Page 1 of 2 [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Keni
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2013
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 408
Location: Australia

25 Feb 2013, 3:42 pm

I had to think about why the "Who is dead" phrase is jarring.

It is custom to use euphemisms to those upset and close to the deceased, to "ease" them into acceptance and habit of missing the person.
"Dead" is a final word, a slap to the psyche and likely to bring a renewed sense of overwhelming grief and loss.

So, to use the phrase about someone you know indicates that the person's death and the feelings of those grieving are of no concern to you.



scarp
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 194
Location: Virginia

25 Feb 2013, 5:02 pm

awesomeautist wrote:
reneeirena wrote:
I do get overloaded very easily and I don't understand humans most of the time. (And everyone says I should stop calling them "humans") I tend to overcompensate for this by analysing everything that comes my way. It doesn't help that I'm a linguist cos that just makes it so much more complicated sometimes...


You're human too you know. NTs are the same species, just with mental differences. NTs are human, aspies are human, you and me are human. Would you think it acceptable if an NT labelled say a kid with Down Syndrome a separate species? Didn't think so.


I've never used the term "human" in a derogatory way (it's kind of amusing having to explain that, being human and all, haha). I always thought of it as a mild bit of self-deprecation on my part -- as in, I am the one who is strange and from another planet/species, not everyone else.

Besides, referring to people as "humans" does not necessarily exclude the speaker from that class. Lately, there have been these car insurance commercials airing here in the US which talk about how silly and fallible "humans" are. It's just a light-hearted way of referring to the human species while acknowledging that we are animals prone to mistakes. It puts our condition (the human condition, that is; not ASD) into perspective. There is no malice in it.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

25 Feb 2013, 5:31 pm

Triple__B wrote:
I think this kind of thing is going to get only worse and worse. Not only do NT's prefer to beat around the bush on subjects like death, but with the US nation (I cant speak for other nations) going so politically correct, it's bound to get worse. Everyone here seems so afraid that they are going to hurt someones feelings, you can't say anything. What is wrong with the word dead, death, or whatever?


I think it's kind of insulting to call concern for others' feelings "political correctness."

However, do you think that people should go around indiscriminately emotionally hurting each other? What's wrong with not wanting to do that, that it must be inaccurately derided as "politically correct?"



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

25 Feb 2013, 5:46 pm

Verdandi wrote:
I think it's kind of insulting to call concern for others' feelings "political correctness."

However, do you think that people should go around indiscriminately emotionally hurting each other? What's wrong with not wanting to do that, that it must be inaccurately derided as "politically correct?"


It goes far beyond simply hurting someone's feelings. Of course, there are those who demand to be offended by anything, but we can't do much about that.

For example, there are those who object to referring to a Christmas tree as a Christmas tree because they are afraid of hurting the feelings of those who don't believe in Christmas. If they are that intent on being offended, I don't care if their feelings are hurt or not.

The same goes for calling a fireman a firefighter because it might offend some women. Get over it.

And there are people in a rage about sports teams using various terms relating to Indians such as Atlanta Braves, Washington Redskins, Florida Seminoles, or the Kansas City Chiefs. Get over it.

It's one thing not to intentionally hurt someone, but it's something else to demand that everyone use different words just because there is some possibility that some nincompoop is going to be so easily offended that they will feel bad about the term.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

25 Feb 2013, 6:33 pm

eric76 wrote:

It goes far beyond simply hurting someone's feelings. Of course, there are those who demand to be offended by anything, but we can't do much about that.


I find that the accusation of "You just want to be offended" often gets thrown around defensively. That is, most people do not want to be offended, and when faced with things that upset them and saying so, people just decide they're doing it for attention or because they want to be offended or demand to be offended. As such, I find this particular point to primarily be a way to shift the blame "I didn't screw up by upsetting you - you screwed up by allowing me to upset you!" Which is to say, it's usually rubbish.

Quote:
For example, there are those who object to referring to a Christmas tree as a Christmas tree because they are afraid of hurting the feelings of those who don't believe in Christmas. If they are that intent on being offended, I don't care if their feelings are hurt or not.


I have never heard anyone object to referring to a Christmas tree as a Christmas tree. I have only heard people complain about the entirely mythical and manufactured controversy over the so-called "war on Christmas." If you want people looking for reasons to be offended, look for the people who make up stories like "Don't call a Christmas tree a Christmas tree."

Quote:
The same goes for calling a fireman a firefighter because it might offend some women. Get over it.


This has nothing to do with offense. It's about more inclusive language that doesn't imply gender. It's not about offense.

Quote:
And there are people in a rage about sports teams using various terms relating to Indians such as Atlanta Braves, Washington Redskins, Florida Seminoles, or the Kansas City Chiefs. Get over it.


Who are you to say that Native Americans should not find this usage offensive? Do you live their lives, do you know the context in which the US historically practiced genocide on their nations and then turned around and appropriated their cultural trappings? If you do not understand that history, why do you feel qualified to criticize such a thing?

Why not try to understand it before just rejecting it because you think that there's no basis for it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington ... ontroversy

Quote:
It's one thing not to intentionally hurt someone, but it's something else to demand that everyone use different words just because there is some possibility that some nincompoop is going to be so easily offended that they will feel bad about the term.


Your examples fit into these possible categories:

* They don't really happen and are straw men used to create controversy and offense where none is needed (Christmas trees)

* It's not really about offense, but about acknowledging shifting roles in society ("Firefighter" in the case of acknowledging that women are participating in more occupations than they historically have)

* There is a valid reason to object to the usage that you are apparently entirely ignorant of

* Self-serving - many fall here as well. The Christmas tree thing because it helps fuel an otherwise nonexistent controversy, for example, tends to be quite self-serving. It especially serves to help Christians express a sense of persecution and oppression that simply does not exist.

* Ignorance is a common one. For example, your lack of understanding that words like "redskins" are racial slurs and thus using that as a name for a sports team is going to create strife because those directly impacted by such slurs (Indians) are likely to object. But ignorance allows you to simply dismiss these concerns and overemphasize the objections as "rage" because, knowing literally nothing about the controversy, you can dismiss it as irrelevant and tell those who are more immersed in the issue to "get over it."

This is probably worth a read:

http://zuky.tumblr.com/post/2827066832



LizNY
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 245

25 Feb 2013, 6:52 pm

eric76 wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
I think it's kind of insulting to call concern for others' feelings "political correctness."

However, do you think that people should go around indiscriminately emotionally hurting each other? What's wrong with not wanting to do that, that it must be inaccurately derided as "politically correct?"


It goes far beyond simply hurting someone's feelings. Of course, there are those who demand to be offended by anything, but we can't do much about that.

For example, there are those who object to referring to a Christmas tree as a Christmas tree because they are afraid of hurting the feelings of those who don't believe in Christmas. If they are that intent on being offended, I don't care if their feelings are hurt or not.

The same goes for calling a fireman a firefighter because it might offend some women. Get over it.

And there are people in a rage about sports teams using various terms relating to Indians such as Atlanta Braves, Washington Redskins, Florida Seminoles, or the Kansas City Chiefs. Get over it.

It's one thing not to intentionally hurt someone, but it's something else to demand that everyone use different words just because there is some possibility that some nincompoop is going to be so easily offended that they will feel bad about the term.



Yes. Thank you. In this part of the states there are many people who do not celebrate christmas, but then why should I hide my celebrating? For some simply having a christmas tree on my office desk is offensive. Please!!

The language police regarding gender neutrality is a complex issue. One that was huge when i was in college. But then I have to say I prefer calling them firefighters and police officers, because those terms are more accurate depictions of what they are regardless of their gender.

Overall, I completely agree the issue should be regarding intent to hurt someone else. Things are so twisted and confused these days.


_________________
Aspie: 166/200
NT: 57/200
AQ: 41/50


Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

25 Feb 2013, 6:59 pm

LizNY wrote:
Yes. Thank you. In this part of the states there are many people who do not celebrate christmas, but then why should I hide my celebrating? For some simply having a christmas tree on my office desk is offensive. Please!!


Have you seriously, sincerely, ever truly for real factually encountered such an objection, or is this simply something that you have heard?

Quote:
Overall, I completely agree the issue should be regarding intent to hurt someone else. Things are so twisted and confused these days.


Often people say hurtful and harmful things without realizing they are hurtful or harmful, or thinking that their usage should be an exception because they think their intent is good, but it still causes problems. Should people most impacted by those things just sit back and let them slide, or would it be appropriate to say "You know, when you say that, it really bothers me. Could you stop?" Because often when I do that, I get accused of political correctness, as if I cannot truly and sincerely object to something, and as if I have actually accused the person of malice by asking them to stop. Is it really so hard to say "I'm sorry, I didn't realize." and leave it there?



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

26 Feb 2013, 2:01 am

Verdandi wrote:
eric76 wrote:

It goes far beyond simply hurting someone's feelings. Of course, there are those who demand to be offended by anything, but we can't do much about that.


I find that the accusation of "You just want to be offended" often gets thrown around defensively. That is, most people do not want to be offended, and when faced with things that upset them and saying so, people just decide they're doing it for attention or because they want to be offended or demand to be offended. As such, I find this particular point to primarily be a way to shift the blame "I didn't screw up by upsetting you - you screwed up by allowing me to upset you!" Which is to say, it's usually rubbish.

Quote:
For example, there are those who object to referring to a Christmas tree as a Christmas tree because they are afraid of hurting the feelings of those who don't believe in Christmas. If they are that intent on being offended, I don't care if their feelings are hurt or not.


I have never heard anyone object to referring to a Christmas tree as a Christmas tree. I have only heard people complain about the entirely mythical and manufactured controversy over the so-called "war on Christmas." If you want people looking for reasons to be offended, look for the people who make up stories like "Don't call a Christmas tree a Christmas tree."


Often, the problem is people concerned that someone will find a term offensive and so they change it ahead of time.

But I do know someone who detests Christmas trees. I don't know if he objects to references to Christmas trees, but I do know that if you give him any opportunity, he will haul the Christmas tree off and throw it in the trash.

I have no clue as to why he is that way. The guy is becoming stranger and stranger every time I see him. At the slightest provocation, he will go into as much of a rage as anyone I have ever seen. For example, I once suggested a way to improve on something he was cooking and he went into a screaming fit like nothing I had ever seen before. He's gotten worse since.

Quote:
Quote:
The same goes for calling a fireman a firefighter because it might offend some women. Get over it.


This has nothing to do with offense. It's about more inclusive language that doesn't imply gender. It's not about offense.


Fireman has historically include women as well as men.

Quote:
Quote:
And there are people in a rage about sports teams using various terms relating to Indians such as Atlanta Braves, Washington Redskins, Florida Seminoles, or the Kansas City Chiefs. Get over it.


Who are you to say that Native Americans should not find this usage offensive? Do you live their lives, do you know the context in which the US historically practiced genocide on their nations and then turned around and appropriated their cultural trappings? If you do not understand that history, why do you feel qualified to criticize such a thing?


I understand the history quite well, thank you. Why do you feel qualified to find offense where no offense is intended?

Quote:
Why not try to understand it before just rejecting it because you think that there's no basis for it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington ... ontroversy


The basis is that people are intent on being offended. Some American Indians object to it, a great many don't. I suspect that most don't care one way or another.

Quote:
Quote:
It's one thing not to intentionally hurt someone, but it's something else to demand that everyone use different words just because there is some possibility that some nincompoop is going to be so easily offended that they will feel bad about the term.


Your examples fit into these possible categories:

* They don't really happen and are straw men used to create controversy and offense where none is needed (Christmas trees)


Bullsh*t. It's no straw man at all. There are certainly people who object to Christmas trees out of some misplaced concern that someone might be offended. And there are definitely people who want to replace the name Christmas Tree with Holiday Tree for one reason or another.

Quote:
* It's not really about offense, but about acknowledging shifting roles in society ("Firefighter" in the case of acknowledging that women are participating in more occupations than they historically have)


So what? Fireman is inclusive of both, except to radicals who are pushing their own agenda.

Quote:
* There is a valid reason to object to the usage that you are apparently entirely ignorant of


It appears that you are the one who is ignorant.

Quote:
* Self-serving - many fall here as well. The Christmas tree thing because it helps fuel an otherwise nonexistent controversy, for example, tends to be quite self-serving. It especially serves to help Christians express a sense of persecution and oppression that simply does not exist.


Huh? It's pretty strange that the calls are all for Christians to not "offend" everyone else without reciprocation in turn.

Quote:
* Ignorance is a common one.


That is abundantly clear in your arguments.

Quote:
For example, your lack of understanding that words like "redskins" are racial slurs and thus using that as a name for a sports team is going to create strife because those directly impacted by such slurs (Indians) are likely to object. But ignorance allows you to simply dismiss these concerns and overemphasize the objections as "rage" because, knowing literally nothing about the controversy, you can dismiss it as irrelevant and tell those who are more immersed in the issue to "get over it."


A number of people around here are part American Indian and I don't know anyone who is offended by the term at all, including me.

Quote:
This is probably worth a read:

http://zuky.tumblr.com/post/2827066832


Probably not.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

26 Feb 2013, 2:06 am

Verdandi wrote:
LizNY wrote:
Yes. Thank you. In this part of the states there are many people who do not celebrate christmas, but then why should I hide my celebrating? For some simply having a christmas tree on my office desk is offensive. Please!!


Have you seriously, sincerely, ever truly for real factually encountered such an objection, or is this simply something that you have heard?


I have. Well, it wasn't on an office desk. It was a good sized tree prominently displayed at the office. The twerp who objected hauled it off a week before Christmas and threw it in the recycling center. In the process, he destroyed a large number of Christmas ornaments that were hanging on the tree.



Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

26 Feb 2013, 3:45 am

eric76 wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
LizNY wrote:
Yes. Thank you. In this part of the states there are many people who do not celebrate christmas, but then why should I hide my celebrating? For some simply having a christmas tree on my office desk is offensive. Please!!


Have you seriously, sincerely, ever truly for real factually encountered such an objection, or is this simply something that you have heard?


I have. Well, it wasn't on an office desk. It was a good sized tree prominently displayed at the office. The twerp who objected hauled it off a week before Christmas and threw it in the recycling center. In the process, he destroyed a large number of Christmas ornaments that were hanging on the tree.


It sounds like he was genuinely an as*hole. Just out of curiosity, was he a member of a different faith or was he a militant atheist?

I can't read your other full reply right now, but I will try tomorrow. Brain's too fried at the moment.



Triple__B
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 29 Jan 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 141

26 Feb 2013, 9:30 am

I believe that in the U.S. there is a sense that you must walk on egg shells to not offend. Maybe it's worse here in Florida because so many different cultures call it a home? Also, I am in the military which has every kind of culture, so certain things can be offensive to that culture.
I decided a couple of years ago to just stop worrying so much though and just be myself. You can't please everyone all the time.


_________________
AQ -48
EQ - 6
Your Aspie score: 164 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 29 of 200
Nothing is permanent in this wicked world. Not even our troubles. ~ Charles Chaplin


LizNY
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 245

26 Feb 2013, 12:02 pm

eric76 wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
LizNY wrote:
Yes. Thank you. In this part of the states there are many people who do not celebrate christmas, but then why should I hide my celebrating? For some simply having a christmas tree on my office desk is offensive. Please!!


Have you seriously, sincerely, ever truly for real factually encountered such an objection, or is this simply something that you have heard?


I have. Well, it wasn't on an office desk. It was a good sized tree prominently displayed at the office. The twerp who objected hauled it off a week before Christmas and threw it in the recycling center. In the process, he destroyed a large number of Christmas ornaments that were hanging on the tree.


Yes, I've seen people get offended over christmas trees in banks and post offices and college campuses and other kinds of offices. To be inclusive, some places insist its referred to as a 'holiday tree' or will regulate the holidays by saying we hav to put up as many jewish decorations as christmas ones. But this quickly becomes a problem when management realizes there are other religions out there and following this logic, we then hav to represent every possible religion equally which is not possible and rediculous.


_________________
Aspie: 166/200
NT: 57/200
AQ: 41/50


LizNY
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 13 Nov 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 245

26 Feb 2013, 7:28 pm

Triple__B wrote:
I believe that in the U.S. there is a sense that you must walk on egg shells to not offend. Maybe it's worse here in Florida because so many different cultures call it a home? Also, I am in the military which has every kind of culture, so certain things can be offensive to that culture.
I decided a couple of years ago to just stop worrying so much though and just be myself. You can't please everyone all the time.


SH## is insane here in NY too. Egg shells. Land mines. Yup. That's NY these days.


_________________
Aspie: 166/200
NT: 57/200
AQ: 41/50


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

26 Feb 2013, 8:00 pm

one reason why it is a bad idea to ask, "who is dead?" on facebook is that someone is likely seeking comfort when they post about a death, not wanting to have to describe their relationship to the dead person or explain in detail who it is if they are already upset. so direct questions feel kind of blunt and intrusive to them. they would expect you would look back over their recent posts, or ask around with mutual friends, or send a private message with condolences included. if you really cared, you would probably already know who died. a frank question sounds more like you want to satisfy your own curiosity instead of really supporting them.

as far as i can see, it has little to do with politically correct language use, and much more to do with demonstrating that you care in an relatively nice way that doesn't cause unnecessary upset.

about being overwhelmed in general - i do feel that way too. what i try to do is "tune out" the people around me so that it's like they are speaking another language and it's more like a wall of general sound that i can't differentiate. then it surrounds me and comforts me as opposed to jarring me.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


scarp
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 194
Location: Virginia

26 Feb 2013, 8:38 pm

If anyone is interested, I created a separate thread to discuss political correctness here: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt224915.html



scarp
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 194
Location: Virginia

26 Feb 2013, 8:43 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
if you really cared, you would probably already know who died. a frank question sounds more like you want to satisfy your own curiosity instead of really supporting them.


Wow, that is really insightful. I honestly would not have thought of it in that way.

I probably would have gone back to look at previous posts anyway, if only because I prefer not to ask questions to which the answers are readily found. But supposing that I failed to find that info quickly, it would never occur to me that asking so directly would not only seem blunt, but also careless. Good point, hyperlexian.