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

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.

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.

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.

I've always been offended by the use of those kind of words as insults. I mean using the word describing the nature of a person as an insult, because that's what you are. I really make a difference between TO DO and TO BE concerning insults.

I think the best way to look something in this context is that if you have to ask the question

Is it racist?

Is it sexist?

Is it offensive?

then it is best avoided. The reason being that if you have thought about it, so have other people and thus there are likely to be those who will be offended by it.

Even if you can find strong support from some that a word/term is acceptable, you still risk offending those that disagree - no matter how good your argument is.

Ultimately, if it can offend, it will offend (some people). With that in mind, the safest option is simply not to use them.

Of the two, I would consider "retarded" far more offensive.

"Gay" has been largely (though not entirely) accepted in mainstream society. And some people involved would be proud to call themselves "gay," (although the term is sometimes used by others as a pejorative).

"Retarded" has entirely negative connotations. It's hard to imagine anyone being proud to be "retarded." Fortunately (for them), those that actually are, may not fully comprehend the word.

Your Comedy Central examples point to the answer, which is that a lot depends on context. Both the person speaking, their presumed relationship with objects of the word, and the present day context.

The Daily Show actually did a great bit around this (I think it was called "Oliver and Oliver") where they had a white correspondent and a black correspondent go out together and try to get people to say the N-word. Any time they personally needed to say it, the white correspondent would point to the black correspondent, and he would say it.

Kinneson is an interesting example, in that he died a long time ago. That bit you were watching was probably from the mid-80's. Believe it or not, retarded was not generally considered an offensive word back then.

Back in the late 60's and early 70's, the N-word was not considered so vile that the melanin-challenged could only refer to it indirectly as I've done here. This is when the movie Blazing Saddles came out. It heavily satirized the racial issues of the day, so naturally "bad guys" in the flick used the word extensively. Today, that word has become so offensive that its actually hard to find copies of Blazing Saddles that contain the original verbage unmarred (and a person feels quite awkward laughing at them).

I think @eje211's exposé above is very good and don't disagree with it. I'd just like to give a slightly different approach to answering your question from a linguist's point of view, which hinges on how you define the notion of a word being "offensive".

There's a theory (supported by some experimental evidence) that what makes "offensive" words offensive is that speakers tie them to abhorrent ideas in such a way that when they read/hear the word it makes them 'automatically' think about the abhorrent idea, without them being able to control this process. It's a bit like when you show somebody the word "BLUE" written in green ink and ask them what colour it is, they are liable to automatically say "blue" rather than the actual colour, and/or take longer than usual to determine what the colour is. There seem to be some words that have such an 'automatic' link to an idea that they can override or stall our normal processing of stimuli. Colour names appear to do this. And it turns out that words that we find "offensive" also seem to do this: e.g. if you show somebody the word "fuck" or "rape" in a particular colour and ask them what the colour is, their processing is stalled just as with a colour word shown in another colour.

Or in other words, accepting this definition and methodology, there actually appears to be an empirical way in which we can judge the 'offensiveness' of a word, by measuring people's mean 'stalling time' of a person's normal mental processes when reading that word.

On the other hand, I don't know of this method being specifically used with the words "gay" or "retarded". And of course, such experiments aren't without difficulties, and don't tell us in what way people might find a given word offensive. (For example, somebody could find the word "retarded" offensive because they personally have a relative who is below average intelligence and have memories of that relative being personally upset by the use of the label; or they could find it offensive from a social point of view: they find the notion of discrimination per se abhorrent. The psychological experiment I mention won't differentiate those cases.) But I just wanted to highlight that there's another approach to the problem.

From my experience in England (but I would say this of my experiences in the US also), in any formal context, such as work, "retarded" generally does not provoke much offence when used of things that are very stupid (but not merely substandard), while using "gay" as a slur is likely to damage one's career and position, at least in the short term.

That said, using "retard" or "retarded" to describe someone with educational or learning difficulties or differences is likely to be extremely offensive. Likewise, using "gay" in a negative way to describe a person who is, or is rumoured or supposed to be attracted to their own sex, will get you in trouble.

There seems to be a movement in America to reframe retarded as a similar form of hate speech (which I think is perhaps a little foolish, because it is not acceptable to use the word as a "plain" descriptor; by contrast "gay" is now accepted as the normal way of describing same-sex attraction). I would generally suggest that you avoid both words in any formal context.

I'm sorry but the whole idea of "gay" and "retarded" be offensive when used in that context is absolutely ludicrous. The idea is that you are saying something is "gay" to mean it's homosexual and bad, but that's not at all what it means in that context. In that context it literally means "stupid" or "bad" NOT homosexual. What has happened is these words have been given new meanings that are completely separate from the original meaning... not like homosexual was the original meaning of gay anyway. This is not something new at all words are given new meanings all the time and nobody makes a fuss over it. It's freaking stupid.