'The Case Against Banning The Word Retard'

The author's purpose of this article is to show how “Cuss Time,” should be not necessarily encouraged but protected by our first amendment rights. Granted having the freedom to make a fictional character realistic, in a situation, strong language can be called for. McCorkle giving her son cuss time, she found it “liberating to watch his liberation” because he recognizes the urge to want something much more, the more you are denied it. Rather than when we are given the freedom to choose to do their os that, the real reason being it might lose value to our well being. By limiting our freedom of speech, some of

A sensitive, controversial topic today regarding slurs is the conversation of “reclaiming slurs”. This idea

Freedom of speech is a glorious thing and a privileges of living in the United States of America is being able to express one’s opinion. Segments of society are making an effort to stifle people’s opinions to do what is politically correct. Can people’s ideas of protection be too extreme? In the article, “The Coddling of the American Mind”, Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt argue that there is a negative outcome when rules are given to stop people from being offended, and this statement is supported from real life examples, analogies, and reliable sources.

Bauer’s argument is based on emotion which makes it hard for the reader to follow. It is solely an emotional essay. The writer seems to have a very personal stance on the subject. She has raised a daughter with Down syndrome and she has tried so hard to shelter her from the hurtful word “retard.” Emotional essays provide no new ways of looking at the problem. Bauer’s argument was mostly a lot of finger pointing at the movie industry and their lack of compassion when using the word “retard.” Furthermore, the writer expresses society’s lack of compassion for the intellectually disabled community. The writer demonstrates examples of people’s use of this word as a means for expressing careless acts. Bauer states, “A clerk in a store apologizes for being "such a retard" when she can't find an item for me. Ouch. Kids at the mall call one another "you big retard." Ouch. A friend tells a long, involved story at my dinner table about her recent fender bender, with a punch line about "some retard" who parked behind her” (119). Bauer does not argue either of these points but just expresses her feeling about

Plenty of people suffer because of the word “retarded”, it is extremely offensive and hurtful that it causes individuals to feel different and plays a major role in segregation. The word “retarded” directly insults and abuses people who have a mental illness. The word is always used negatively whether it is used to discriminate or to make fun of someone. The word can also be used in verbal bullying. There is no other purpose for the word “retarded” besides being used to hurt people; the word is only used offensively to hurt people that is why it should not be used.

Imagine a situation where you are crossing the street for a class. Then someone you do not know stops you at the signal light, telling you that from now on, you are prohibited to say American slang because it is considered to be too informal and wrong, and that you must obey this rule because he is an authority. What would you think of that? Ian Buruma doubts the rationality of it. Buruma, who advocates the right of the ordinary people to speak freely, utilizes multiple, varying tones in his essay, The Freedom to Offend, to make clear his advocacy for freedom of speech. The overall plain and simple tone draws close the readers and encourages us to read; the appropriately and smartly used sarcasm sharply harm those people who hinder our rights to offend; the indifference that he shows towards the people who frighten us unreasonably tells us not to be threatened just because we are pushed by authorities; and the seriousness elicit deeper thoughts from the readers to think of the problem. These flexibly changing manners of speaking are integrated into one reconciling thesis ─ as long as what we say does not elicit an inevitable strife or violence, we should be

“Sticks and stones may brake my bones, but words will never hurt me”, goes one old playground rhyme. We are usually taught to ignore a person who uses foul language, but everyone knows that words can really hurt a person. When someone uses hateful words against us, it can hurt just as much as a slap or a punch. When people start to use obscenities with ethnic or racial slurs, it can push some sensitive buttons. Racial slurs used in a joking manner leads to others using it in a condescending manner, which ultimately leads to violence and feelings of hatred. From my experience, racial slurs can cause the most extreme negative reactions in people.

If you ever happen to come across a list of banned books across classrooms, surely you must have seen Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn on there. It is ranked number fourteen in Banned Books from 2000-2009 by the American Library Association. Despite its many critics, it is considered one of the greatest novels by many prominent authors. Many controversies such as its coarse language and its disregard to religion follow for this novel, but the main controversy and criticism surrounding it is the use of the n-word. Mixed views are felt about the connotation of the word and the true meaning behind it.

Our nation has entered a period where it is becoming increasingly more acceptable to allow censorship for the sake of people’s feelings. This new idea that nothing should be said to cause offense, or distress, to another person is becoming as widespread as to even enter the classrooms of some universities, which now limit what can be discussed (Lukianoff and Haidt, 1). These hypersensitive Americans are beginning to flood into our nation with the belief that we should all care about how people feel about a certain topic. However, the fortunate truth is that we do not and will never care about anyone else’s sensitivity to a topic so much that we limit how express ourselves. The American constitution purposely gives Americans the freedom of speech and expression so that we may cause offense to other people, for the sake of having everyone’s opinions voiced.

1. In paragraph 3, Fairman says that the history of offensive words shows that “words themselves are not the culprit.” What does he mean? Do you agree with his rationale?

Censorship is definitely a thing in a lot of parts of America; however, it’s not all bad censorship. For example, anti-abortion groups protest at public and private colleges using large, noticeable, graphic signs which most either ignore or attempt to take them down by force, which, although it sounds like illegal censorship, is legal because the 1st amendment does not protect provocative speech. In the video, a private college was shown which limited certain groups’ flyers and posters to one corner of the whole campus; they are completely within their rights to do that because they do not receive state funding so the first amendment does not apply to them. Finally, when Charlie Hebdo was attacked, a writer held a “Draw Muhammed” contest in Dallas which led to a shooting and her disappearance. Many people believe the things they do can not be censored because they are protected by the first amendment, but they are not because they are either provoking, the place they are at is not state funded, and people they are intentionally offending are not going to leave them alone.

Article produced by the political editor for Crickey, who examines why racial vilification is flawed, due to the fact that it is solely subjective to the individual. He argues that because of this there isn’t anything to stop certain people from claiming to be offended by certain things, which society at large might not deem to be offensive. This is useful for my essay, as not only does it align with my theoretical angle, it provides evidence and examples, and explains how laws, outside of racial vilification laws, are adequate in defending people who are subject to discrimination.

In today’s world, charged with political correctness has taken too far, the trepidation of not to give offence to individuals around with a wrong word or activity of any sort has gone past all limits. Individuals overlook that in an effort to acknowledge the world, to apprehend the joy of learning and to see how to deal with the troubles and disservices that may happen on one's path of life. It is important to encounter the world as it is and to permit peoples’ thoughts clash. Subsequently, it is plainly obvious that people, to a noteworthy degree, require the world to be realistic and harsh and for the words to be consistent with life. Obviously, there is no compelling reason to go beyond the limits in the pursuit of truth and justice.

The argumentative paper “How can we ban insults against Jews, but not Muslims” by William Saletan discusses his opinion upon how insults have been selectively banned on within countries. Saletan is a writer from the online magazine Slate and he primarily writes about science, technology, and politics. Saletan discussed how multiple bans restricting the use of slurs and derogatory words about Jewish people exist around the world. His criticism is about how these bans are unique to those of the Jewish faith and do not include another heavily criticized religious group the Muslim people of the world. In this appeal to the average educated America adult, he stressed the idea of favoring free speech over potentially “silencing minorities” (Saletan 96). He

Proponents of censorship seem to believe that they alone can determine what is and isn’t offensive to everyone. They believe that their own freedom of speech will remain intact when they have successfully silenced those that they oppose. They don’t seem to understand that once one group’s rights are taken away, we are all subject to loss of our constitutional right to speak and think freely.