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

 

[Nerevar]

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

PC. On the other hand, those consumers did pay for the bottle, and can rightfully have some expectations of a pleasant experience.

 

[NPer]

You know what they say about assumptions?

No, but since you are "assuming the position", I bet you know it very well. :D

 

[Addison]

I bet you know it very well. :D

+1 for the funny, but you've still made an assumption out of yourself by assuming that I had submitted domains to the auction.

 

[tldboss]

I think most people suffering from mental illness or people working with / taking care of / related to people suffering from mental illness find the word offensive.

I think we have to take care of the community (fellow human beings), some companies spend money and time helping people suffering from mental illness. It is not about making money all the time, sometime we need to step back and help others (be sensitive); It goes a long way, nobody knows what tomorrow brings, nobody is immune from misfortune.

Treat others as you want to be treated, with kindness and respect.

 

[NPer]

+1 for the funny, but you've still made an assumption out of yourself by assuming that I had submitted domains to the auction.

uHMMM... No guy, you clearly didn't get it. And the poll statement was not directed at you- I don't know who you are! LOL

This song aint about you. Stop with yoiur "assumptions"

 

[Addison]

And the poll statement was not directed at you- I don't know who you are! LOL

Your poll statement included me. I voted NO, remember?

I'll save the English lesson for your teacher but this is what you said:

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.

 

[Nerevar]

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.

I do have a close enough relative who is, hmm, not very normal. He does not like being called retarded. I do not like if he is being called retarded. What I do not realize is: what all of this has to do with a domain name auction I do not see what harm will come to him or to me from this auction, and whether this harm is so great that we really need to stop it On the other hand, the harm that can come from pressure to do things beyond what the law commands, appears to me very real for domaining community and for our society as a whole.

 

[Addison]

How about we shift this discussion to the fact that this domain name shouldn't qualify for the auction based on its lack of merits alone? Superior domains have been rejected and it doesn't take much for a domain to be worth more than this worthless domain name.

How many of you are going to bid on it? All talk and no pay?

Domainers: How much is it worth? What will you do with it? Whom would you flip it to? Whom are the end users?

Don't forget the basics in the midst of all this "censorship" hoopla.

censorship is far more dangerous

Does that mean all of the rejections in this thread were censored? How about not choosing a worthless and unnecessarily offensive domain name? There's a thought.

 

[Nerevar]

How about we shift this discussion to the fact that this domain name shouldn't qualify for the auction based on its lack of merits alone?

Sure, that would be a pre-sale Appraisal section thread. However, our opinions of this domain value are merely our opinions, not necessarily same with those who chose this domain for the auction. Only when the domain sells (or not sells) we will know for sure whether it was a reasonably good pick.

 

[Donald Wiley]

I think this is the wrong place for a domain name like this to be sold, totally agree with the OP.

I can't believe I have never heard of this website. I am an autistic parent of autistic children (3 of them). So you can imagine what this word means to me.

 

[Donald Wiley]

It's definitely an offensive word. Let's hope whoever purchases it does something positive with it. N*gger.com is owned by NAACP and not developed. Let's hope Retarded.com is picked up by an organization that will use it for information and education, or maybe buy it so no one else can turn it into BS.

 

[hxp]

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.

I dare say if a "Moral Police" did exist, they'd vote "Yes" in this poll.

Why? Because, they'd consider all moral perspectives and standpoints, and make a decision that benefitted the greater good. Not just one constricted ideology.

@Nerevar brought up a great point earlier, regarding the banning/censorship of names (like "Osama Bin Laden").

I actually went to school with a kid named "Osama". He was kind, smart, helpful, and just an overall pleasant person to deal with. Following the damage inflicted by the more infamous "Osama Bin Laden", you wouldn't believe the BS this kid went through. He was taunted, harassed, ridiculed, and even physically attacked - on a regular basis. He did nothing wrong. Even after everything that was done to him, he didn't retaliate or try to harm those who had harmed him. If I remember correctly, he was forced into moving/changing schools. &All this, because he simply shared his name with a widely recognized symbol of evil.

Why should he have had to pay for crimes he didn't commit? Should he, or others like him, be forced to change their names because of one bad representation? Were the bullies justified, because they thought that all other representations by the same name were suddenly immoral?

Taking an extremist position on any one standpoint, no matter how good or moral you think it is, can have very dangerous implications. &I believe that's what those of us who voted "Yes" in the poll are trying to relay. By shutting out "Retarded.com" because it represents one particular evil, you also shut out any possibility that it might have to be used for good. Furthermore, you set the precedent that any future names with a similar level of controversy should also be removed because any one group of people feels hurt.

By censoring "Rape.com" you also prevent the potential of a "Registered American Patriots Enrollment Program".

By censoring "Pedophile.com" you also prevent any use it might have as a Sex Offenders Registry.

By censoring "Coon.com" you might also prevent the potential of something like "Carry On Over Negativity".

I don't know. I just think that the effect of censoring a word, due to one negative connotation or potential misuse, has for more damaging consequences, and is infinitely more dangerous, for the domain industry/community as a whole...

 

[alcy]

u can buy it to say nice things abotu retarded people
and to say that people who say bad things abotu retarded people are retarded

 

[bobbarato]

If I owned retarded.com I would post this political image to it, perhaps permanently.

http://imgur. com/a/cgJAp <= space between . and com intentionally inserted


I kind of want to own it now.

 

[NameOmnia]

I certainly feel it’s about who buys it and how they use it not who sells it or if it should be offered for sale

So, for instance, if someone sold teenagesex or teenagep*rn do you still think it would be a matter of who buys it? A gun is a gun and you can certainly use it as a vase with a few flowers in it but it is not its main purpose is it? How about we start taking responsibility of our actions and decisions and look at something bigger than our own wallet?

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?

No one can impose moral on others and that's why we are here discussing over something that is so obvious it should have never required a thread. Money is a great thing but become rotten when we sell our souls for it.

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.

Very well said.
I will now leave this thread in 2016 and move to 2017..a far far better future. At least in my world.
A wonderful eye opening 2017 to everyone

 

[Maxwell]

I just don't think it's a fit for the auctions, it's not like dick.com which is ultra premium. Retarded.com is just like one of those weird names that you kind of just have to give some value because it is still a well-known one word in .com.

 

[mad409]

How did you become the moral police? You contradict yourself, with your sense of superiority. Why?

Debate the issue at hand rather than trying to get a rise out of me with snark comments. Thanks.

 

[mad409]

Michael Berkens commented on this, I'll quote the last couple of lines..

"So times change, words change and they way they are viewed by the public and society

So personally i would not have selected this domain for auction."

 

[hxp]

So, for instance, if someone sold teenagesex or teenagep*rn do you still think it would be a matter of who buys it? A gun is a gun and you can certainly use it as a vase with a few flowers in it but it is not its main purpose is it? How about we start taking responsibility of our actions and decisions and look at something bigger than our own wallet?

It wouldn't matter who buys "TeenageSex.com" or "TeenagePorn.com", as 18 (eighteen) is the legal age for being involved in the adult industry. The owner(s) should in no way feel bad about using the domains for their obvious intended purposes.

But, lets take it a step further (to the place where I assume you intended to go): "ChildPorn.com".

You have two buyers:

Buyer A wants to build a tube site, and display Child Pornography videos, images, and related content. He's also considering a forum to connect with other enthusiasts.

Buyer B wants to build an informational site, displaying the legal implications of being involved with Child Pornography, and support for children who might already be, or might otherwise get trapped in the industry.

What do you think? Does it matter who buys it? How they use it? Should both be held morally responsible? Neither?

No one can impose moral on others and that's why we are here discussing over something that is so obvious it should have never required a thread. Money is a great thing but become rotten when we sell our souls for it.

You say "No one can impose morals on others", yet here you are shaming people for buying/selling controversial domains. Come on now...

 

[Internet.Domains]

Michael Berkens commented on this, I'll quote the last couple of lines..

"So times change, words change and they way they are viewed by the public and society

So personally i would not have selected this domain for auction."

Yeah, Michael seems like a great guy, level headed. I have never met him, but I respect him. I obviously agree with him on this subject. Ironically I was going to make a post about the song he quoted, but he beat me to it. I am glad he beat me to it. One less thing I would get attacked for.... ..... and for those still not informed and making ignorant statements. Please visit www.R-word.org to learn more.

 

[Internet.Domains]

 

[Traveler]

What if the name was dumb.com, stupid.com, silly.com, idiot.com., dysfunctional.com., bipolar.com, gay.com?

Where do you draw the line in the sand?

 

[Internet.Domains]

 

[Traveler]

I get where you are coming from. I was the guy in high school watching bullies make fun of special needs kids and always put those guys in their place. I do not have a problem with name being sold at the convention. If I had the money I would buy it and put up all the videos you have shown.

 

[Internet.Domains]