Using disability labels to extract the michael – what is acceptable on NSC?

[Sussex Nomad]

I'm struggling to see where we draw the line on this, it's a massive grey area and a lot of these words mean different things depending on when you grew up.

Agreed and that goes for homophobia, racism and any other 'icsm' or 'phobia'. We all know the grossly offensive words to steer clear of but the rest is just becoming confusing now.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

Black is not an offensive term, just as Suarez was arguing Negrito isn't, but in a negative context it's obvious you are being racist. Spastic is an offensive term, and it's difficult to use it in another way (that's not a challenge).

'Spastic' was a neutral/descriptive term (e.g. when The Spastics Society was formed, the word didn't have the same level of negative connotations) that got used as a demeaning term so often that its meaning was contaminated. Nowadays, you can't use it in its original way without it triggering memories of the demeaning contexts in which it has been used.

 

[Uwinsc]

It's all about intent, if the insult isn't directed at someone with learning difficulties

My question though is can you be absolutely sure that the person you are addressing it as doesn't have a learning disability: given this is over a computer screen in most cases the answer will be no. If they have got a learning disability you are addressing it at them aren't you?

 

[Billy the Fish]

It definitely isn't.

We might have to agree to disagree on that. Mabye it's not as black and whiteas I'm making out and this is all my opinion of course. I'll revise my statement to - for me it's mostly about intent.

Someone saying it's all about the intent is only telling half the story. It's also about the effect.

I get that, through ignorance of the history of how it has been used, someone may be using the word 'spastic' as a general word of insult, without actually trying to make any negative judgement about people with disability. Still doesn't make it OK because of the potential hurt it can cause to the person it is directed at or someone else who reads the thread.

There is a bigger conversation to be had than, say, about whether Luis Suarez using the word 'negro' was intending to be racist, whether a school kid using the word 'gay' is intending to be homophobic, or, in this thread, whether an NSCer using the word 'retard' is intending the discriminate against people with disabilities. That conversation is about being responsible for how your words are landing with others.

If people are not bothered about whether their words have the effect of causing offence, and want to pin responsibility for offence being taken on the other person (for them being 'over-sensitive,' 'PC', not growing 'some balls' etc), they are not managing their communication very well.

My question though is can you be absolutely sure that the person you are addressing it as doesn't have a learning disability: given this is over a computer screen in most cases the answer will be no. If they have got a learning disability you are addressing it at them aren't you?

All good points and food for thought I guess

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Presumably "window licker" is a definite no-no.

It would help if people thought for a second about what they had written before they actually posted, and cut out the unnecessary abuse that can prevail at times.

Intent doesn't come into it. If you post an offensive word that somebody finds offensive, you have offended them - with or without intent.

I have no idea if anyone on this Board is black, white, disabled, what their sexuality is, how old they are, or anything at all about them - so I try to avoid derogatory terms (I hope).

 

[Triggaaar]

We might have to agree to disagree on that. Mabye it's not as black and whiteas I'm making out and this is all my opinion of course. I'll revise my statement to - for me it's mostly about intent.

If you were posting to a good friend on here, who had done something silly, and you said they were being a complete spastic, you may know for a fact that they wouldn't be offended, because you know them very well. So you've made the comment with no intent to offend. If a young person with cerebral palsy (for example) reads your post, there's a good chance they'll be offended (understandably - ie, why is it that when someone does something silly, people say they're like me?).

What difference does your intent make? If you hadn't said spastic, no one would be offended, but if you had, they would. Simple.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

Lots of thoughtful, intelligent posts on this thread.

 

[Billy the Fish]

If you were posting to a good friend on here, who had done something silly, and you said they were being a complete spastic, you may know for a fact that they wouldn't be offended, because you know them very well. So you've made the comment with no intent to offend. If a young person with cerebral palsy (for example) reads your post, there's a good chance they'll be offended (understandably - ie, why is it that when someone does something silly, people say they're like me?).

What difference does your intent make? If you hadn't said spastic, no one would be offended, but if you had, they would. Simple.

The intent part is all dealt with at the receiving end. Call it a thought process, call it a coping technique or whatever. If I'm on the receiving end of banter or a joke I ignore the actual content and think about whether that person meant to upset me, hurt me, make me laugh etc. and base my reaction on it, as such I can't remember the last time I was offended by anything. If it's a deliberate attempt at being hurtful or aggressive my reaction tends to mirror the initial action. I understand that we're all different though, but I think if someone can't follow that kind of thought process then forums like this aren't the most appropriate place for them.

I think we're getting back to the age old "this is like a pub" argument. Derogatory terms aside, if a young child with learning disabilities was using this site I'd be equally worried about them being exposed to the casual swearing and adult nature of some of the threads.

 

[Triggaaar]

The intent part is all dealt with at the receiving end. Call it a thought process, call it a coping technique or whatever. If I'm on the receiving end of banter or a joke I ignore the actual content and think about whether that person meant to upset me, hurt me, make me laugh etc. and base my reaction on it

So you're not easy to offend. But that's not what the rest of society is like and you should understand that. Otherwise racism and homophobia should be allowed too, but again it's not normally the person receiving the insult that is most offended.

 

[wehatepalace]

My sister suffers with Cerebal Palsy,can't say that I'm offended by the word "spastic" to be honest, it's just one of those things. Life goes on.

 

[clapham_gull]

The sidecar defence annoys me more e.g. "wider usage" or "grey area".

I'm happier with words being used through ignorance rather than knowingly (or even worse) in irony.

Just gives the green light for them to be in a highly abusive way.

 

[Uwinsc]

The sidecar defence annoys me more e.g. "wider usage" or "grey area".

I'm happier with words being used through ignorance rather than knowingly (or even worse) in irony.
Just gives the green light for them to be in a highly abusive way.

Thats a good point. guess I would be happier with someone using it in ignorance as I would hope they would learn whenit was pointed out to them and apologise.

 

[Durlston]

My little brother has severe autism and can't look after himself. However, he enjoys a good quality of life and to see him happy is the nicest thing in the world for me. When he's down it's very difficult for him to express his sadness, anger or anxiety in words. I can't go out for a beer or go to football with him but speaking to him most days hearing what he's been doing makes me appreciate that I've got an amazing person who's had to overcome so many difficulties in life and I'm proud to have as a brother.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I used to work with someone who had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Most of his colleagues were unaware of this. He once said to me that he found it incredibly hurtful when one of them casually (and without much malicious intent) used the phrase "a bit of a nutter" to describe him to his face.

I guess, though, that most people would be surprised if they were pulled up for using the term "nutter".

"It's only banter". Not to my former colleague.

 

[8ace]

What about the person who recently complained about racism who used to have "quicker than a spastic in a magnet factory" by his name

 

[Triggaaar]

What about the person who recently complained about racism who used to have "quicker than a spastic in a magnet factory" by his name

What about him? If it was still by his name, he'd need educating. Maybe he's been educated.

 

[Seagull27]

I think it's interesting when words that weren't originally meant as offensive terms become offensive terms. Naturally, there will be some people who still use those words in their original sense and probably have no idea that they are being offensive, should they be told not to use the word?

For example, the word 'retard' originally comes from the Latin retardare, "to make slow, delay, keep back, or hinder,". The word is often used in things like Chemistry where you could describe a chemical reaction as being retarded by some effect, ie. it as been made slower.

From Wikipedia: "The term was recorded in 1426 as a "fact or action of making slower in movement or time." The first record of retarded in relation to being mentally slow was in 1895. The term retarded was used to replace terms like idiot, moron, and imbecile because retarded was not (then) a derogatory term. By the 1960s, however, the term had taken on a partially derogatory meaning as well."

So the word originally had no offensive connotations or links to disability. It was then used to describe mental disabilities in 1895, but not actually considered derogatory until the 1960's.

So is it offensive for people to use a word that they originally used in a completely non-offensive manner? Is it right that we should be able to tell those people that they have to change the language they use because it has become an offensive term, even though it was never originally for them?

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

I think it's interesting when words that weren't originally meant as offensive terms become offensive terms. Naturally, there will be some people who still use those words in their original sense and probably have no idea that they are being offensive, should they be told not to use the word?

For example, the word 'retard' originally comes from the Latin retardare, "to make slow, delay, keep back, or hinder,". The word is often used in things like Chemistry where you could describe a chemical reaction as being retarded by some effect, ie. it as been made slower.

From Wikipedia: "The term was recorded in 1426 as a "fact or action of making slower in movement or time." The first record of retarded in relation to being mentally slow was in 1895. The term retarded was used to replace terms like idiot, moron, and imbecile because retarded was not (then) a derogatory term. By the 1960s, however, the term had taken on a partially derogatory meaning as well."

So the word originally had no offensive connotations or links to disability. It was then used to describe mental disabilities in 1895, but not actually considered derogatory until the 1960's.

So is it offensive for people to use a word that they originally used in a completely non-offensive manner? Is it right that we should be able to tell those people that they have to change the language they use because it has become an offensive term, even though it was never originally for them?

Another good example is the word 'niggardly'.

The short answer is no, people are not wrong to use words with their original non-offensive meaning. However, it serves their communication if they are being responsible for how their words are landing with another i.e. aware that some words have taken on a pejorative connotation in recent times and see that the other person is clear that in this case, only the original, neutral meaning of the word is meant.

 

[British Bulldog]

I do have a general dislike for words like retard, spastic, window licker etc being used as insults, Part of it is probably down to being disabled myself and another part of it is a dislike of illnesses and disabilities being used as a way of insulting people. The vast majority of the time i'll just ignore it but as was said in a recent racism issue with a member on here every now and then something is posted that gets to you and winds you up even when you know it shouldn't. I appreciate that the majority of people don't use certain words with the intention of offending disabled people, But on the other side of it I don't go along with the idea that just because it's not said to a disabled person then it's not offensive or insulting to a person with disabilities should they read it.

 

[Johnny Crumplin Football]

I'm struggling to see where we draw the line on this, it's a massive grey area and a lot of these words mean different things depending on when you grew up.

Derogatory terms are part of communicating, we especially need them on forums in order to display emotion which can't be conveyed by tone of voice.

Personally I think it should be all or nothing, people are only offended if that particular term is close to home as in triggaar's case. Unless It's a direct insult directed at someone with learning difficulties, it shouldn't be taken personally. Definitely a "man up" situation, and I'm allowed to say that because my mum spent the last 10 years of her life in a wheelchair unable to do much at all for herself.

This