Political Correctness

[HenrySwanson]

Anyway what of those examples? Must I avoid them? Why?

 

[Famine]

Is "disabled" not the appropriate term in such contexts?

That would rather depend on what the individual being referred to is fine with, but then again it's probably not wise to use their preferred address in public fora. Some words come with big "It's okay to say [x], because my friend is an [x]." energy.

How I refer to my wife's various conditions at home is not how I would refer to them in public nor on here.

That they are a person would seem to be a given

You may be surprised to learn that in some cultures the status of people with disabilities as people is very much not a given.

I'm not saying that the UK is a beacon of disability rights or accessibility, but I look at some others and it amazes me how far behind they are.

And it absolutely starts with terminology.

 

[UKMikey]

I can't recall you having ever engaged something with which you disagree in a manner other than quoting part of an individual's post and flinging bad faith arguments in its general direction.

As someone who's been on the receiving end of this approach it does tend to get boring for me after the second or third repetition and causes me to disengage with the user in question. I can only imagine what it's like for those not involved with the conversation.

That they are a person would seem to be a given and referring to them directly as a "person with disabilities" just feels awkward and maybe even a little pandering.

Ultimately people can only speak for themselves but I prefer to use the "black people" to refer to ethnic groups rather than "blacks" since the former makes me feel like I'm being defined solely by my skin colour. I'm not suggesting everyone does this as it's up to them but that's my personal viewpoint.

 

[Joey D]

Oh no is that offensive? I also called them an invalid. I am absolutely racked by grief that I have caused you offense personally and/or caused you to be offended on another's behalf.

In the UK, there seems to be more of a taboo around words like that than in the States. I never knew the word "spaz" was on par with "retard" in the UK because in the States, it's just a word that signifies someone or something is going crazy (i.e., that running back just tore through that defensive; dude's a spaz man! OR my dog is running all over the house and spazzing out).

"Handicapped" is perfectly acceptable in the States, as is "disabled" too. Go into any DMV, and you can get a handicapped or disabled sticker/placard to park in handicapped parking spots. I've heard cripple time and time again. I even use it myself because I have a horrible right knee that requires me to walk with a cane when it goes out (I say I'm crippled).

What is and isn't considered offensive seems to largely be a cultural and linguistic thing. I can see where someone in the UK would get offended over a word that to their cultural norms is actually offensive.

We have some words that go the other way too. In the UK, the word "fag" is used for a cigarette, but you'd absolutely not get away with saying that here because if you said, "I'm going to go smoke a fag" more than one person would think you're going to kill a homosexual. The liberal use of the "c word" in the Commonwealth countries wouldn't fly here either. Using that word seems to be more offensive than anything else you can call someone. I had to remind my Australian co-worker more than once not to say that when talking with people he liked because being a "good 🤬" did not mean that person was a good dude.

 

[HenrySwanson]

As someone who's been on the receiving end of this approach it does tend to get boring for me after the second or third repetition and causes me to disengage with the user in question. I can only imagine what it's like for those not involved with the conversation.

If you can point to instances where I have not addressed your point I will try and reply.

 

[UKMikey]

If you can point to instances where I have not addressed your point I will try and reply.

I'm more referring ro a recent instance where I felt I answered your question but you came back with the same question because I qualified it with another sentence.

 

[HenrySwanson]

That was talking about the followers of a religion, which is different from the religion itself being more/less violent which is what I originally asked.

 

[UKMikey]

That was talking about the followers of a religion, which is different from the religion itself being more/less violent which is what I originally asked.

That's not the way it came across to me. I answered a question on the Islam question in post 5,758 and you immediately replied as if I hadn't answered it as you didn't like that I qualified the response.

 

[HenrySwanson]

This was the question - it was quite specific:

Islam - What's your view on it?

The point is to look at the wiki link I posted and the people who have been attacked on the street for wearing clothing with Muhammad on it. The outcry that followed that cartoon and how it led to violence shows the threat is real and doesn't diminish over time. See Rushdie as well. I'll let you...

www.gtplanet.net

And the answer was:

Of course Islam has more violent followers than Jainism. Pretty sure that all major religions do.

This answer could simply be a numbers game:

E.g. Pastafarianism has many fewer followers than Jainism. Jainism will possibly have more violent followers by the higher number of followers and not necessarily because of any inherently violent teachings.

 

[UKMikey]

This was the question - it was quite specific:

Islam - What's your view on it?

The point is to look at the wiki link I posted and the people who have been attacked on the street for wearing clothing with Muhammad on it. The outcry that followed that cartoon and how it led to violence shows the threat is real and doesn't diminish over time. See Rushdie as well. I'll let you...

www.gtplanet.net

And the answer was:


This answer could simply be a numbers game:

E.g. Pastafarianism has many fewer followers than Jainism. Jainism will possibly have more violent followers by the higher number of followers and not necessarily because of any inherently violent teachings.

I think you misinterpreted my post and have taken "more violent followers" to mean "a greater number of violent followers" instead of "followers who are more violent" which is what I intended it to say.

 

[TexRex]

The Reece Museum at East Tennessee State University has placed a movable fabric barrier over the entrance to an exhibit, posted a trigger warning, and has required that visitors to the museum wishing to engage with the exhibit sign a liability release form following outrage from an activist minority over a piece on display.

The piece, titled "Evolution" by artist Joel Gibbs, features a swastika morphing into a cross behind a portrait of Speaker of the House Mike Johnson.

Art exhibit at ETSU’s Reece Museum draws controversy

Republican State Sen. Rusty Crowe is appalled at the art piece.

“We have freedom of speech, but freedom of speech has consequences,” Crowe said. “And I think the consequences in this case, in my view, should be that these people that approve of this on campus should not be on our campus. It’s just it’s not representative of our Northeast Tennessee spirit. It’s hateful. It’s divisive. It’s not good.”

So the thing about "consequences" for speech is that when the government, including in its capacity as educator through public universities, wishes to affect them, speech must fall into one or more categories unprotected by the United States Constitution which are few in number, narrow in scope, and defined in detail. Though the piece may offend, it does not fall into one of those categories of speech which isn't protected.

 

[Jezza819]

The Reece Museum at East Tennessee State University has placed a movable fabric barrier over the entrance to an exhibit, posted a trigger warning, and has required that visitors to the museum wishing to engage with the exhibit sign a liability release form following outrage from an activist minority over a piece on display.

The piece, titled "Evolution" by artist Joel Gibbs, features a swastika morphing into a cross behind a portrait of Speaker of the House Mike Johnson.

Art exhibit at ETSU’s Reece Museum draws controversy

So the thing about "consequences" for speech is that when the government, including in its capacity as educator through public universities, wishes to affect them, speech must fall into one or more categories unprotected by the United States Constitution which are few in number, narrow in scope, and defined in detail. Though the piece may offend, it does not fall into one of those categories of speech which isn't protected.

Republican State Sen. Rusty Crowe, "It’s hateful. It’s divisive. It’s not good.”

You know, like the party he's a member of.