SyphonFilter
Veteran
Joined: 7 Feb 2011
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 2,161
Location: The intersection of Inkopolis’ Plaza & Square where the Turf Wars lie.
15 Dec 2011, 9:23 pm
15 Dec 2011, 9:46 pm
15 Dec 2011, 9:48 pm
"What do you mean I can no longer use the n word to describe a black person! what I also can't use the r word to describe a disabled person! It's political correctness gone mad!"
Again, that's offensive context. The words themselves, however, are just words.
My router's being ret*d, it keeps dropping my connection. How is that the same?
But you are still using it to mean something bad, words are not just words actually they have meanings. But you probably think you are being cool and rebellious by using them.
The meaning of words changes and varies, that's how English has evolved over the years. And the word had negative connotations in the first place, but the important thing is, I'm not using it to insult disabled people, I'm using it to describe an object.
Precisely.
Verdandi
Veteran
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)
15 Dec 2011, 11:26 pm
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGAOCVwLrXo[/youtube]
I really like this routine. Wish more people understood this. Also, I'm never sure what to think about his comment about people who are up at 5 am, since the first time I watched this clip, it was 5 am.
Anyway, people complaining that they're being told not to use particular words should probably stop complaining about that. No one can force you not to use certain words, but you need to be willing to deal with the consequences of using those words.
And yeah, I have no love for people referring to objects or situations as ret*d or gay. Arguing that context makes it not offensive is like Humpty-Dumpty arguing that words mean what he says they mean - fairly arbitrary.
I find it bizarre that anyone who objects to being told that some words are offensive feel perfectly comfortable telling other people how they should react to offensive words. Your perspective doesn't override other people's.
OliveOilMom
Veteran
Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere
16 Dec 2011, 8:28 am
No, my perspective doesn't override everyone else's but if we cater to every person who is offended by a word, imagine how limited our language would become. I'm not talking about words that seem to offend people so much, such as the n word. I'm talking about words such as disorder, disability, etc. Also words which aren't meant to be offensive in the first place.
I read something recently about the topic of the word "retarted". I tried to Google the article, but I've only just got up and I still have a morning caffiene deficiency. When I get my blood levels back up, I may be able to find it. As it is, I'm going to explain what I remember of it, then Google to find it later.
Years and years and years ago, medical professionals and textbooks used the words "moron" and "idiot" to refer to someone who is what we now, apparantly temporarily, call "developmentally delayed". At that time, these words were not commonly used as insults, and no offense was implied. Those words began to be used as insults much more frequently, so the word "ret*d" began to be used by professionals. Now that word became an insult so they use "developmentally delayed" which is now apparantly an insult as well.
What wording should we use for people who are truly developmentally delayed? Or for people with profoundly low IQ? Eventually, whatever wording that becomes the norm will have negative connotations and people will use it to insult others and it will have to be changed to spare everyones feelings and paint a happy and sunny overall picture. Even the word "special" is not becomming an insult. Although it is used jokingly as well.
My point is, we could find a word to use instead of anything else but someone, somewhere will take offense to it. The autism spectrum disorders could be called "unicorn and rainbows happy condition" and someone would still take offense. Being offended by a word itself, without taking into consideration the context and intent of the speaker/writer makes no sense and is being oversensitive.
Are we going to get to a point as a society where nothing is called anything that anyone could ever perceive as negative? Are dead bodies going to eventually be called "people with different living capabilities"? Will we get to a point where we can never say "old" or "elderly" anymore and have to say "those with the advantage of many accumulated years of life"? Do you see my point?
One poster said that people who complain about PC want to use non PC words to bully. That couldn't be farther from the truth. A bully doesn't care about what is socially acceptable, they do what they want anyway, so why would they complain? Using words in their proper context, or using them in joking context is not bullying anyone. How could using the word "disorder" possibly be considered bullying, in any sense of the word, unlles someone were continiously poking you in the chest saying "disorder" over and over, but then it would still be bullying if they were saying the word "omlette".,
A word is a word, and people can use even the most pleasant sounding euphamisms to insult. An example would be saying "Oh, you are going to your autism spectrum learning advisor today?" with particular emphasis on "autism spectrum learning" in such a way as to insult. Someone with a good vocabulary and understanding of meanings of words can also greatly insult you without using any non PC words or terms.
The only way we can ever prevent someone or some group, somewhere, from being offended by language is to simply ban all written and spoken language and return to simple crude forms of sign language rather than regular sign language because those are words too.
One thing that I haven't seen pointed out is that while everyone has a right to not be discriminated against, no one has a right to not be offended.
</ rant on PC>
_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA.
The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com
16 Dec 2011, 8:41 am
OliveOilMom
Veteran
Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere
16 Dec 2011, 8:45 am
^5 Asp-Z
_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA.
The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com
16 Dec 2011, 3:25 pm
I read something recently about the topic of the word "retarted". I tried to Google the article, but I've only just got up and I still have a morning caffiene deficiency. When I get my blood levels back up, I may be able to find it. As it is, I'm going to explain what I remember of it, then Google to find it later.
Years and years and years ago, medical professionals and textbooks used the words "moron" and "idiot" to refer to someone who is what we now, apparantly temporarily, call "developmentally delayed". At that time, these words were not commonly used as insults, and no offense was implied. Those words began to be used as insults much more frequently, so the word "ret*d" began to be used by professionals. Now that word became an insult so they use "developmentally delayed" which is now apparantly an insult as well.
What wording should we use for people who are truly developmentally delayed? Or for people with profoundly low IQ? Eventually, whatever wording that becomes the norm will have negative connotations and people will use it to insult others and it will have to be changed to spare everyones feelings and paint a happy and sunny overall picture. Even the word "special" is not becomming an insult. Although it is used jokingly as well.
My point is, we could find a word to use instead of anything else but someone, somewhere will take offense to it. The autism spectrum disorders could be called "unicorn and rainbows happy condition" and someone would still take offense. Being offended by a word itself, without taking into consideration the context and intent of the speaker/writer makes no sense and is being oversensitive.
Are we going to get to a point as a society where nothing is called anything that anyone could ever perceive as negative? Are dead bodies going to eventually be called "people with different living capabilities"? Will we get to a point where we can never say "old" or "elderly" anymore and have to say "those with the advantage of many accumulated years of life"? Do you see my point?
One poster said that people who complain about PC want to use non PC words to bully. That couldn't be farther from the truth. A bully doesn't care about what is socially acceptable, they do what they want anyway, so why would they complain? Using words in their proper context, or using them in joking context is not bullying anyone. How could using the word "disorder" possibly be considered bullying, in any sense of the word, unlles someone were continiously poking you in the chest saying "disorder" over and over, but then it would still be bullying if they were saying the word "omlette".,
A word is a word, and people can use even the most pleasant sounding euphamisms to insult. An example would be saying "Oh, you are going to your autism spectrum learning advisor today?" with particular emphasis on "autism spectrum learning" in such a way as to insult. Someone with a good vocabulary and understanding of meanings of words can also greatly insult you without using any non PC words or terms.
The only way we can ever prevent someone or some group, somewhere, from being offended by language is to simply ban all written and spoken language and return to simple crude forms of sign language rather than regular sign language because those are words too.
One thing that I haven't seen pointed out is that while everyone has a right to not be discriminated against, no one has a right to not be offended.
</ rant on PC>
Thank you, that is what I was saying earlier. You just said it better than me is all.
And some people are offended with PC words so technically people are being PC by not being PC.
16 Dec 2011, 4:23 pm
16 Dec 2011, 5:49 pm
16 Dec 2011, 5:55 pm
OliveOilMom
Veteran
Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere
16 Dec 2011, 6:04 pm
No one is wanting to beat black people, harass women or make fun of the disabled. I'm simply saying that that PC is going too far. Also, i'ts not "disabled", it's "differently abled" you know. If you want to be a promoter of PC-dom and put down anyone who is against it, you need to fall in line and become "schooled" on it.
_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA.
The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com
17 Dec 2011, 5:42 am
17 Dec 2011, 5:44 am
yeah, everyone has their own ideas of what is "PC" and what isn't but you could try to find some common ground, as in the example no obvious derogatory terms is maybe a good start or even a good end if you want to call the rest of being "PC" too much trouble and a waste of time
@arnoldism: My small experience with aspies and being on the spectrum myself, is that we do best with "honest" labels, (to repeat myself) we like it when stuff "is what it say of the tin". I embrace political correctness to quite a degree, as I do like to avoid offending people, but stop short of using "doublespeak" which obscures one's true meaning.
I have embolden part of your response above, I think telling people how they should have responded (esp. in a manner that is visible to those that haven't answered your question yet) is generally bad for the integrity of your results
(even if in this case I think people will still be inclined to answer based on their own understanding anyway)To give you a better understanding of where I stand, I have never been called the "R" word Radiofixr refers to but it makes me angry when I hear it used in a derogatory fashion (even the Black Eyed Peas "Let's Get ret*d" makes me a little angry), as does the misuse of "gay" even though I'm not LGB or T, and I've not used the term "gipped" since I found out it was a slur (I honestly didn't see the connection until it was spelled out on an episode of House
) ...Hi, by this what I'm really trying to say is not: "Vote for this one!!" but rather: Why oh why did I use "PC" in the title and why do people have such an adverse reaction to it?!? Please just forget that I said "PC" and focus on everything else; the text and do you agree with the sentiments. The text isn't so much about being "PC" as not being negative about a neurology, that is different, in my opinion anyway. I think that on this one people have focused in too much on their hatred of "political correctness" which I didn't know they had when asking the question.
It is interesting to compare the results of this poll to poll 4 which asks "which is the best way to speak about the mentality of autistics? Using negative terms, neutral terms or positive terms?" Almost everyone in that poll so far has said that neutral is the obvious choice yet when seen put into practice as in the example text, which explicitly says "Use neutral terms to describe someone's neurology" more people have voted against, though I don't know if they are the same people or if there is something else in the text, questions and answers other than the mention of "PC" which is so swaying them the other way on this one.
I won't lie and say that there isn't a part of me which would love everyone to agree with me but, the rest of me considered, overall I want everyone to say their absolute honest opinion, to express themselves and to have a voice, even if everyone's opinion is the opposite of my own.
Verdandi
Veteran
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)
17 Dec 2011, 6:18 am
OliveOilMom
Veteran
Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 60
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere
17 Dec 2011, 12:25 pm
Hi, I really do value your opinion but this caught my eye and I have to comment back: I really find people's faith in other people's categorisations of the neurology of others quite confusing; you do realise that, for example, homosexuality was until very recently officially classified as a disease. So when someone says something like "Of course it's this because the official people class it as this" regarding anything neurological, I think; ...... That said I do value your opinion, maybe you believe that regarding this issue it’s accurate because you also agree, or that you don’t know but have faith in the official statements because people have changed in this short time and now everything is much more accurate? Personally I don't think so but I'd listen to anyone who says otherwise and consider what they have to say.
I have yet to see being gay make someone unable to do something they want to be able to do.
_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA.
The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com
