politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
We have, right now, in our care, men and women in their 40s, 50s, 60s and above whose real honest-to-God documentation states that their disability is "severe mental retardation." Is the language outdated by our current standard? Yes, but our system will not be taking them in for reevaluation when there isn't any benefit to be had to either those people or their caregivers.
We will not have alternative terminology for people who will never be reevaluated. Mental retardation is their diagnosis, and you're the mean little prick trying to justify using a diagnosis as an insult when it costs you literally nothing to pick a different invective. You're trying to seem so intelligent- use better, more creative language instead. Or don't. I'm not your mother.
But you'll likely continue to face pushback for this until either our older population (the real people with this real diagnosis) all die, and the word does become completely outdated, or until you lobby for legislation to have each and every person with this diagnosis reclassified based on current medical knowledge, regardless of it's benefit, just so you can use their disability as a swear.