Not at all PC
Jul 29th 2007, 1:55 am
#16
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,234
Re: Not at all PC
Well welcome all to the modern era.
I consider all this Political Correctness pure and simple Bull Sh*t and those who champion this idiocy are plain naive or sick in the head.
A person is no longer deaf or dumb. They are hearing/speech impaired.
Others are not short but are 'vertically-challenged'.
A woman who is 50 lbs overweight is no longer heavy, fat, or stout. We also hate the word 'obese'. Instead we find a way of disguising it by being polite in the process.
Thank Gawd I never grew up with this crap. Pity I have to endure it all in my advancing years!
I consider all this Political Correctness pure and simple Bull Sh*t and those who champion this idiocy are plain naive or sick in the head.
A person is no longer deaf or dumb. They are hearing/speech impaired.
Others are not short but are 'vertically-challenged'.
A woman who is 50 lbs overweight is no longer heavy, fat, or stout. We also hate the word 'obese'. Instead we find a way of disguising it by being polite in the process.
Thank Gawd I never grew up with this crap. Pity I have to endure it all in my advancing years!
I am 50lbs overweight, I am fat, its an adjective not an insult. Calling me dumb is.
Crap to you, to me they are words that make my life better.
Jul 29th 2007, 4:21 pm
#17
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,124
Re: Not at all PC
I don't think lumping anyone who makes a point of acknowledging the power affects and effects of the use of language as a part of the "PC Brigade" is very useful. Nor does it reflect much thought about the complexities of language and social reality.
I 'champion' a few 'PC' ideas... for intance, I would never use the word mankind when talking of all of humanity because it is sexist, old fashioned, lazy and a poor description of reality. I have people say "it's just a word, get over it" to me. But, to me and a lot of people, it isn't just a word, it reflects the notion of women being less then men, of men as the default form of humankind - it's sexism, pure and simple. Humankind is politically correct... because sexism is political and the term humankind is correct.
So, I get this "PC Brigadier" label slapped on me though there are a lot of PC things I disagree with. But still I am lumped into the PC Brigade none the less but it's often, but not always, done by people who are incapable or unwilling to think about the affect and effects of language and that words reflect and influence what goes on between people's ears. Actually I see this as a possible indicator of people I probably wouldn't want to have more than a beer with, so I'm never all that bothered.
And as I mentioned to Howard in an other thread, it only doesn't make sense when you don't look at the effects and affects of social, economic and political power that operates between various 'groups'. Without looking at those power relations, you're not really understanding anything.
You are talking apples and oranges here Mike.
I am hearing impaired. In certain frequencies I can only hear about 20% of what would be considered normal hearing. It can cause me some difficulties but I am not deaf. I can hear enough to manage to live and communicate fairly normally. Someone who is deaf is some someone with profound hearing loss who often use sign language to communicate and often can not speak as someone who can hear. Quite often people who are deaf consider themselves to be of a distinct cultural group - Deaf.
So when you say that 'a person is no longer deaf or dumb. They are hearing/speech impaired' and that is a result of this mythical political correctness brigade, I would say that it is you who is full of male bovine digestive waste because really 'hearing impaired' and 'deaf' are quite distinctly different things and your lumping them together just makes you appear intellectually challenged. The separation of deaf and hearing impaired is correct.
'Advancing years'? That sounds a little bit PC Mike, you old geezer.
I 'champion' a few 'PC' ideas... for intance, I would never use the word mankind when talking of all of humanity because it is sexist, old fashioned, lazy and a poor description of reality. I have people say "it's just a word, get over it" to me. But, to me and a lot of people, it isn't just a word, it reflects the notion of women being less then men, of men as the default form of humankind - it's sexism, pure and simple. Humankind is politically correct... because sexism is political and the term humankind is correct.
So, I get this "PC Brigadier" label slapped on me though there are a lot of PC things I disagree with. But still I am lumped into the PC Brigade none the less but it's often, but not always, done by people who are incapable or unwilling to think about the affect and effects of language and that words reflect and influence what goes on between people's ears. Actually I see this as a possible indicator of people I probably wouldn't want to have more than a beer with, so I'm never all that bothered.
And as I mentioned to Howard in an other thread, it only doesn't make sense when you don't look at the effects and affects of social, economic and political power that operates between various 'groups'. Without looking at those power relations, you're not really understanding anything.
You are talking apples and oranges here Mike.
I am hearing impaired. In certain frequencies I can only hear about 20% of what would be considered normal hearing. It can cause me some difficulties but I am not deaf. I can hear enough to manage to live and communicate fairly normally. Someone who is deaf is some someone with profound hearing loss who often use sign language to communicate and often can not speak as someone who can hear. Quite often people who are deaf consider themselves to be of a distinct cultural group - Deaf.
So when you say that 'a person is no longer deaf or dumb. They are hearing/speech impaired' and that is a result of this mythical political correctness brigade, I would say that it is you who is full of male bovine digestive waste because really 'hearing impaired' and 'deaf' are quite distinctly different things and your lumping them together just makes you appear intellectually challenged. The separation of deaf and hearing impaired is correct.
'Advancing years'? That sounds a little bit PC Mike, you old geezer.
Advancing years is PC as you can see even I inadvertantly use it now and again. I should have said old age.
OK so you can only hear about 20%. So why not simply say you are almost deaf?
Mankind? That one is fine by me. We all know half the world is female. So why bother to change a perfectly good word, one that has been around for ages, to state the obvious?
As to your use of 'male bovine digestive' and 'intellectually challenged', well that is cute but why not come out with it and simply say 'bullshit and stupid?
Jul 29th 2007, 5:39 pm
#18
Now on Vancouver Island
Joined: Feb 2005
Location: Nanaimo, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 6,935
Re: Not at all PC
There are [insert racial slurs of your choice].
There are deaf people.
There are short people.
There are men who can't get it up.
There are cripples.
There are fat women.
There are drug addicts.
There are drunks.
There are homosexuals.
There are old men.
And then there are churls.
There are deaf people.
There are short people.
There are men who can't get it up.
There are cripples.
There are fat women.
There are drug addicts.
There are drunks.
There are homosexuals.
There are old men.
And then there are churls.
Last edited by Judy in Calgary; Jul 29th 2007 at 5:57 pm.
Jul 29th 2007, 9:00 pm
#19
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7,715
Re: Not at all PC
Because I am not almost deaf. It is only within certain frequencies that I can only here 20%. I can't hear high pitched sounds but I can hear mid and low frequencies like pretty much normally. Just as someone who needs to use reading glasses is not blind, I am hearing impaired, not deaf. If you had read my post properly to begin with, you would have already known this and perhaps better understood why the specific use of words can be important.
But I suspect this is all falling on deaf ears so to speak... nyuck, nyuck.
Jul 30th 2007, 12:38 am
#20
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,124
Re: Not at all PC
Because I am not almost deaf. It is only within certain frequencies that I can only here 20%. I can't hear high pitched sounds but I can hear mid and low frequencies like pretty much normally. Just as someone who needs to use reading glasses is not blind, I am hearing impaired, not deaf. If you had read my post properly to begin with, you would have already known this and perhaps better understood why the specific use of words can be important.
But I suspect this is all falling on deaf ears so to speak... nyuck, nyuck.
But I suspect this is all falling on deaf ears so to speak... nyuck, nyuck.
As to your last para, I am suprised you didn't quote "none so blind as those who cannot see".
(which kinda reminds me that PC brigade insist on using the term 'vision impaired' or some such nonsense.)
Jul 30th 2007, 12:41 am
#21
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,124
Re: Not at all PC
There are [insert racial slurs of your choice].
There are deaf people.
There are short people.
There are men who can't get it up.
There are cripples.
There are fat women.
There are drug addicts.
There are drunks.
There are homosexuals.
There are old men.
And then there are churls.
There are deaf people.
There are short people.
There are men who can't get it up.
There are cripples.
There are fat women.
There are drug addicts.
There are drunks.
There are homosexuals.
There are old men.
And then there are churls.
Jul 30th 2007, 12:48 am
#22
Assimilated Pauper
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 40,023
Re: Not at all PC
It would be interesting to see examples of these terms you say are insisted upon. I don't think even the Toronto Star uses "vision impaired" for "partially sighted".
Jul 30th 2007, 1:24 am
#23
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,234
Jul 30th 2007, 1:38 am
#24
Assimilated Pauper
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 40,023
Re: Not at all PC
Oh, the government, yes of course, the government. I was interested in real life examples.
Jul 30th 2007, 1:42 am
#25
Canadian Outlaw
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: New Brunswick
Posts: 323
Re: Not at all PC
Last edited by RobinHood; Jul 30th 2007 at 1:51 am. Reason: PC Police
Jul 30th 2007, 3:29 am
#28
Assimilated Pauper
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 40,023
Re: Not at all PC
I find most circumlocutions to be irritating without advancing the cause of the people described. It seems to me that an autistic person does not gain anything from becoming a person with autism. The rephrasing is just an affectation.
I think deafness, the lack of a limb, poor vision and so on are handicaps, people who deal with such issues are not participating in a different culture but are disadvantaged (though probably not disabled). I'm comfortable using "handicapped" or "disadvantaged" to describe people who for reason of physical or mental state face difficulties in life others do not, though it's a question of degree; we all have some bodily imperfection, not all of them severe enough to count. I believe there's a trend to conformity such that everyone who would once have just have been considered slightly odd now has a label, I think this unnecessary and the language around it irksome. "On the spectrum" is not a better description of the ugly swotty kid than "ugly swotty kid".
More generally, I'm pretty careful to use terms to describe groups of people which I think those people would use to describe themselves and to be inclusive. "People" rather than "mankind". I avoid using "Asian" though as it requires qualification "Asian as in the UK" or "Asian as in the US" besides which telling me to look for someone "Asian" in the pub is useless to me; does he look Chinese or does he look Indian?
If I use a slur I do so deliberately. I try to have a complete lexicon of insults based on ethnicity and physical characteristics at the ready before starting my car.
I think deafness, the lack of a limb, poor vision and so on are handicaps, people who deal with such issues are not participating in a different culture but are disadvantaged (though probably not disabled). I'm comfortable using "handicapped" or "disadvantaged" to describe people who for reason of physical or mental state face difficulties in life others do not, though it's a question of degree; we all have some bodily imperfection, not all of them severe enough to count. I believe there's a trend to conformity such that everyone who would once have just have been considered slightly odd now has a label, I think this unnecessary and the language around it irksome. "On the spectrum" is not a better description of the ugly swotty kid than "ugly swotty kid".
More generally, I'm pretty careful to use terms to describe groups of people which I think those people would use to describe themselves and to be inclusive. "People" rather than "mankind". I avoid using "Asian" though as it requires qualification "Asian as in the UK" or "Asian as in the US" besides which telling me to look for someone "Asian" in the pub is useless to me; does he look Chinese or does he look Indian?
If I use a slur I do so deliberately. I try to have a complete lexicon of insults based on ethnicity and physical characteristics at the ready before starting my car.
Jul 30th 2007, 3:41 am
#29
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,124
Re: Not at all PC
Funny thing is some 30 years ago we used to watch 'Yes Minister' and 'Yes Prime Minister' on TV. Sir Humphrey, and to a lesser extent Bernard, just loved to put matters in a obscured or complicated light.
PC at its best.
This would infuriate Hacker who just wanted it said plainly with no sugar coating. It was a core theme of the series and it was done skillfully to make the audience laugh.
Nowadays though it is dead serious and no laughing matter.
