use “retard’’ hasn’t hit home with half of those surveyed, who don’t find the word even moderately bothersome. Twenty-seven percent are seriously offended, however.

Some teens just text the way they talk. Calling each other “gay’’ and “retarded’’ is routine in high school, says Robert Leader, 17, a senior in Voorhees, N.J. So teens text it, too.

Solution 1:

This is a touchy and complicated issue. There is no simple answer. I'm gay and I probably would be far more offended by the use of "retarded" than by the use of "gay" that you're describing. The problem is not if you are offending anyone but if you might offend someone, and where and when. I personally don't mind people using the word "gay" that way, in great part because I think it's stupid, but not directly harmful; I think that is more damaging to the person saying it than to the concept of being gay. (Equating "gay" to something bad won't make being gay bad. South Park uses the word "gay" that way. When Cartman calls lame things "gay", Stone and Parker are mocking Cartman, not gay people.) I'm offended by the use of the word "retarded" for the same reason: as I am not retarded, if I were not offended, I'd be latently approving of the word being used that way.

But, in short, by using these words, you're always in danger of offending people, even if you haven't so far. Imagine: you meet someone you're getting along with. Let's call them person A. That person is with a friend of their own, let's call them person B. Your friend is with you. Your friend uses the words "gay" and "retarded" the way you described. Person B is offended by these words, either because a relative of his is retarded, or gay. Person A can offer you a job, or a piece of advice, or help you move, or anything of the sort. Person B later tells person A, "I don't like the sort of people that guy," (meaning you), "is hanging out with." Person A is now far less likely to help you.

Is it really a risk you want to take? From your question, it appears you are rather young. That leads to another issue: do you want to get used to that language? If using those words that way is not an issue now, do you want not to notice it when it becomes an issue to do so?

Think of bicycles and helmets. Someone might say they don't see the point of wearing a bicycle helmet because they've never come close to having an accident, but they wear them anyway. Maybe the two are related. Maybe the type of person who is so careful they've never come close to have an accident is the same type of person who wears a helmet. When you're in the process of falling down, it's too late to start wearing one.

You've never had a problem with that type of language and you probably won't until it's too late to do anything about it.

I don't have much advice to give, just a little. Don't try to change others. It generally fails to change anyone and alienates those who try to make others change. But don't change yourself either. You seem to think there's something wrong with using these words this way, despite not seeing much evidence that there is. My advice is: don't wait for the evidence to come along. Stay wary of that kind of language and don't start using it. If one day you run into a situation where it's clear that you're right, it will be too late to do anything about it. And if you never run into such a situation, what do you have to lose by being ready for it? The fun of using a few offensive words? I think it's a pretty good deal.

Solution 2:

I personally don't find either offensive. But I generally lose respect for anyone who wears out terms. In your sons case, it doesn't sound like it's a matter of prejudice. That would be a different matter. If people would worry less about words and more about the message, we'd be in better shape.

Solution 3:

The problem with these insults is what you might call the "scatter-gun" effect. If you insult Person A by comparing her to Group X, you have also insulted Group X. And that is not cool (especially when Group X is a disenfranchised minority).

I'm gay myself, and object when people use that word as an insult. I'd also object to that usage of the word retarded and indeed the word lame. There are plenty of insults which are direct, and don't hurt other people.

I've become more aware of these issues having read most of the Shapely Prose archive.

Solution 4:

The person to ask would be someone who was bullied for being retarded, attacked for being gay or who has had to help deal with the fallout from those things. Children have no moral sense and very little sense of proportion. They use terms offensively because their peers do. It's find and it's funny until they run into someone who has been abused or victimised in a way that relates to those words and then it can be horribly offensive. It's like tasteless jokes- they are funny until you happen to tell one in the wrong company and suddenly they are deeply embarrassing. Given that one can rarely be certain of the company one is in, I prefer to stay on the right side of what I consider good taste to save on tears and blushes.

At the same time these terms are changing- the word "gay" to mean something is rubbish is very common among schoolkids ( and on South Park ) and I doubt that many people who consider themselves gay would really be able to complain too much about that change unless they think of themselves as being frivolous and light hearted, seeing as that is what the term meant to almost everyone until a couple of generations ago.

Likewise psychologists and teachers don't use "retarded" as a description of a person any more partly because it has gained offensive connotations, possibly also because it always had them and probably in a few years it will be a relatively harmless term. But right now I would still consider it offensive - there are still people who were branded with it around after all - and I'd explain that to my children if I had any. It wouldn't stop them of course- nothing stops kids swearing at each other - but I'd want them to know nonetheless.