None of this is untrue…
Chicago: Holding my hands in the air.
30 Apr 2023
578
-
Like you don't care?
-
Intellectually you're not wrong, but practically speaking once a perfectly functional word has become established as a pejorative, what alternative exists? I don't personally have any objection to replacing words like "spastic" with terms like "differently abled", because it's much harder for people to bastardise and corrupt such terms.
I realise this gets the Mail readership squealing about "political correctness gone mad", but to once again recall Graham's quoted position - "political correctness" is all too often just another term for "politeness", and I'm OK with more politeness. The world could do with more politeness.
-
Because it's more euphemistic words, and thus less efficient communication. We could all go back to grunting and pointing (but don't fucking point at me or I'll snap your finger off), and not causing any understandable level of verbal offence. And tie our testicles to the masters horse, and live in a hole in a peat bog. I understand that your instinct to retard us all comes from a good place...but that doesn't make it any less deeply stupid.
The spastics society changed it's name to "Scope" after the joey deacon fiasco. Schoolchildren started using "Scopers" as a pejorative.
Your move Canute.
-
Why do we need so many words? Why can't we just call everyone cunts? It usually fits.
-
Yes. The goalposts keep moving. You have to keep moving with them. Or not, as is your choice.
I can't prevent schoolchildren from being unpleasant little turds, they always have been and likely always will be. We can continue to teach them the impact of their words, and hope that enough will have the empathy to recognise such teachings and take actions to lessen that impact. One of the ways to do that is to remove words that have caused hurt through a generation from the daily lexicon, through replacement and stigmatisation. I'm sorry if this causes problems for people whose synapses increasingly struggle with change, be it age-related atrophy, laziness or bigotry, but it doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do.
See also the modern day gender discussion.
-
JOEY!
-
Not so in my case, I don't believe. I think that censorship is pure evasion, and an unwillingness to deal with actual societal problems. People denigrate others to establish a heirachy. It doesn't much matter what form of words they use to do this. What we actually need to do, on a societal level, is eliminate discrimination - social, financial, opportunistic, and thereby giving people power, rather than hopelessness, so that words don't have the same impact - except as a communication device. Demonising words is evading real change. Freedom of speech is the single most valuable expression of a democratic society. How people use it tells us lots of things....but we, collectively, are not listening/interested.
-
"Cnut" is a better word than the others being bandied around because there isn't a group of misunderstood folks suffering the stigma of being lumped in with them.
It doesn't really require a pompous response about some bigger picture change because you like saying it. Effectively it makes one sound more like one of those Americans who are desperate to call people the n-word. -
No. What I'm saying is it's the behaviours that make the word bad, and if we are to truly effect change we need to work on the underlying conditions. Retiring words isn't going to achieve anything, except a need for new words. As experience teaches us.
What do you mean nobody is learning from history or facts? Fuck. Retards.
-
"I'm using the word correctly, it's those retards that are wrong" doesn't really help the people with learning difficulties who get stigmatised regardless.
-
Retiring the word doesn't help when they are stigmatised regardless, and it's a bit less obvious to most people because they don't understand which new words have been co-opted to reflect the fact that society discriminates against them. The danger of hiding through language is that there's less to draw your attention.
Which our law makers know very well. Why do you think you can't call members of parliament liars in the house? Even when their pants are demonstrably on fire.
-
You can call those people cnuts without casually insulting these people at the same time.
-
How will I know? I can't keep track of how everyone feels about all words. Neither can you, despite what you might think about your particular value set.
I'm proposing that we have values where freedom of speech is valued, and we use that as a communication tool to frame society as we want it - through actions and enshrined values, not by pretending that we are holier than thou, when we are very much part of the problem - even if we don't say 'scoper'. Freedom of speech, debate, and scrutiny, are actually the foundations of democracy...use them, or lose them.
Retreating into middle class self-delusion is solving nothing. They will come for us soon enough.
-
Wow. That strawman sure took a beating there. Good for you.
-
Nah, fuck it. You are right. Let's just burn all the words and stop talking to each other.
That will stop us resisting change against our interests.
