What, we can't call them "Midget Retards" anymore?

[scribble]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001854467_respect10m.html


For example, "the disabled" or "the mentally ill" would be replaced by phrases such as "individuals with disabilities" and "individuals with mental illness."


I think we should apply this everywhere. Instead of firemen, we will have "individuals who are firemen." Instead of teachers, we will have "individuals who are teachers."

Instead of idiot lobbists, we'll have "individuals who are idiot lobbyists." Instead of moronic legislators, we'll have "individuals who are moronic legislators."

[Mr Manifesto]

Do you think that it's reasonable to define a person solely on their disability?

[American]

"Evolution" with "biological change over time".


Calling something what it is may be offensive to some people. Tell those people to eat s---.

[Bjorn]

I've seen people with very low mental capacity being referred to as having 'alternative intelligence'. :p

Personally, I'm glad I will never be 'old'. I'll probably just be 'elder'.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Do you think that it's reasonable to define a person solely on their disability?

In situations where the group of people you are addressing is defined by that ability, hell yes.

For instance: I would not call a group of lawyers "a group of people who are lawyers."

I would not call a group of touretter's as "a group of people who have tourette's."

In all of the above cases, it's obvious I'm talking about a group of people. Explicitly saying "people" is just added stupid baggage.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Do you think that it's reasonable to define a person solely on their disability?

No. Nor do I think it's reasonable to define a person solely on their employment or IQ level or their age or their internet habits.

Therefore, in the past, I would have said:

I passed a bunch of schoolchildren on my way from the doctor, and then I got online and posted on the interent that 'Mr Manifesto' is an idiot.

But that is racist. Instead, I should write:

I passed a bunch of individuals who happened to be students and who also happened to be individuals who happened to be children on my way from the individual who happens to be a physician, and then I happened to go online and happened to post on the interent that the poster who happens to be called 'Mr. Manifesto' happens to be an developmentally-disabled person.

Simple, clear, effective--and above all, non-insulting language!

[Globert]

Scribble

Fireman became firefighter in the early ninties:(

public servants were the first to fall to the pc patrol.

[specious_reasons]

It should really be "people who prevent and, when necessary, put out fires" because "fight" is too masculine and oppressive.

One could only imagine what George Orwell would say about this.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
It should really be "people who prevent and, when necessary, put out fires" because "fight" is too masculine and oppressive.

One could only imagine what George Orwell would say about this.

No, you can't say that because "people" make it sound as if one person could not do it. It should be "Individual or Individuals who prevent and, when necessary put out fires."

[Globert]

Shhhhh!!!

Now, I'm not one to stifle free and unfettered speech, but stop this before it kills again!!


- individual who with other individuals discourages incipient flame while respecting the noble traditions of the chemical chain reaction known as fire, striving to prevent harm to lives and property in as equitable and moraly neutral manner as possible
Globe

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Do you think that it's reasonable to define a person solely on their disability?

Of course! That's where all our best jokes come from!

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


Of course! That's where all our best jokes come from!

He doesn't understand that because he's Polish.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Grammatron


He doesn't understand that because he's Polish.

How did the Germans conquer Poland? They marched in backwards and told them they were leaving.

[Mr Manifesto]

I'm constantly amazed at how tough some people talk when they don't have the same problems that those with disabilities or mental illnesses have.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I'm constantly amazed at how tough some people talk when they don't have the same problems that those with disabilities or mental illnesses have.

You have no problem in defining people by certain generalizations.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Grammatron


You have no problem in defining people by certain generalizations.

Care to quote where I've done that?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Care to quote where I've done that?

Sure, every time you call someone American. But I guess you feel it’s reasonable to define a person solely on their citizenship.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Do you think that it's reasonable to define a person solely on their disability?

Absolutely not. The use of the prefix "Dis" implies negativity.

You should say "Differently Abled" instead :p

I'm not making this up. It has been seriously proposed more than once. Not, fortunately, by anyone with any clout.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Sure, every time you call someone American. But I guess you feel it’s reasonable to define a person solely on their citizenship.

I'm careful to define which Americans. For example, the American military, or the American government, or the American gun lobby. If you can find an example where I've done otherwise, I'd like to see it- if only to ensure I don't make such generalisations in future.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


I'm careful to define which Americans. For example, the American military, or the American government, or the American gun lobby. If you can find an example where I've done otherwise, I'd like to see it- if only to ensure I don't make such generalisations in future.

With that qualifier, would it be okay to talk about "Disabled schoolchildren"?

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


I'm careful to define which Americans. For example, the American military, or the American government, or the American gun lobby. If you can find an example where I've done otherwise, I'd like to see it- if only to ensure I don't make such generalisations in future.

Well the best example I could think of off the top of my head and it being this late is this thread http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27533 entitled "Are All Americans This Stupid?" I know there are more examples and if need be I will look for them, but I think this one is adequate.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by richardm


With that qualifier, would it be okay to talk about "Disabled schoolchildren"?

To let you know where I'm coming from, I used to work volunteer for an orgainsation called MANDA (which, IIRC, stood for MANic Depression Assistance or something like that). One of the problems many people with bi-polar disease had was the fact that they were constantly judged on the basis of their illness. If you had diabetes, you could let that fact drop in conversation and not be treated like you were going to shoot the room down any second.

Not so with mental illness. I met people who were refused work because of bi-polar disease, or sacked because it was discovered that they had it, and employeers were afraid that they were going to kill the customers or something. This sort of thing complicated what is a fairly treatable disease.

So, when I see a lobby group trying to find ways to reduce the stigma attached to this illness, and that effort laughed at by people who don't seem to know what these people go through, I get cranky.

If the disabled people, including schoolchildren, want to be referred to as, 'people with disabilities' rather than, 'the disabled', I don't see what the problem is, nor do I see why it should be the subject of ill-aimed jibes.

Now, some may use my diabetes example and say, "but people with diabetes don't have a problem with being referred to as diabetics". To which I say, "apples and oranges". Like I said earlier, there is no stigma attached to this illness.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Well the best example I could think of off the top of my head and it being this late is this thread http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27533 entitled "Are All Americans This Stupid?" I know there are more examples and if need be I will look for them, but I think this one is adequate.

Still haven't figured that thread out after all this time. At least you linked to it so people can make up their own minds. In my opinion, you must be longing for a GDFM award. May I suggest you jock Cain instead, as he's the one who hands the award out?

[richardm]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

So, when I see a lobby group trying to find ways to reduce the stigma attached to this illness, and that effort laughed at by people who don't seem to know what these people go through, I get cranky.


Fair comment. I have no idea what it is like to be physically or mentally disabled, and can only guess.

However, I am, presumably, the target audience for these efforts and am largely unconvinced that tinkering with words will make any difference. The best way to overcome it, I think, is to act as though there is no difference at all. But even that is fraught with difficulty. It's useful to have special parking bays for disabled drivers, but if there are objections to singling them out as "Disabled", then what's to stop able-bodied people using them. (Other than common courtesy, and good luck finding much of that these days).

[shemp]

I believe in calling a spade a spade, but that's because I play bridge.

I'm not "fat", I'm "alternatively weighted"!

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Do you think that it's reasonable to define a person solely on their disability?

Only if they define themselves that way, and expect special treatment because of it...

[Peter Jenkins]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
So, when I see a lobby group trying to find ways to reduce the stigma attached to this illness, and that effort laughed at by people who don't seem to know what these people go through, I get cranky.

If the disabled people, including schoolchildren, want to be referred to as, 'people with disabilities' rather than, 'the disabled', I don't see what the problem is, nor do I see why it should be the subject of ill-aimed jibes.


Speech is specific.
One of the first things you learn, when you study a foreign language is I, You, We, They, etc.
We have to define groups of people, to relate them to our worldview. Americans, Schoolkids, Homosexuals, Atheists.
It's no good saying trying to remove every single defining point from a conversation or you are left with no information at all.
OK, I can accept that we should not use hurtful and insulting definitions - if that were the case here, I doubt that there would be anyone disagreeing with you - but the problem is where people are constantly redefining what is OK, and what isn't.
In this case, the difference between 'the mentally ill' & "individuals with mental illness" is not a step forward, It is just laughable semantic balderdash.
Peter

[Tony]

I prefer the term "gimpy".

[Luke T.]

The problem with political correctness is that sometimes the PC club takes up a cause for a group of people who don't want their help. For instance, the blind.


The blind have had trouble with euphemismms for as long as anybody can remember, and late twentieth-century America is no exception. The form has changed (in fact, everything is very "politically correct"), but the old notions of inferiority and second-class status still remain. The euphemisms and the political correctness don't help. If anything, they make matters worse since they claim modern thought and new enlightenment. Here is a recent example from the federal government:


One of my favorite links on this subject. (http://www.blind.net/bpg00005.htm)

Please read it, Mr. Manifesto.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Luke T.
The problem with political correctness is that sometimes the PC club takes up a cause for a group of people who don't want their help. For instance, the blind.




One of my favorite links on this subject. (http://www.blind.net/bpg00005.htm)

Please read it, Mr. Manifesto.


Interesting link, but I wonder, what does he base this on?

As civilizations decline, they become increasingly concerned with form over substance, particularly with respect to language. At the time of the First World War we called it shell shock--a simple term, two one-syllable words, clear and descriptive. A generation later, after the Second World War had come and gone, we called it combat fatigue. It meant the same thing, and there were still just two words--but the two syllables had grown to four. Today the two words have doubled, and the original pair of syllables have mushroomed to eight. It even has an acronym, PTSD--post traumatic stress disorder. It still means the same thing, and it still hurts as much or as little, but it is more in tune with current effete sensibilities.

[Graham]

As civilizations decline, they become increasingly concerned with form over substance, particularly with respect to language. At the time of the First World War we called it shell shock--a simple term, two one-syllable words, clear and descriptive. A generation later, after the Second World War had come and gone, we called it combat fatigue. It meant the same thing, and there were still just two words--but the two syllables had grown to four. Today the two words have doubled, and the original pair of syllables have mushroomed to eight. It even has an acronym, PTSD--post traumatic stress disorder. It still means the same thing, and it still hurts as much or as little, but it is more in tune with current effete sensibilities.

As regards his example, PTSD seems like a far more appropriate and descriptive term than either "shell shock" (since it's not necessarily anything to do with shells) or "combat fatigue" (which doesn't really "fit" to my mind either).

If anything, this seems like the exact opposite of the situation that Scribble is getting all riled up about. Meaningless and inappropriate terms being replaced with sensible, descriptive terms.

Confusing issues like this doesn't give me confidence in the writer's authority on the matter.

Graham

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Luke T.
The problem with political correctness is that sometimes the PC club takes up a cause for a group of people who don't want their help. For instance, the blind.


As civilizations decline, they become increasingly concerned with form over substance, particularly with respect to language.

It may be a bit off topic, but I have a problem with statements like this. Has it ever been demonstrated that this is something that happens as civilizations decline? Which civilizations? How many civilizations? Has there ever been a study of civilizations that declined and their attitudes of form over substance?

On the larger topic, a negative connotation will attach itself to a condition regardless of the term used. If I want to call someone “retarded” I can get the exact same effect with the inflection of my voice by using the terms “special” or “differently abled”.

[Luke T.]

If a blind person doesn't want to be called "visually impaired," who am I to say otherwise?

I'm still waiting for the NAACP to change its name. ;)

[Luke T.]

Actually, I'm still waiting for the NAACP to be unneccesary.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I'm constantly amazed at how tough some people talk when they don't have the same problems that those with disabilities or mental illnesses have.

Exactly.

Some of the so called anti-PC'ers on this board become quite PC when you attack something that hits home for them.
Sure, it's all hilarious when your making fun of Muslims, or people with disabilities, or whatever. Basically, when it's not them.

So, if I make Jewish jokes on here, will anyone complain? Jokes about the holocaust? Wouldn't it be PC to complain? How about jokes about blacks? Now, don't complain. You'll be PC!

I don't consider myself PC, but I'm getting sick of the white bred American males on here complaining that they don't have the freedom to be offensive anymore because the uptight crowd is bringing them down.
Boo hoo hoo.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by KelvinG
I don't consider myself PC, but I'm getting sick of the white bred American males on here complaining that they don't have the freedom to be offensive anymore because the uptight crowd is bringing them down.
Boo hoo hoo.

Do you have a recent ( any? ) example of this? ( ...a white bred American male, complaining that they don't have the freedom to be offensive... )

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Exactly.

Some of the so called anti-PC'ers on this board become quite PC when you attack something that hits home for them.
Sure, it's all hilarious when your making fun of Muslims, or people with disabilities, or whatever. Basically, when it's not them.

So, if I make Jewish jokes on here, will anyone complain? Jokes about the holocaust? Wouldn't it be PC to complain? How about jokes about blacks? Now, don't complain. You'll be PC!

I don't consider myself PC, but I'm getting sick of the white bred American males on here complaining that they don't have the freedom to be offensive anymore because the uptight crowd is bringing them down.
Boo hoo hoo.

As far as I'm concerned you can make all the jokes about black jews during holocaust all you like, of course someone will complain but that because they have a right to. I believe the problem here is that there's no point to be moving goal post to define what is PC or not, it's just a waist of time. Most of the so called disabled -- some of you may know them as individuals with disabilities -- don't want to be called that because they want to be accepted as equals. Changing the name to define them, as anything other than what they want will probably still be offensive to them.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Exactly.

Some of the so called anti-PC'ers on this board become quite PC when you attack something that hits home for them.
Sure, it's all hilarious when your making fun of Muslims, or people with disabilities, or whatever. Basically, when it's not them.

So, if I make Jewish jokes on here, will anyone complain? Jokes about the holocaust? Wouldn't it be PC to complain? How about jokes about blacks? Now, don't complain. You'll be PC!

I don't consider myself PC, but I'm getting sick of the white bred American males on here complaining that they don't have the freedom to be offensive anymore because the uptight crowd is bringing them down.
Boo hoo hoo.

How is calling someone who is blind "blind" offensive? What has precipitated the need for them to now be called "visually impaired?"

How is calling someone "mentally retarded" offensive if they are in fact mentally retarded?

You can call someone who is handicapped (differently abled) whatever you like and someone else will still find a way to make fun of them. Renaming the victims of their jokes doesn't cure the problem. That's retarded!

[rikzilla]

Personally I think PC-madness is,..well,...er,...mad.

Simple as that. There should be no need for it.

Most people do not use words which will offend others. If I refer to someone as being "black" and they advise me they wish to be referred to as "Afican-American" that's fine with me. It costs me nothing to make the adjustment.

The fact is that there are hyper-sensitive people who are being pandered to by other hyper-sensitive people. That's where we get the concept of PC. It's just a bunch of unnecessary crappola. If someone wishes to be known as X, then most reasonable people will make the adjustment out of their desire to be polite.

You cannot regulate manners,...but the originators of PC-speak seem to have elected themselves to the US Congress of Speech.

Insanity! (Oh, sorry; "Individuals of differing mental capability!")

-z

[Martin]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
If the disabled people, including schoolchildren, want to be referred to as, 'people with disabilities' rather than, 'the disabled', I don't see what the problem is, nor do I see why it should be the subject of ill-aimed jibesIf the term 'disabled', or its connotations, are considered unacceptable, then a different term should be used. I agree.

But 'people with disabilities' isn't any different. It's the same f*cking thing, with the same connotations. The two are semantically identical.

[Checkmite]

You know, this is so cool...whenever somebody calls me "lazy", I can tell them "No, I'm just alternatively motivated."

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by rikzilla
If I refer to someone as being "black" and they advise me they wish to be referred to as "Afican-American" that's fine with me. It costs me nothing to make the adjustment.

George Carlin said about this:

"If someone wants me to, I'll call them an obsese African-American homosexual. Or, if they prefer, I'll call them a fat ni**er cocks**ker. I'm here to please."

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#660066 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#660066><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>Posted by Pyrrho:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=2>Edited for language.
[i]</font></td></tr></table>

[Peter Jenkins]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Exactly.

Some of the so called anti-PC'ers on this board become quite PC when you attack something that hits home for them.
Sure, it's all hilarious when your making fun of Muslims, or people with disabilities, or whatever. Basically, when it's not them.

So, if I make Jewish jokes on here, will anyone complain? Jokes about the holocaust? Wouldn't it be PC to complain? How about jokes about blacks? Now, don't complain. You'll be PC!

I don't consider myself PC, but I'm getting sick of the white bred American males on here complaining that they don't have the freedom to be offensive anymore because the uptight crowd is bringing them down.
Boo hoo hoo.

"the disabled" or "the mentally ill" would be replaced by phrases such as "individuals with disabilities" and "individuals with mental illness."

Do you equate calling 'an individual with mental illness', by the term 'mentally ill', with someone making jokes about the holocaust?
Peter

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
You know, this is so cool...whenever somebody calls me "lazy", I can tell them "No, I'm just alternatively motivated."

You are an indivdual who is just alternatively motivated. Just to make it clear.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
I'm constantly amazed at how tough some people talk when they don't have the same problems that those with disabilities or mental illnesses have.

yeah, when you look at all the cultural propaganda associated with the word schizophrenia, I sure wouldn't want to be indentified as a schizophrenic.

As one of my clients said "I wish they would just call me Larry."

remeber that all of you people who are judgementaly challenged!

[epepke]

Originally posted by Luke T.
The problem with political correctness is that sometimes the PC club takes up a cause for a group of people who don't want their help. For instance, the blind.

That's right. Most deaf people want to be called deaf, not "hearing impaired" or some such nonsense, and a randomly selected deaf person is far more likely to hold the viewpoint that deaf culture is superior to other forms of culture than any other such group I know of.

Similarly, a lot of people want to be called "fat" rather than "stout," "big," "stocky," "large," etc.

A lot of dwarfs want to be called dwarfs, unless they want to be called dwarves. "Little people" is OK, too, but I expect it to become a term of derision at some point. "Midget" is right out. I'm not sure why, though, because there used to be a technical distinction on the basis of a different physical condition. Wheels within wheels, dwarfs call midgets "pseudos" and use it often as a form of derision. But maybe there aren't enough pseudos to get a lobby.

People with mental and physical disabilities have the capacity to get just as tired of this tedious walking-on-eggshells as anybody else, and to assume that they don't is just as much stereotypy as any of the problems that these neologisms is supposed to fix. It's a bit condescending, after all, i.e. ooh, you special person, you're going to be scarred for life, unless I can come up with a great term.

Personally, however, I like "firefighter." It's less ambiguous. Of course, Ray Bradbury would never have been able to write Fahrenheit 451.

[waitew]

Originally posted by American
"Evolution" with "biological change over time".


Calling something what it is may be offensive to some people. Tell those people to eat s---.


Exactly,amen..Here here!!.."A rose by any other name would smell but as sweet" If the ideas themselves are unpleasant or offensive,it makes no difference what words one uses..Because,the new words will become equally offensive shortly...simply because the thoughts they represent aren't pleasant!!!A pointless endevour!!!

[epepke]

Originally posted by KelvinG
So, if I make Jewish jokes on here, will anyone complain? Jokes about the holocaust?

Probably not, if they were any good. Mel Brooks made an entire career out of it.

Sheila Loewenstein, bless her heart, 83 years old, lives in Miami, finally wins the lottery. She says, "I'm going to make a statue to Mr. Hitler." So she buys a piece of land and commissions a statue of Adolph Hitler, which she sets up. Her friends ask her, "Why would you ever make a statue of that evil man?" "Why not?" Sheila replies, extending her arm. "He gave me the numbers."

Just so I won't be accused of bias, two Palestinian women are walking down the road. One asks the other, "Does this dress make my bomb look big?"

[epepke]

Originally posted by waitew
Exactly,amen..Here here!!

That should be "hear, hear!"

.."A rose by any other name would smell but as sweet" If the ideas themselves are unpleasant or offensive,it makes no difference what words one uses..Because,the new words will become equally offensive shortly...simply because the thoughts they represent aren't pleasant!!!A pointless endevour!!!

There's a columnist named William Raspberry (or at least there used to be; I haven't seen anything from him lately) whom I admire very much. I got to see him give a talk once. He told a story about how an editor made him use "disabled" instead of "handicapped." The editor pointed out that it wasn't the word, but any group of people who feel disenfranchised will eventually come to loathe the word used to describe the group.

[Boo]

From somebody who plays the word game with different labels to describe my children, here is an idea. I call them Sara and Isaac. The school says they are SpEd (which also includes 'gifted'). The federal Gov't gives them a monthly allowance because they have Autism and one of them also has Cerebral Palsy and because they test younger skill wise then their 'normally developing' peers, the medical community says that one is 'mildly retarded' and the other is 'severly retarded'. The federal Gov't likes those diagnosis' as well and uses that as another reason why they qualify for a monthly allowance.


Retarded (from Dictionary.com) - To be delayed. A slowing down or hindering of progress; a delay.

Yep, they are definately delayed when it comes to having the same skills compared to a 'normally developing' peer.


The school, the medical community, the federal Gov't and anyone else can use what ever words they like to descibe my kids. As long as they get the services and treatments they need to realize whatever potential exists for them. Those of us that love and care for them will continue to call them Sara and Isaac.


Boo

[scribble]

Originally posted by Boo
[B]From somebody who plays the word game with different labels to describe my children, here is an idea. I call them Sara and Isaac.

That's a great affirmation.

Unfortunately, as relates to the problem, it's even WORSE than what is proposed here. Instead of saying "individuals who are retarded" now we'd have to say "Bob and Mary and Chuck and Jessica and Sally and Molly and ..." I sure hope we aren't talking about a very large group of people or this could take forever.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Boo
[BRetarded (from Dictionary.com) - To be delayed. A slowing down or hindering of progress; a delay. [/B]

Which just underscores that it isn't the words per se. "Retarded" is just the opposite of "advanced." The timing on a car, for instance, can be advanced or retarded. It's certainly a less discouraging term than most of the neologisms.

[waitew]

Originally posted by epepke
[B]

That should be "hear, hear!"
B]


Fine...'"Hear,Hear!!"..it's not as if I post sober.However,drunk or sober I promise to remember to spell this correctly.Thank you.

[epepke]

Originally posted by waitew
Fine...'"Hear,Hear!!"..it's not as if I post sober.However,drunk or sober I promise to remember to spell this correctly.Thank you.

It was not my intention to tick you off. But "Hear!" is shorthand for "Hear what this person is saying!" Whereas "here" is usually shorthand for "now just a cotton pickin' minute, Bub," as in "Here, now." The meanings are pretty close to opposite.

I guess it could be "Read! Read!" but somehow that doesn't seem so hot.