Words that are offensive such as 'Colored', 'Handicapped etc

Omackeral

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Except when there are reports of missing people. Blonde is a very useful description. But if someone is dark skinned it can't be mentioned.

Well that's simply just not true.

pickarooney

Crea wrote: »

Doctors won't say that someone is retarded because that's too vague. They will talk about retarded mental and physical development.
Same with Spastic. Only muscles can be Spastic. People can't be.

Officially not since 1994.

Annasopra

Crea wrote: »

Doctors won't say that someone is retarded because that's too vague. They will talk about retarded mental and physical development.
Same with Spastic. Only muscles can be Spastic. People can't be.

Sure courts have to officially call people with intellectual disabilities lunatics because the 1871 Lunacy Act is still on our statute books. (Though this is on the cusp of changing with the Assisted Decision Making Act)

andekwarhola

Try explaining to an alien or a really small child the exact offensive difference between non-directly referring to a person as handicapped or disabled in a well meaning context, seeing as both foreground their condition.

In 20 years time, disabled will probably by demonized by a 'margin consensus' and a new word will be ushered in.

Wibbs

Choochtown wrote: »

The term handicapped has evolved to become an offensive word (to some)

A member of my family used to prefer the word as he said it implied that whenever he had achieved something he had achieved it despite being at a disadvantage to most of the population. A bit like when a handicapped racehorse wins a race despite having to carry more weight than the others. He always saw it as a positive term and found it much more difficult when others failed to acknowledge or appreciate his "handicap".

+1. For me "disabled" sounds somehow worse for some reason. It sounds broken, stopped, useless as it were. Handicapped sounds far less useless. "Retarded" is slow, but at least it suggests potential movement.

Attitudes are much more important than the choice of words.

Indeed. The words change anyway and soon enough the Official Bedwetters guide to Offence on behalf of others© will likely be updated to make what is progressive today be offensive tomorrow. And said book updates often.

Graces7

With family in Canada I have to be really careful. No more dwarf; "little people" ah but in Ireland that means...

And i am now totally confused re the correct term for people with darker skins..

I do though like, "differently enabled"rather than disabled...may even have coined that phrase myself

MadDog76

Wibbs wrote: »

+1. For me "disabled" sounds somehow worse for some reason. It sounds broken, stopped, useless as it were. Handicapped sounds far less useless. "Retarded" is slow, but at least it suggests potential movement.

Indeed. The words change anyway and soon enough the Official Bedwetters guide to Offence on behalf of others© will likely be updated to make what is progressive today be offensive tomorrow. And said book updates often.

HellSquirrel

Wibbs wrote: »

+1. For me "disabled" sounds somehow worse for some reason. It sounds broken, stopped, useless as it were. Handicapped sounds far less useless. "Retarded" is slow, but at least it suggests potential movement.

Indeed. The words change anyway and soon enough the Official Bedwetters guide to Offence on behalf of others© will likely be updated to make what is progressive today be offensive tomorrow. And said book updates often.

Just to ask, who -are- these Official Bedwetters and nutty lefties and over-sensitive liberals? You do keep mentioning them and I still don't really know what you're talking about. Is it people who disagree with you on the topic? People who don't believe in deliberately hurting others? I mean, you just brought up yourself there that two words both used for the same range of things have different levels of harshness as far as you're concerned. Why is it so shocking that some people will avoid using words that make someone else's day harder? Why does this actually make them a snowflake rather than a normal human who is accustomed to living in a society that means it can't just be every man for himself and some consideration is due to your fellow people?

Is someone that reckons you shouldn't use 'n1gger' an Official Bedwetter? What about spic or wog or crip or handicap or shemale? Outside very obvious special contexts, like between mates.

Sure, it's a funny phrase and all, it's just rather lazily sweeping to keep applying it or similar as a general "I don't agree".

Very few, if any, have condemned anyone for using these phrases between mates. But I dare anyone in here, even yourself, Wibbs, or MadDog, to go up to the next black person you meet and call them a n1gger if you reckon I'm so wrong in what I say here :P Or find someone in a wheelchair or a Downs person and say "What's up, crip/mong"

(Nah, I'm not taking it personally, just challenging your view!)

barneystinson

Graces7 wrote: »

I do though like, "differently enabled"rather than disabled...may even have coined that phrase myself

Hmmmm, can you explain to me how someone who has lost the use of a limb or limbs is "differently enabled" rather than less able - those limbs have become disabled i.e. they no longer function?

barneystinson

HellSquirrel wrote: »

Just to ask, who -are- these Official Bedwetters and nutty lefties and over-sensitive liberals? You do keep mentioning them and I still don't really know what you're talking about. Is it people who disagree with you on the topic? People who don't believe in deliberately hurting others? I mean, you just brought up yourself there that two words both used for the same range of things have different levels of harshness as far as you're concerned. Why is it so shocking that some people will avoid using words that make someone else's day harder? Why does this actually make them a snowflake rather than a normal human who is accustomed to living in a society that means it can't just be every man for himself and some consideration is due to your fellow people?

Is someone that reckons you shouldn't use 'n1gger' an Official Bedwetter? What about spic or wog or crip or handicap or shemale? Outside very obvious special contexts, like between mates.

Sure, it's a funny phrase and all, it's just rather lazily sweeping to keep applying it or similar as a general "I don't agree".

Very few, if any, have condemned anyone for using these phrases between mates. But I dare anyone in here, even yourself, Wibbs, or MadDog, to go up to the next black person you meet and call them a n1gger if you reckon I'm so wrong in what I say here :P Or find someone in a wheelchair or a Downs person and say "What's up, crip/mong"

(Nah, I'm not taking it personally, just challenging your view!)

Don't you mean a person with Downs... :cool:

HellSquirrel

barneystinson wrote: »

Don't you mean a person with Downs... :cool:

:P

It doesn't disqualify the rest of my comment.

Wibbs

HellSquirrel wrote: »

Just to ask, who -are- these Official Bedwetters and nutty lefties and over-sensitive liberals?

Mostly the pious holier than thou types busy publicly polishing their brass halos for all to see. They grind my gears no end and if an illustration were ever needed to show how easily the old crawthumpers of catholic Ireland sprang from, one need look no further to spot their potential foot soldiers.

Is someone that reckons you shouldn't use 'n1gger' an Official Bedwetter? What about spic or wog or crip or handicap or shemale? Outside very obvious special contexts, like between mates.

You've just dropped context in there. I'm not going to call someone in a wheelchair a "spa", but I have suggested mates have acted like one and I'll certainly continue to use the word "retarded" for actions and people who are damned stupid.

Fággots is a food that had now apparently has such an offensive name that I needed to put a fada on one letter to get by the "swear" filter.

MadDog76

HellSquirrel wrote: »

Is someone that reckons you shouldn't use 'n1gger' an Official Bedwetter? What about spic or wog or crip or handicap or shemale? Outside very obvious special contexts, like between mates.

Sure, it's a funny phrase and all, it's just rather lazily sweeping to keep applying it or similar as a general "I don't agree".

Very few, if any, have condemned anyone for using these phrases between mates. But I dare anyone in here, even yourself, Wibbs, or MadDog, to go up to the next black person you meet and call them a n1gger if you reckon I'm so wrong in what I say here :P Or find someone in a wheelchair or a Downs person and say "What's up, crip/mong"

(Nah, I'm not taking it personally, just challenging your view!)

The word "shemale" is offensive!??!!!??? I ......... did not know that! Thanks.

Anyway, I think we're on different pages here ........... I thought we were discussing using potentially offensive words/terms etc. in general conversations with friends, family, work-mates and so on as opposed to directly calling somebody with an obvious mental disability a "retard" to their face just for the sake of it .......... what I'm saying is I would, and have, called one of the lads a "retard" on a night out if they f*cked up when chatting up a girl or whatever but I'd never say to somebody with a mentally disabled relative "what's it like living with a retard?" because that is just being nasty and cruel.

El_Duderino 09

pickarooney wrote:

Are you able to spell 'condescending' all on your own. Or 'disingenuous'?

No. But I can spell irony

El_Duderino 09

MadDog76 wrote:

New words for new things is one thing, you were suggesting we change the meaning of old words to describe new items

How could you have my position so arze backwards? I'm saying when understanding of conditions changes a lot, sometimes it merits a new word to describe.

You're the one who wants to change the meaning of the old words such as handicapped for disabled, to fit the new definition.

El_Duderino 09

livedadream wrote:

Spastic and retarded are medical terms but are NOT used to describe people in a medical context, ie; you can have retarded growth of a tumour or whatnot but a modern medical doctor would never describe a patient as retarded.

They we're medical terms in the past

livedadream wrote:

Don't twist things in your post to make it sound like doctors are roaming around calling patients spastic or retarded as a way to describe their mental or physical capability.

That's exactly what happened before we developed our understanding of the conditions. Then we got new words with more refined understanding.

Some people are so married to the language and have difficulty changing the words they first used to describe things. I'm sure the people who used 'mongoloid' when it was normal, didn't want to change to saying 'downs syndrome'. They are just content to be a step behind in these things.

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote:

+1. For me "disabled" sounds somehow worse for some reason. It sounds broken, stopped, useless as it were. Handicapped sounds far less useless. "Retarded" is slow, but at least it suggests potential movement.

Yeah in normal language you can argue the point about which word sounds blah blah. I think a cold sounds worse than a flu and chicken pocks sound delicious. But it doesn't really matter what they sound like because they're medical terms and each one has a specific meaning.

Also, 'disabled person' and 'person with X disability' both describe a person with amputated arm. Both terms describe the same person but as you point out, one suggests the person is completely disabled. Using your cop on should help you decide which word order you want to use

PowerToWait

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed. The words change anyway and soon enough the Official Bedwetters guide to Offence on behalf of others© will likely be updated to make what is progressive today be offensive tomorrow. And said book updates often.

Says something that you understand that these changes are driven by anybody other than people within these minority groups.

Like why would they care what people called them anyway? Shur they don't mind, it's only the busy bodies.

PM me, we'll organise a wee focus group to test your theory.

Wibbs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

They we're medical terms in the past

as was idiot, imbecile, cretin and a few others, but god forbid someone uses "retarded" in a sentence(though even that's "local" to different cultures. Seems far less an issue in the US for example. Ditto for "handicapped").

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah in normal language you can argue the point about which word sounds blah blah. I think a cold sounds worse than a flu and chicken pocks sound delicious. But it doesn't really matter what they sound like because they're medical terms and each one has a specific meaning.

Indeed and as we're discussing language the word is "pox", which is the plural of "pock".

PowerToWait wrote: »

Like why would they care what people called them anyway? Shur they don't mind, it's only the busy bodies.

Glad you agree with me. The busy body brigade seem to be far more vocal about it.

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote:

as was idiot, imbecile, cretin and a few others, but god forbid someone uses "retarded" in a sentence(though even that's "local" to different cultures. Seems far less an issue in the US for example. Ditto for "handicapped").

No idea why you thought that was relevant to what I said about retard, mong etc being medical terminology of the past.

Wibbs wrote:

Indeed and as we're discussing language the word is "pox", which is the plural of "pock".

You looked past the point about everyday use of words vs medical words, to tell me about the plural of pocks.

Wibbs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

No idea why you thought that was relevant to what I said about retard, mong etc being medical terminology of the past.

You

---

Country mile

---

My Point. And "mong" was never a medical term.

You looked past the point about everyday use of words vs medical words, to tell me about the plural of pocks.

Plural of "pock". No S required.

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote:

You Country mile My Point. And "mong" was never a medical term.

Wibbs wrote:

Plural of "pock". No S required.

You're just shyte talking now which is a shame because it could be an interesting topic of discussion. Mods trolling. Interesting development

pickarooney

His point seems perfectly clear but perhaps hard to make out from atop a high horse with your head up your arse.

El_Duderino 09

pickarooney wrote:

His point seems perfectly clear but perhaps hard to make out from atop a high horse with your head up your arse.

Point is clear but this isn't a discussion the spelling of pock/pox.

My point is that definitions change, and new words emerge and most people keep up. Those who have a retarded rate of learning might have most difficulty keeping up and are most resistant to change.

storker

Omackeral wrote: »

I've always known not to use the term 'colored girl/guy' when referring to a black person but recently I found out on a thread here that 'handicapped' is not acceptable. Is this definitely true? I guess 'disabled' is probably more acceptable, or maybe 'differently abled', although that's a bit of a mouthful. Are there any words that you found out aren't acceptable and how did you discover it?

I've always thought that "disabled" was a stupid word to use, and I'm unclear about why "handicapped" was so objectionable in the first place. "Handicapped" suggests to me something specific, where as "disabled" sounds more...total. I don't think "differently abled" ever really caught on, probably because it's a nonsensical piece of PC doublespeak. Although it might not be as bad as, believe it or not, "enabled" which was suggested once upon a time.

(I see now that I'm just endorsing a point that's already been made. Good, then. )

MadDog76

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How could you have my position so arze backwards? I'm saying when understanding of conditions changes a lot, sometimes it merits a new word to describe.

You're the one who wants to change the meaning of the old words such as handicapped for disabled, to fit the new definition.

You tried to say we now call "pc's" "tablets"!!

We don't ......... :P

Wibbs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Those who have a retarded rate of learning might have most difficulty keeping up and are most resistant to change.

Please god let this have been deliberate…

Its all alt right

Take for instance someone who has an arm that is totally not working. To me their arm is disabled and they are going through life with a handicap. To say that this person is disabled seems worse to me than saying this person is handicapped. Though, "a person with a disability" sounds about the same to me as "a person with a handicap".

El_Duderino 09

MadDog76 wrote:

You tried to say we now call "pc's" "tablets"!!

We don't .........

No sweetie. I said there was no such thing as PC's or laptops etc. We all learned those new words, presumably without difficulty.

Just like most people learn new words like 'disability'. You're major difficulty seems to be with replacing the words you're married to, with more accurate terms. I can't for the life of me figure out why you're having that particular problem.

Luckily it's not for me to figure out.

El_Duderino 09

Its all alt right wrote:

Take for instance someone who has an arm that is totally not working. To me their arm is disabled and they are going through life with a handicap. To say that this person is disabled seems worse to me than saying this person is handicapped. Though, "a person with a disability" sounds about the same to me as "a person with a handicap".

Sure. The difference is that disability is a medical term in use today. Handicap isn't a medical term in use today but the is a common enough insult.

It's completely up to you to choose which words you use.

AndrewJRenko

Its all alt right wrote: »

Take for instance someone who has an arm that is totally not working. To me their arm is disabled and they are going through life with a handicap. To say that this person is disabled seems worse to me than saying this person is handicapped. Though, "a person with a disability" sounds about the same to me as "a person with a handicap".

And does the fact that every piece of advice and literature from disability organisations produced over the past 10-20 years suggests 'person with a disability' and not any variation of 'handicap' influence you at all? Why would you deliberately choose to ignore all this advice?

Stigura

Widdershins wrote: »

..... first time I've seen ftard is 2016, only on Facebook.

My mum died, of cancer, Febuary 2008. She was in her eighties. My sister was with her when, toward the end, she went to write a birthday card for my niece. Sister reckons mum wrote:

" To Vicky. Happy Birthday. F**ktard ..... " Muttered, " Oh. No. That's not right ....."

My mum had never been near a computer in her life. She more likely heard it from kids on a bus. Who cares? It's now a treasured memory and I'm pissing myself about it even now

Stigura

MadDog76 wrote: »

It's because really dark-skinned black, usually African, people have a bluish tinge in certain lighting (particularly moonlight) so it does literally mean "blue" people.

They're f**king great at hiding in the dark, anyway

Its all alt right

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And does the fact that every piece of advice and literature from disability organisations produced over the past 10-20 years suggests 'person with a disability' and not any variation of 'handicap' influence you at all? Why would you deliberately choose to ignore all this advice?

I'm not deliberately choosing to ignore anything. 10-20 years? I learned to talk about 45 years ago. Don't get me wrong, I will play ball and try correct my speech as these new phrases appear. As I said, 'to me', it doesn't 'sound' bad. To me retard sounds bad but it is pretty commonly thrown about in the US and Canada. As it stands your grandchildren will probably be on here telling my grandchildren that 'person with a disability' offends and they should be using the term 'service users' or some such instead. Probably after many years of disabled used as an abusive term.

CBMHB1

Using the term 'person's with a disability' implies an individual and a deficit model approach. Most disabled people and disabled activists designed the term disabled people because it represents being disabled as a consequence of society. For instance, social, political and economic barriers. It all links back to the earlier disabled people's movement in the 1960's.

Also, using his term 'black people' is correct and in line with black people's fight for human rights which started in the USA and coincided with disability, gender and sexuality equality etc.

Hope this helps.

Joe prim

mikeoneilly wrote: »

'Red Indian' is another one considered offensive now

The term used now is 'Native American '

As a Canadian (I'm not really) I'm deeply offended by your post, it's "First Nations"

Cantona's Collars

Sussex University Student Union has announced it is releasing guidelines about offensive terms to describe people.
The words "He" and "She" will be banned as they assume people's identity and can be deemed offensive.

Maybe Buffallo Bill in Silence Of The Lambs was ahead of his time: "It puts the lotion on itself".

getzls

Are you sure you're not North American

getzls

Joe prim wrote: »

mikeoneilly wrote: »

'Red Indian' is another one considered offensive now

The term used now is 'Native American '

As a Canadian (I'm not really) I'm deeply offended by your post, it's "First Nations"

Are you sure you're not North American

feargale

Del2005 wrote: »

He and She are now offensive.

I suppose we'll just have to call them shehee ( or Sheehy in Kerry.)

P.S. Why is it ok to call Archibald white, but not ok to call Sam black?

Some people rise in the morning and the day isn't right until they can take offence.

MadDog76

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

No sweetie. I said there was no such thing as PC's or laptops etc. We all learned those new words, presumably without difficulty.

Just like most people learn new words like 'disability'. You're major difficulty seems to be with replacing the words you're married to, with more accurate terms. I can't for the life of me figure out why you're having that particular problem.

Luckily it's not for me to figure out.

Nobody on this thread, as far as I can see, criticised the invention of new words for new inanimate objects .......... I certainly haven't.

You're attempting to admonish people for using words which haven't changed meaning because, according to you, the meaning of these words have changed ........ they simply have not changed .......... they may, or may not, have become less/more offensive to some people which is what we're discussing on this thread.

It's your lack of being able to articulate an argument that has gotten you into a situation where you feel that it's the rest of us that "just don't get" what you're trying to say but that's your fault, not ours.

CollyFlower

I haven't read the full thread, I think it's OK to refer to a person as being Black/White without being offensive. .. Black people have events, like 'Miss Black beauty contests', only recently we've had 'Black lives matter' ..... I think White / pink people are being too sensitive to the Blacks, if white people had these events they wouldn't be tolerated! ..... As regards the wording for the 'handicapped' what can you say, they're special needs! yet they want to be treated as 'normal people' ... That's OK if they can do as 'normal people do... I just think they look for too much.

AndrewJRenko

zerks wrote: »

Sussex University Student Union has announced it is releasing guidelines about offensive terms to describe people.
The words "He" and "She" will be banned as they assume people's identity and can be deemed offensive.

Maybe Buffallo Bill in Silence Of The Lambs was ahead of his time: "It puts the lotion on itself".

Do you have a source for this, please? I don't see any mention of it in their policies;
https://www.sussexstudent.com/about-us/policies/zero-tolerance/
And that's a very recent policy - from Nov 2016? Have you been following those fake news sites again?

AndrewJRenko

Its all alt right wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And does the fact that every piece of advice and literature from disability organisations produced over the past 10-20 years suggests 'person with a disability' and not any variation of 'handicap' influence you at all? Why would you deliberately choose to ignore all this advice?

I'm not deliberately choosing to ignore anything. 10-20 years? I learned to talk about 45 years ago. Don't get me wrong, I will play ball and try correct my speech as these new phrases appear. As I said, 'to me', it doesn't 'sound' bad. To me retard sounds bad but it is pretty commonly thrown about in the US and Canada. As it stands your grandchildren will probably be on here telling my grandchildren that 'person with a disability' offends and they should be using the term 'service users' or some such instead. Probably after many years of disabled used as an abusive term.

You seem to miss my point. Your own opinion, the 'to me' bit, is entirely irrelevant, given that you haven't bothered to do an ounce of research or investigation on the matter. If you want to know about appropriate terminology, speak to some people with disabilities.

AndrewJRenko

CollyFlower wrote: »

. As regards the wording for the 'handicapped'   what can you say,  they're special needs! yet they want to be treated as 'normal people' ...  That's OK if they can do as 'normal people do...  I just think they look for too much.

The 1960s called - they want their attitudes back. Please do have a read through the thread you might understand why defining people by their disability ("they're special needs") is a pretty dumb approach, as well as being pretty offensive to those involved. Please don't wait for disability to visit your house or family to enlighten yourself.

Which particular requests from people with disabilities are 'too much'? Requests for the same access to education, transport and employment as everyone else?

HellSquirrel

https://www.sussexstudent.com/news/article/ussu/statement-on-gender-inclusive-language-policy/

As usual, it's not quite what the Sun and Daily Mail (the two papers most reporting on it) claim it is, although it's still a bit eh. Sussex Uni claims that it's merely agreeing that;

a) gender-neutral language should be used for all official purposes; so if an announcement is being made, it shouldn't be couched in the general assumption that a mass group is default male (or default female either, but that is rarer).

b) gender-neutral language should be used at meetings - see above.

c) The trickier bit - if talking about (presumably officially, since even they admit that enforcing it otherwise is impractical) someone whose pronoun hasn't been given, don't assume that they're male/female until you're told which.

The idea is that for those not strictly male/female, including intersex and transgender will not have to explain every time that no, they know they look female, but they are in fact male and stop calling me Sally.

On the one hand, if someone introduced themselves to me and made it clear that "she" was the preferred pronoun, I'd call them "she". No skin off my nose and it makes things easier for them. On the other, yeah, I'm not sure that it needs to be laid out as black and white and misinterpretable by eejits such as at the Sun.

The "ze" stuff is, afaik, a total red herring.

Calhoun

Hope the sentiment of brexit is carried forward and safe space echo chambers like Sussex and Oxford union who are doing the same get sorted out.

Next thing you know they will try use the ligitimisation of it being in a uni to make a law like Canada.

HellSquirrel

Calhoun wrote: »

Hope the sentiment of brexit is carried forward and safe space echo chambers like Sussex and Oxford union who are doing the same get sorted out.

Next thing you know they will try use the ligitimisation of it being in a uni to make a law like Canada.

"The sentiment of Brexit"? What do you want, universities to secede from the UK to become sovereign nations?