On 2013-09-20 13:41, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-09-20 13:06, LobowolfXXX wrote:
In 50 years, people will say, "They might have called her cognitively delayed, but we now know better."

Although amusing, this misses the point. "Cognitively delayed" has not been used as a term of abuse--at least not in my experience.

On 2013-09-20 21:01, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-09-20 13:41, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-09-20 13:06, LobowolfXXX wrote:
In 50 years, people will say, "They might have called her cognitively delayed, but we now know better."

Although amusing, this misses the point. "Cognitively delayed" has not been used as a term of abuse--at least not in my experience.

I think its the writer who misses the point. Pick your favorite euphemism, but "retardation"" is a bona fide DSM category.

On 2013-09-20 18:43, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-09-20 18:32, tomsk192 wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-09-20 17:50, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-09-20 16:28, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
These discussions are nice in the abstract. They're a little different when it's you, a friend or a family member on the receiving end.

I'm certainly not advocating being insensitive to people's feelings. But I don't find that incomptible with a sober discussion of how the connotation of words like these changes over time.

The upshot - as far as I can tell - is that no matter what word or phrase is proposed to describe, let's say, mental retardation (for want of an objectively better term), eventually it will become offensive and another term will be substituted, the cycle then starting afresh. To my mind, it's not the fault of the term used; it's the fault of people who find any reference to such a condition offensive.

And I, for one, do not know how to overcome that obstacle.

How about discussing people as human beings? What's with the labels? I'll be spending the third year running, this Christmas, working on a theatre production with a group of "adults with learning difficulties" (there's an ungainly label). They are just people.

I agree.

But the problem lies, at least in part, in the attitude that using adjectives is "labeling". Is calling someone "tall" a label? I mean, they're just people. How about calling them "blond", or "good at math", or "left-handed", or "skilled at driving F-1 cars", or "unskilled at driving F-1 cars", or "nice", or "thoughtless", or whatever?

The fact is that every conversation about people (and everything else) involves describing them in some way, and that's as it should be. The problem arises when certain characteristics are considered taboo. It's OK to use a word to describe someone's intelligence as above average, but not OK to use a word to describe someone's intelligence as below average? I'm sorry, but it simply doesn't make sense. Let's be sensitive about it, but let's not, in the name of sensitivity (or to avoid "labeling") refuse to talk about things.

On 2013-09-20 21:16, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Where do you live?

On 2013-09-20 21:19, tomsk192 wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-09-20 18:43, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-09-20 18:32, tomsk192 wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-09-20 17:50, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-09-20 16:28, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
These discussions are nice in the abstract. They're a little different when it's you, a friend or a family member on the receiving end.

I'm certainly not advocating being insensitive to people's feelings. But I don't find that incomptible with a sober discussion of how the connotation of words like these changes over time.

The upshot - as far as I can tell - is that no matter what word or phrase is proposed to describe, let's say, mental retardation (for want of an objectively better term), eventually it will become offensive and another term will be substituted, the cycle then starting afresh. To my mind, it's not the fault of the term used; it's the fault of people who find any reference to such a condition offensive.

And I, for one, do not know how to overcome that obstacle.

How about discussing people as human beings? What's with the labels? I'll be spending the third year running, this Christmas, working on a theatre production with a group of "adults with learning difficulties" (there's an ungainly label). They are just people.

I agree.

But the problem lies, at least in part, in the attitude that using adjectives is "labeling". Is calling someone "tall" a label? I mean, they're just people. How about calling them "blond", or "good at math", or "left-handed", or "skilled at driving F-1 cars", or "unskilled at driving F-1 cars", or "nice", or "thoughtless", or whatever?

The fact is that every conversation about people (and everything else) involves describing them in some way, and that's as it should be. The problem arises when certain characteristics are considered taboo. It's OK to use a word to describe someone's intelligence as above average, but not OK to use a word to describe someone's intelligence as below average? I'm sorry, but it simply doesn't make sense. Let's be sensitive about it, but let's not, in the name of sensitivity (or to avoid "labeling") refuse to talk about things.

I absolutely take your point. I guess what, in my view, we should be reaching towards are informed and accurate descriptions, such as: non-verbal; limited communications; mild learning difficulty; etc.

The fact is that people with disabilities, (physical, intellectual or both), are not easily pigeon holed. Just as in mental health, there is a broad spectrum, and our language needs to reflect that.

"Hands up if you think you're clever?"

Okay, that's probably everybody reading this, whether they admit it or not. So let's be clever, and find out how to describe, before we describe. That's clever, right?

Tom

:)

On 2013-09-21 02:23, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-09-20 21:19, tomsk192 wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-09-20 18:43, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-09-20 18:32, tomsk192 wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-09-20 17:50, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-09-20 16:28, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
These discussions are nice in the abstract. They're a little different when it's you, a friend or a family member on the receiving end.

I'm certainly not advocating being insensitive to people's feelings. But I don't find that incomptible with a sober discussion of how the connotation of words like these changes over time.

The upshot - as far as I can tell - is that no matter what word or phrase is proposed to describe, let's say, mental retardation (for want of an objectively better term), eventually it will become offensive and another term will be substituted, the cycle then starting afresh. To my mind, it's not the fault of the term used; it's the fault of people who find any reference to such a condition offensive.

And I, for one, do not know how to overcome that obstacle.

How about discussing people as human beings? What's with the labels? I'll be spending the third year running, this Christmas, working on a theatre production with a group of "adults with learning difficulties" (there's an ungainly label). They are just people.

I agree.

But the problem lies, at least in part, in the attitude that using adjectives is "labeling". Is calling someone "tall" a label? I mean, they're just people. How about calling them "blond", or "good at math", or "left-handed", or "skilled at driving F-1 cars", or "unskilled at driving F-1 cars", or "nice", or "thoughtless", or whatever?

The fact is that every conversation about people (and everything else) involves describing them in some way, and that's as it should be. The problem arises when certain characteristics are considered taboo. It's OK to use a word to describe someone's intelligence as above average, but not OK to use a word to describe someone's intelligence as below average? I'm sorry, but it simply doesn't make sense. Let's be sensitive about it, but let's not, in the name of sensitivity (or to avoid "labeling") refuse to talk about things.

I absolutely take your point. I guess what, in my view, we should be reaching towards are informed and accurate descriptions, such as: non-verbal; limited communications; mild learning difficulty; etc.

The fact is that people with disabilities, (physical, intellectual or both), are not easily pigeon holed. Just as in mental health, there is a broad spectrum, and our language needs to reflect that.

"Hands up if you think you're clever?"

Okay, that's probably everybody reading this, whether they admit it or not. So let's be clever, and find out how to describe, before we describe. That's clever, right?

Tom

:)

While I agree in principle, it may be, shall we say, too much to ask.

Do we describe people as:

Slightly above average height?

Moderately above average height?

Substantially above average height?

A little tall?

Rather tall?

Quite tall?

Super-duper tall?

(I know that this comparison doesn't have the emotion attached to it that is attached to a discussion of, say, learning ability, but in a broad sense they're comparable: people simply don't make those fine distinctions in everyday conversation, the nature of the subject matter almost notwithstanding.)

And, for what it's worth (and I realize that this may sound mean; it's not intended to), the words "moron", "imbecile", and "idiot" have, technically, exactly the sort of subtleties of meaning you're describing . . . and look where they've ended up.

As I say, I agree with your premise. I fear, however, that no matter how sensitively we develop the terminology, and no matter how subtlely we define the terms to incorporate shades of distinction, they will all likely suffer the fate of "moron", "imbecile", and "idiot".

It's a hard problem to solve, and an important one. On that, at the very least, I hope, we can agree.

On 2013-09-21 10:00, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-09-21 02:23, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-09-20 21:19, tomsk192 wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-09-20 18:43, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-09-20 18:32, tomsk192 wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-09-20 17:50, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-09-20 16:28, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
These discussions are nice in the abstract. They're a little different when it's you, a friend or a family member on the receiving end.

I'm certainly not advocating being insensitive to people's feelings. But I don't find that incomptible with a sober discussion of how the connotation of words like these changes over time.

The upshot - as far as I can tell - is that no matter what word or phrase is proposed to describe, let's say, mental retardation (for want of an objectively better term), eventually it will become offensive and another term will be substituted, the cycle then starting afresh. To my mind, it's not the fault of the term used; it's the fault of people who find any reference to such a condition offensive.

And I, for one, do not know how to overcome that obstacle.

How about discussing people as human beings? What's with the labels? I'll be spending the third year running, this Christmas, working on a theatre production with a group of "adults with learning difficulties" (there's an ungainly label). They are just people.

I agree.

But the problem lies, at least in part, in the attitude that using adjectives is "labeling". Is calling someone "tall" a label? I mean, they're just people. How about calling them "blond", or "good at math", or "left-handed", or "skilled at driving F-1 cars", or "unskilled at driving F-1 cars", or "nice", or "thoughtless", or whatever?

The fact is that every conversation about people (and everything else) involves describing them in some way, and that's as it should be. The problem arises when certain characteristics are considered taboo. It's OK to use a word to describe someone's intelligence as above average, but not OK to use a word to describe someone's intelligence as below average? I'm sorry, but it simply doesn't make sense. Let's be sensitive about it, but let's not, in the name of sensitivity (or to avoid "labeling") refuse to talk about things.

I absolutely take your point. I guess what, in my view, we should be reaching towards are informed and accurate descriptions, such as: non-verbal; limited communications; mild learning difficulty; etc.

The fact is that people with disabilities, (physical, intellectual or both), are not easily pigeon holed. Just as in mental health, there is a broad spectrum, and our language needs to reflect that.

"Hands up if you think you're clever?"

Okay, that's probably everybody reading this, whether they admit it or not. So let's be clever, and find out how to describe, before we describe. That's clever, right?

Tom

:)

While I agree in principle, it may be, shall we say, too much to ask.

Do we describe people as:

Slightly above average height?

Moderately above average height?

Substantially above average height?

A little tall?

Rather tall?

Quite tall?

Super-duper tall?

(I know that this comparison doesn't have the emotion attached to it that is attached to a discussion of, say, learning ability, but in a broad sense they're comparable: people simply don't make those fine distinctions in everyday conversation, the nature of the subject matter almost notwithstanding.)

And, for what it's worth (and I realize that this may sound mean; it's not intended to), the words "moron", "imbecile", and "idiot" have, technically, exactly the sort of subtleties of meaning you're describing . . . and look where they've ended up.

As I say, I agree with your premise. I fear, however, that no matter how sensitively we develop the terminology, and no matter how subtlely we define the terms to incorporate shades of distinction, they will all likely suffer the fate of "moron", "imbecile", and "idiot".

It's a hard problem to solve, and an important one. On that, at the very least, I hope, we can agree.

You are missing the point. No one objects to all descriptors. The problem is that some descriptors have "taken lives of their own" and serve functions in language far beyond mere description.

I fear, however, that no matter how sensitively we develop the terminology, and no matter how subtlely we define the terms to incorporate shades of distinction, they will all likely suffer the fate of "moron", "imbecile", and "idiot".

On 2013-09-21 10:00, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
I strongly doubt that you would be comfortable saying "N-- simply means 'black'" and "K-- simply means 'of the Jewish faith'" and thento comparing the words to expressions for "tall".

(I know that this comparison doesn't have the emotion attached to it that is attached to a discussion of, say, learning ability, but in a broad sense they're comparable: people simply don't make those fine distinctions in everyday conversation, the nature of the subject matter almost notwithstanding.)

On 2013-09-21 14:45, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
S2000, I believe you to be a man of the highest calibre.

On 2013-09-20 22:23, tomsk192 wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-09-20 21:16, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Where do you live?

London.

On 2013-09-22 17:54, Andrew Zuber wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-09-20 22:23, tomsk192 wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-09-20 21:16, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Where do you live?

London.

I'm not sure if its the same in London, but when I was in grad school in Newcastle, we were told that "brain storming" was no longer politically correct as it referred to an illness of some sort. They kindly asked that we refer to it as "mind mapping" instead. I take no issue with that whatsoever, though I only encountered it in the UK.