Do you think the word 'ret***ed' should be censored from the internet?

[BG-NY (permanently retired)]

What do you think?

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

Censored by whom? I certainly don't want social media companies to become the Bad Words Police, that sounds pretty dystopian. Small, private sites like Atlas can have their own rules on discourse, though, I think that's fair.

Of course this is the kind of problem that should really be solved with self-censorship.

[Ferguson97]

Websites can set whatever rules they like. Don't like it? Find another website.

If Atlas can ban porn, why can't it ban swear words? Where do you draw the line?

[Don't Blame Me, I'm from Massachusetts]

I think it should be treated like any other slur. If that website censors slurs, then censorship it is. I don't think anyone should be imprisoned for saying it, but it shouldn't be tolerated either.

[Flats the Flounder]

No words should be censored from the internet.

If you don't like a word being used, you're absolutely free to criticize the person using it.

[AGA]

I don't think any individual word should be censored. It's how words are used that matters.

[dead0man]

just because a word can be used in an insulting way doesn't mean the word should be banned.

[I'm a prince to the grifters, I turn apostles to pimps]

I don't think any word should be censored from the internet. The intent matters and even though I consider myself fairly woke, I use that word from time to time, often referring to myself. I would never use it around or towards someone with a mental disability out of respect, however. I think that a lot of people feel like they should be allowed to say whatever they want without criticism and that's just a childish view of how words work. I fully accept that if I use that word around someone who doesn't like it that I may be asked not to say that again, and I would make note of that. It's not the end of the world. Just have a dialogue and be respectful of people's wishes, yknow?

[Trump v. Wong Kim Ark]

The Ford Model T forums of the internet would be stuck wondering how to not advance the ignition timing on the spark advance lever.

[Mine the Strait]

Censored by whom? I certainly don't want social media companies to become the Bad Words Police, that sounds pretty dystopian. Small, private sites like Atlas can have their own rules on discourse, though, I think that's fair.

Of course this is the kind of problem that should really be solved with self-censorship.

How big does a site have to get before you feel they should no longer be able to set "their own rules on discourse?" Atlas may be small, but there's nothing fundamentally different about it from Twitter aside from its size.

[Sic Semper Fascistis]

Censored by whom? I certainly don't want social media companies to become the Bad Words Police, that sounds pretty dystopian. Small, private sites like Atlas can have their own rules on discourse, though, I think that's fair.

Of course this is the kind of problem that should really be solved with self-censorship.

How big does a site have to get before you feel they should no longer be able to set "their own rules on discourse?" Atlas may be small, but there's nothing fundamentally different about it from Twitter aside from its size.

Size does matter, as they say. Obviously I don't have a specific threshold for when a site becomes too big to be trusted with making its own decisions, but surely we should be able to agree that the effects of Atlas having profanity rules are structurally different from those of a mass website like Youtube or Twitter having them. The latter have had a measurable impact on fundamental elements of our mass culture, and have achieved an essentially monopolistic position over a certain type of online content. If we leave their functioning to the whims of their owners, we are giving these owners a level of power over the content of public speech that could surpass anything we've seen in the modern era.

[Drop Billionaires, Not Bombs]

I refer to myself as "socially retarded" (borrowed from Mean Girls, yes) to refer to my autism. "Retarded" literally means delayed, so I don't regard that term as derogatory more than as an accurate descriptor.

I agree with R2D2. Saying "Smoking weed is retarded" is quite different from saying "Your brother with Down Syndrome is a retard." Context and audience matter.

[Shaula🏳️‍⚧️]

No word should be censored by the internet

[インターネット掲示板ユーザー Punxsutawney Phil]

No

[Cokeland Saxton]

Censoring it, no. But it should be treated just like the n word. It is the equivalent of the n word, but for people with disabilities.

[HisGrace]

No, we should all say it more often.

[TheTide]

Censored by whom? I certainly don't want social media companies to become the Bad Words Police, that sounds pretty dystopian. Small, private sites like Atlas can have their own rules on discourse, though, I think that's fair.

Of course this is the kind of problem that should really be solved with self-censorship.

How big does a site have to get before you feel they should no longer be able to set "their own rules on discourse?" Atlas may be small, but there's nothing fundamentally different about it from Twitter aside from its size.

Size does matter, as they say. Obviously I don't have a specific threshold for when a site becomes too big to be trusted with making its own decisions, but surely we should be able to agree that the effects of Atlas having profanity rules are structurally different from those of a mass website like Youtube or Twitter having them. The latter have had a measurable impact on fundamental elements of our mass culture, and have achieved an essentially monopolistic position over a certain type of online content. If we leave their functioning to the whims of their owners, we are giving these owners a level of power over the content of public speech that could surpass anything we've seen in the modern era.

Publicly-owned alternatives to Twitter, YouTube etc seem like a good idea. They'd be inefficiencies, but there's inefficiencies on those sites too.

As for the word in question, of course I don't support censoring it, but its relative acceptability compared to other slurs does show a level of hypocrisy.

[TDAS04]

No. Words shouldn't be censored on the internet.

[Chief Justice PiT]

     The drive to make this some kind of extreme uber-slur strikes me as odd considering the number of functionally identical words that remain highly popular to this day as terms of abuse. This is really not the case with the n-word, and most sufficiently similar alternatives that come to mind are also met with disapproval.

[Yellowhammer]

This is retarded

[Clarence Boddicker]

NGL, I still use it as an insult.

[MABA 2020]

Nasty word, but obviously not

[You are responsible]

What's so bad about being retired?