RETARDED.COM - Should this domain be auctioned in the largest domain industry convention?

[Internet.Domains]

Retarded.com - Should this domain be auctioned in the largest domain industry convention?

The term RETARDED is defined as "offensive" on Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster.com, Vocabulary.com and Wikipedia.org. The latter one describes it: "The word retard was widely accepted in the late-1900s to refer to people with mental disabilities; however it is now more commonly used as an INSULT. The word has gained notoriety for causing a growing number of mentally disabled people to feel unfairly stereotyped."...

This insulting and offensive domain should not be part of the the largest domain industry convention. This reflects on sponsors and attendees alike. The auction has been advertised as "Super Premium" and there is nothing "SUPER PREMIUM" about offending and insulting mentally and physically challenged individuals. As a person who knows and works with autistic children I kindly ask for this domain to be removed from the sponsored industry event immediately. This domain does not and should not reflect on the entire domain industry, but at this point it does reflect, and it is insulting.... Here is a list of of the top sponsors for the convention that is promoting the auction with the offensive and insulting term to those that are physically and mentally challenged, through no fault of their own.

Uniregistry
RightOfTheDot
Namejet
Rightside
Verisign
Radix
InternetX
Affilias
GoDaddy
Escrow.com
101Domain
DomainSponsor
.WS
Donuts
CentralNic
.Blog

 

[Nick]

That is a completely repulsive and ignorant statement. As mentioned on a blog, that response tells us a lot about you.

You've been here for like a day and you're throwing around words like "ignorant & repulsive" directly at members - yet, you're complaining about the auction of a keyword domain that you interpret to have a negative connotation. Do you understand the definition of hypocrisy?

 

[Internet.Domains]

There are many who also find the word 'autistic' to be 'offensive', e.g. see:

http://autisticadvocacy.org/home/about-asan/identity-first-language/

As I said earlier, I don't believe 'political correctness' should be used to censor. I think some of the most offensive ideas or thoughts can also be sugar-coated, so it's a slippery slope to start taking words out of the dictionary, regardless of context.

This has nothing to do with 'political correctness' or 'censorship'...That is a point many of you are trying to make, to find some sort of justification. That is just not factual..... The term is very hurtful to a large community of people. Families become emotionally distraught when they see and hear this term. They, not me, have asked that we don't use the word. It pains them deeply to hear it and see it. Simple as that.......At the same time the largest domain industry convention is selling this domain in its promoted "super premium" auction. This is a direct reflection on the entire domain industry and does nothing to soften the stigma of trying to sell a legitimate domain name. It is also a direct reflection of the sponsors and owners of the convention. I remain hopeful that someone steps up and removes this name from this sponsored auction. Let it sell privately, let the current owner and future owner deal with it PRIVATELY. Please don't throw this in the face of those that are hurt most by it in a public manner! (There is no adult related names in the auction, that I know, why this?)

 

[GeorgeK]

There are also a lot of folks offended by the names of the sports teams Washington Redskins and Cleveland Indians. Should those terms also be censored, because they make some people uncomfortable?

Constitutional protection of free speech rights is important because 'popular' speech doesn't need defending. It's unpopular and/or controversial speech that needs defending.

If we spend all our time avoiding words that might offend someone, we'll end up saying nothing at all.

Folks can choose whether or not to buy or bid on that domain name, and others shouldn't be imposing their own personal beliefs to remove that choice from them.

Personally, I don't intend to bid on that domain name, but I will defend the right of others who might want to buy it or register it.

 

[.NJ]

Alot of people like to think and dream that the namescon auction is some big ground smashing worldwide general public auction....

Truth is its just another domainer to domainer inside the bubble auction platform.

The keyword can def be construed as offensive if used in a certain way.

But let's be honest here.

It's just going to be bought and sold by domainers over and over and over again.

Development into the public eye of this domain has the same chances as .mobi making a comeback....

Just my 2 cents here.

 

[Internet.Domains]

There are also a lot of folks offended by the names of the sports teams Washington Redskins and Cleveland Indians. Should those terms also be censored, because they make some people uncomfortable?

Constitutional protection of free speech rights is important because 'popular' speech doesn't need defending. It's unpopular and/or controversial speech that needs defending.

If we spend all our time avoiding words that might offend someone, we'll end up saying nothing at all.

Folks can choose whether or not to buy or bid on that domain name, and others shouldn't be imposing their own personal beliefs to remove that choice from them.

Personally, I don't intend to bid on that domain name, but I will defend the right of others who might want to buy it or register it.

You keep bringing 'PC' into this conversation as justification, using political examples. This is not a Constitutional free speech issue as you keep bringing up. That's simply not the case here....Please visit www.R-word.org to become more educated on this subject. Watch some videos and do some reading. After, lets discuss....Best to you!

 

[hookbox]

No matter how you look at it this name was chosen to get a rise or laugh out of people. It just goes to show that no matter how many steps forward domains get in the eye of the general public there is always a retard to bring it a few steps back.

 

[GeorgeK]

You keep bringing 'PC' into this conversation as justification, using political examples. This is not a Constitutional free speech issue as you keep bringing up. That's simply not the case here....Please visit www.R-word.org to become more educated on this subject. Watch some videos and do some reading. After, lets discuss....Best to you!

lol I did visit it, and don't assume I'm ignorant on this topic.

Censorship is inherently political. Why don't you read up on free speech, and then let's discuss after you've educated yourself on this topic?

 

[Internet.Domains]

Here is what GoDaddy, the new convention owners, say on its website.

"We’re changing our world for the better.

From Boston to California, GoDaddy employees pitch in to benefit under privileged children, schools and aspiring entrepreneurs and many other vital causes. Because when our communities flourish, so do we."

As the new owners of the convention will they continue their philosophy, will they stand with those that are spreading the word to end the word for under privileged children? @Joe Styler

 

[Internet.Domains]

lol I did visit it, and don't assume I'm ignorant on this topic.

Censorship is inherently political. Why don't you read up on free speech, and then let's discuss after you've educated yourself on this topic?

I never said to censor the term. I said it does not belong in this auction, at this convention, in this setting. I will be more than happy to educate you on the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights when you are ready.

 

[J.R.]

It's called morals, that's all. As the OP pointed out this auction represents the domain community as a whole, a domain like this should not be considered for this setting. JMO

How did you become the moral police? You contradict yourself, with your sense of superiority. Why? Morals is subjective in many contexts, as in this case where the majority of people see the slippery slope that censoring this domain brings; you fail to see how dangerous it would be to do so. So many of the SJW types believe they are the moral police, but a peek into their own lives would largely contradict this.

However, the over-sensitivity to the term retarded is typical PC censorship. Moreover, for those special snowflakes that are so absolutely offended; put your collective monies where your mouth is, and buy up these sort of domains, and create something that your PC sensitivity will approve of. But no, you will just complain and undermine someone else trying to make a living outside of the corporate hell hole…We live in an ugly, unfair, and complicated world; people are going to disagree.

The human rights organization, NAACP, wisely bought up N*****.com, and I just notified them that it is on PPC parking and should be unparked; so registry isn't benefitting from this ugly term. The NAACP did what they thought was right, and now they can control that narrative. You and your SJWs should do the same and purchase Retarded.com and make it into something positive. But my bet is that you will, complain and try to bully, but sit back and do nothing...

 

[GeorgeK]

I never said to censor the term. I said it does not belong in this auction, at this convention, in this setting. I will be more than happy to educate you on the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights when you are ready.

I think you should invest in a dictionary, as you're describing censorship:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor

transitive verb:

to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>

You want the domain name deleted from the auction, to suppress it because you consider it objectionable.

 

[Internet.Domains]

I think you should invest in a dictionary, as you're describing censorship:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor



You want the domain name deleted from the auction, to suppress it because you consider it objectionable.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/retarded
Definition of retarded
sometimes offensive

1. slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development or academic progress
2. sometimes offensive : slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development : characterized by mental retardation

Morals and ethics go beyond definitions. Those affected by this word have limited resources. I live by the Golden Rule. Treat others as you would have others treat you. If the domain auction lived by this then the domain would not be in auction....

 

[Nerevar]

As for the Golden Rule: I would not like others to stop auctioning dictionary words to accomodate my sensitivities.

 

[J.R.]

@Internet.Domains

Notice that the definition of retarded says, sometimes offensive. You are a cyber sophist indeed. Do you know how many words in the English language, and slang derivatives could be considered sometimes offensive, to some of the people, some of the time? And you in your delusion of moral superiority, would attempt to shame, bully and convince the independent minded persons that largely make up the domaining community, that they should support censorship and a slippery slope? A practical person would be solution oriented, and gather the funds from other special snowflakes in the SJW world and direct the domain in a fashion they see fit, and nobody on this board would question your morals for doing so. Yet, I suspect that you are an attention seeker, complainer, and cyber bully.

You seem slow or limited in intellectual development, based not on one being offensive, but on a very fair assessment of your piss poor, emotional arguments...buy the domain or go fly a kit.

 

[Internet.Domains]

@Internet.Domains

Notice that the definition of retarded says, sometimes offensive. You are a cyber sophist indeed. Do you know how many words in the English language, and slang derivatives could be considered sometimes offensive, to some of the people, some of the time? And you in your delusion of moral superiority, would attempt to shame, bully and convince the independent minded persons that largely make up the domaining community, that they should support censorship and a slippery slope? A practical person would be solution oriented, and gather the funds from other special snowflakes in the SJW world and direct the domain in a fashion they see fit, and nobody on this board would question your morals for doing so. Yet, I suspect that you are an attention seeker, complainer, and cyber bully.

You seem slow or limited in intellectual development, based not on one being offensive, but on a very fair assessment of your piss poor, emotional arguments...buy the domain or go fly a kit.

Funny how you mention the word bully and then go on to say, "You seem slow or limited in intellectual development"...

 

[Addison]

I think this is a retarded disussion. lol
Retard is also to delay.
When I had a Pizza stand, we had to “Retard the dough”
I remember one of my employees got crazy because he thought my brother called him a retard.
That meant that you had to store the dough overnight. To delay using it. To slow things down.
And with any domain, it all depends on use.
I don’t own this domain and don’t even know who the owner is.

http://www.thedomains.com/2016/12/3...st-domain-industry-convention/#comment-217719

Rick Schwartz has done a superb amount of good in domaining, but he in no way should be considered a poster child. In many ways he's an embarrassment to this industry. I've seen him happily purchase any domain name without regard to ethics or morals. I've seen him buy offensive, borderline TM infringing and degrading adult domains. Think of the most offensive, derogatory, morally inept domain that you can, and Rick would happily buy it, IMO. His domain registrations and statement that he thinks "this is a retarded disussion" suggest to me that he's willing to offend and spit in anyone's face if it makes him a dollar. Go back to "retirement" please.

“I think this is a retarded disussion. lol”
C’mon man. Are you referencing pizza dough with that saying? That statement, which you find to be funny, is exactly how and why so many people who have disabilities get offended . . . This is not a freedom of speech issue and this is not a definition issue, like pizza dough. This conversation has to do with REAL people, morals and respect. Morally accepting others that are not as fortunate. Respectful enough to treat them as they want to be treated.

Aaron is right.

 

[Nerevar]

Morals are a great thing when you impose them on yourself. Not so great if you try to impose them on others Do we need moral police in the domaining world?

 

[wwwweb]

I think the domain is not infringing on anyone's mark, and if you don't like it, buy it, and lock it in a closet. The owner has the right to sell it if they choose to do so.

Otherwise if the owner chooses to sell it, and what was said above, a non profit buys it to keep it from misuse, that would actually be the best thing for it. Or someone buys it to donate to a non profit that would also be a good thing.

Maybe what would not be good, if someone buys it for a youtube channel, or a email service, so why not get it in the hands of someone who can educate people about it, rather than discriminate.

 

[tonecas]

when you think you've sen it all...

are you guys joking? offensive? to whom? who the hell cares?? take it up and move on... i don't like many things and that those not imply that I can censor them.

the question should be placed around the quality of the domain, not its moral stance. for an event of this dimension this is the best they can come up with to fill the spots? if it is not, is it to pay for a favor/friend?

 

[Addison]

Morals are a great thing when you impose them on yourself. Not so great if you try to impose them on others

Astute point!

Do we need moral police

By definition, yes. Moral and ethical standards are not part of the law. They only exist thanks to an empathetic society ("moral police"). The keyword here is empathy.

If you've been fortunate enough to never experience social injustice, then you may struggle with empathy, but the day will come when you will be grateful that it exists. Until then, try to put yourself in the shoes of those less fortunate than you.

 

[NPer]

If the poll in this thread instead read: "Were your domain submissions accepted for the Namecon auction?"... I bet the same people that voted "NO" here, would vote "NO" again.

Textbook twattage.

 

[J.R.]

Astute point!


By definition, yes. Moral and ethical standards are not part of the law. They only exist thanks to an empathetic society ("moral police"). The keyword here is empathy.

If you've been fortunate enough to never experience social injustice, then you may struggle with empathy, but the day will come when you will be grateful that it exists. Until then, try to put yourself in the shoes of those less fortunate than you.

O wise man. Here is a question for you: What if one has experienced tons of social injustice, has overcome great adversity, and is empathetic to many things, but they still decide that the danger in this context of the selling of the Retarded.com domain; they still believe that censorship is far more dangerous?

Also, empathetic society or a collection of empathetic individuals, imposing their will on the so-called non-empathetic minority, does not equal moral police; nice try. The moral police, in a non-totalitarian society, are unelected individuals who are under the delusion of their own moral superiority. All the arguments presented in this thread, so far, against the auctioning of this domain depend on weak emotional arguments. Rather than debate endlessly, contact the wealthy SJWs who have the funds to purchase <Retarded.com>, and they can do whatever they want with the domain. That's a practical, diplomatic solution, that respects the free market, promotes liberty, and is a positive outcome.

 

[Addison]

I voted NO and I would never undersell one of my domains at a live auction that only has, at best, a couple thousand eyeballs. Thanks, but no thanks.

If the poll in this thread instead read: "Were your domain submissions accepted for the Namecon auction?"... I bet the same people that voted "NO" here, would vote "NO" again.

You know what they say about assumptions?

 

[dordomai]

http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgar...alberta-family-for-you-retard-bottle-cap.html

 

[wormfood]

"Morally accepting others that are not as fortunate. Respectful enough to treat them as they want to be treated."

Nothing about auctioning a domain that is a word in the dictionary says "We do not accept those who are less fortunate and sometimes called this by insensitive people."
What does "want to be treated" mean here? Auctioning a domain that is a word in the dictionary is not "treating" any person with a disability to anything good or bad. It's a sale of a word with no context.