Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So in a local FB Group called the Atheist Experience there is a no ableism rule. For a while I didn't realize how encompassing this was until a discussion came up over the word lame. Here is the example I will use. Discussion I hope can stay civil and cite sources and reasons why pro or against.

Here is the definition: a·ble·ism
ˈābəˌlizəm/Submit
noun
discrimination in favor of able-bodied people.

Example:
"That is a lame excuse"

definition of Lame:
adjective, lamer, lamest.
1.crippled or physically disabled, especially in the foot or leg so as to limp or walk with difficulty.
2.impaired or disabled through defect or injury:
a lame arm.
3.weak; inadequate; unsatisfactory; clumsy:
a lame excuse.

According to anti ableism people, that word lame should never be used, even though it has multiple meanings as with many words in the english language. It could possibly offend someone somewhere and hurting peoples feelings is bad.

I came back with the english dictionary definition to defend this poor person and was told context, logic, and definitions have no meaning, its listed on a website as a bad word, so don't use it. Definition 3 fits the context in this example. Intent and context have no meaning. It is a movement online within "enlightened" groups that seems to be taking a huge foothold and they have almost become bullies in the way they enforce the way you speak, talk, think. Its at the forefront of regressiveness which is why I can no longer associate with many of these groups I joined to have conversations with where reason, logic, and science based discussion.

So what are dakkas thoughts on this? Is saying thats a lame excuse akin to racial slurs or is it just as it seems to be?

Well, here's the thing.

If you're not living with a disability - who are you to say a word is or isn't offensive to someone who is living with one?

And if you are living with a disability - your opinion is not blanket.

I'm a lefty liberal as some will have noticed, and I do go out of my way to adapt my vocabulary so I'm at as little risk of inadvertently offending someone as possible.

I mean, there's some offensive terms which to me just sound funny - but upon looking up their origin, I don't use anymore.

Let's consider the word right at the top of the Swearing Pantheon - The C Word. Now, I know, and you may know, it's derived from the medically correct Old English word for the body part is still describes (and that word seems derived from the Welsh Gaelic 'Cwm', which means Valley. That also became quim). But now, it's a singularly offensive word, and can only be used offensively. As are words like Spastic, Negro etc. All once perfectly acceptable and used in the dictionary etc - but society moves faster than dictionaries.

If someone asks you not to use a word - you don't use it.

Yeahhhh, no.

We have so many words, with so many different meanings that it is impossible to be totally unoffensive. If people are unable to have basic conversation with people then they shouldn't be having conversations. Go replace your modem with a block of cheese and do something else with your time.

For example! As a Brit, I might have f*****s for tea. A f***** being a type of meat. Or I might be talking about collecting a f***** of wood. (There is a good chance DakkaDakka will block the word I'm using here)

You can't look at something and then ignore the intent and context, words don't work like that.

A podcast that I listen to - "With Friends Like These" - just had a really fascinating discussion regarding able-ism and disability rights.

https://getcrookedmedia.com/with-friends-like-these-aeee91fa31da

I find it ironic that the same people hyper-sensitive to vocabulary correctness have no issue with the destruction of certain symbols no matter how inflammatory, such as a religious symbol or a flag. Words are nothing more than linguistic symbols representing the very same things, yet they are sacrosanct.

The hypocrisy is palpable.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Yeahhhh, no.

We have so many words, with so many different meanings that it is impossible to be totally unoffensive. If people are unable to have basic conversation with people then they shouldn't be having conversations. Go replace your modem with a block of cheese and do something else with your time.

For example! As a Brit, I might have f*****s for tea. A f***** being a type of meat. Or I might be talking about collecting a f***** of wood. (There is a good chance DakkaDakka will block the word I'm using here)

You can't look at something and then ignore the intent and context, words don't work like that.

Again - who are you to say the next person shouldn't take offence? By all means you can disagree with them....but you don't get to say 'stop being offended'.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Let's consider the word right at the top of the Swearing Pantheon - The C Word.... But now, it's a singularly offensive word, and can only be used offensively.

You've obviously never been to Australia It's basically now a generic term that can mean a bunch of things depending on the context, many of which are good. Being labelled a " sick c*** " is a great compliment and sign of respect.

People should generally be polite to one another, we are not savages after all.

However, if you do things like burn flags or desecrate religious symbols, you don't really get to complain if people say mean words to or about you.

Ha ha read this thread incorrectly. Thought it was preventing Abe-ism, the prime minister of Japan. I was like these guys can talk about Japanese politics.

Tough call. Back in the 80's "r*tard" was a commonly-used term, but isn't PC now. Looking back, I agree that it shouldn't be used, especially since it is a derogatory term with the context of someone who has mental disabilities.

Will "lame" be the same? Only time will tell, but I can see the atheist point of view because it can be used as a derogatory term that insults those with a disability. I mean "lame" is generally not, maybe never a positive term.

I edited this because Dakka's software automatically corrected r*tard to "slow". Wow.

How about the term "Lame Duck" in reference to a politician's term ending?

 redleger wrote:
So in a local FB Group called the Atheist Experience there is a no ableism rule. For a while I didn't realize how encompassing this was until a discussion came up over the word lame. Here is the example I will use. Discussion I hope can stay civil and cite sources and reasons why pro or against.

Here is the definition: a·ble·ism
ˈābəˌlizəm/Submit
noun
discrimination in favor of able-bodied people.

Example:
"That is a lame excuse"

definition of Lame:
adjective, lamer, lamest.
1.crippled or physically disabled, especially in the foot or leg so as to limp or walk with difficulty.
2.impaired or disabled through defect or injury:
a lame arm.
3.weak; inadequate; unsatisfactory; clumsy:
a lame excuse.

According to anti ableism people, that word lame should never be used, even though it has multiple meanings as with many words in the english language. It could possibly offend someone somewhere and hurting peoples feelings is bad.

I came back with the english dictionary definition to defend this poor person and was told context, logic, and definitions have no meaning, its listed on a website as a bad word, so don't use it. Definition 3 fits the context in this example. Intent and context have no meaning. It is a movement online within "enlightened" groups that seems to be taking a huge foothold and they have almost become bullies in the way they enforce the way you speak, talk, think. Its at the forefront of regressiveness which is why I can no longer associate with many of these groups I joined to have conversations with where reason, logic, and science based discussion.

So what are dakkas thoughts on this? Is saying thats a lame excuse akin to racial slurs or is it just as it seems to be?

In the words of the President of the United States: "They can go themselves. "

 kronk wrote:
How about the term "Lame Duck" in reference to a politician's term ending?

The rules suggest you cannot use it.

Although as an adjective: (of an explanation or excuse) unconvincingly feeble. Being 'Feeble' could be disqualified on the same grounds.

Nor can you cripple an enemies means to wage war.

One would think that 'crippling pain' is a grey area.

 Popsghostly wrote:
Tough call. Back in the 80's "r*tard" was a commonly-used term, but isn't PC now. Looking back, I agree that it shouldn't be used, especially since it is a derogatory term with the context of someone who has mental disabilities.

The problem is just usage. There's nothing inherently derogatory about the word r-tard, it just means slowed, delayed, impeded, etc. From my understanding the term "mental r-tard" was originally introduced because other words like stupid, imbecile, moron, idiot, etc were considered derogatory. So we introduced the phrase "mentally r-tarded" and... guess what.... people started using it in a derogatory fashion so now we can't use it anymore

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 kronk wrote:
How about the term "Lame Duck" in reference to a politician's term ending?

The rules suggest you cannot use it.

Although as an adjective: (of an explanation or excuse) unconvincingly feeble. Being 'Feeble' could be disqualified on the same grounds.

Nor can you cripple an enemies means to wage war.

One would think that 'crippling pain' is a grey area.

Well who knows what the future will hold. It wasn't long ago when those Chinese mushrooms were called "J*w ear mushrooms" or hazelnuts were called "n*gger toes" or it was OK to say "not a Chin*man's chance".

My thoughts on it: some people are just looking for new ways to get that offended hit these days.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Popsghostly wrote:
Tough call. Back in the 80's "r*tard" was a commonly-used term, but isn't PC now. Looking back, I agree that it shouldn't be used, especially since it is a derogatory term with the context of someone who has mental disabilities.

The problem is just usage. There's nothing inherently derogatory about the word r-tard, it just means slowed, delayed, impeded, etc. From my understanding the term "mental r-tard" was originally introduced because other words like stupid, imbecile, moron, idiot, etc were considered derogatory. So we introduced the phrase "mentally r-tarded" and... guess what.... people started using it in a derogatory fashion so now we can't use it anymore

True. Didn't think about the other uses of r*tard such as to r*tard the movement of something. It has a lot to do with how people use the word.

 Frazzled wrote:

Spoiler:

 redleger wrote:
So in a local FB Group called the Atheist Experience there is a no ableism rule. For a while I didn't realize how encompassing this was until a discussion came up over the word lame. Here is the example I will use. Discussion I hope can stay civil and cite sources and reasons why pro or against.

Here is the definition: a·ble·ism
ˈābəˌlizəm/Submit
noun
discrimination in favor of able-bodied people.

Example:
"That is a lame excuse"

definition of Lame:
adjective, lamer, lamest.
1.crippled or physically disabled, especially in the foot or leg so as to limp or walk with difficulty.
2.impaired or disabled through defect or injury:
a lame arm.
3.weak; inadequate; unsatisfactory; clumsy:
a lame excuse.

According to anti ableism people, that word lame should never be used, even though it has multiple meanings as with many words in the english language. It could possibly offend someone somewhere and hurting peoples feelings is bad.

I came back with the english dictionary definition to defend this poor person and was told context, logic, and definitions have no meaning, its listed on a website as a bad word, so don't use it. Definition 3 fits the context in this example. Intent and context have no meaning. It is a movement online within "enlightened" groups that seems to be taking a huge foothold and they have almost become bullies in the way they enforce the way you speak, talk, think. Its at the forefront of regressiveness which is why I can no longer associate with many of these groups I joined to have conversations with where reason, logic, and science based discussion.

So what are dakkas thoughts on this? Is saying thats a lame excuse akin to racial slurs or is it just as it seems to be?

In the words of the President of the United States: "They can go themselves. "

I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and that is softness of head.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Yeahhhh, no.

We have so many words, with so many different meanings that it is impossible to be totally unoffensive. If people are unable to have basic conversation with people then they shouldn't be having conversations. Go replace your modem with a block of cheese and do something else with your time.

For example! As a Brit, I might have f*****s for tea. A f***** being a type of meat. Or I might be talking about collecting a f***** of wood. (There is a good chance DakkaDakka will block the word I'm using here)

You can't look at something and then ignore the intent and context, words don't work like that.

Again - who are you to say the next person shouldn't take offence? By all means you can disagree with them....but you don't get to say 'stop being offended'.

If people are getting offended by the word lame, then yes we should be able to say to them stop being offended.

There is a certain level you can reach where people are taking offence at things that shouldn't be able to offend anyone. Lame is one of those words. Are we suggesting we have to start censoring the Simpson's now?

Why?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why not extend that to racial slurs? They were acceptable once. Maybe they should stop taking offence?

Well it should depend on the context of the word being used rather than being hypersensitive and being offended at every and any use of it. Some words exist only as derogatory and should be treated as such, but others like lame, it feels more like a grey area at best.

Because Lame is one of his favourite phrases.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Yeahhhh, no.

We have so many words, with so many different meanings that it is impossible to be totally unoffensive. If people are unable to have basic conversation with people then they shouldn't be having conversations. Go replace your modem with a block of cheese and do something else with your time.

For example! As a Brit, I might have f*****s for tea. A f***** being a type of meat. Or I might be talking about collecting a f***** of wood. (There is a good chance DakkaDakka will block the word I'm using here)

You can't look at something and then ignore the intent and context, words don't work like that.

Again - who are you to say the next person shouldn't take offence? By all means you can disagree with them....but you don't get to say 'stop being offended'.

If people are getting offended by the word lame, then yes we should be able to say to them stop being offended.

There is a certain level you can reach where people are taking offence at things that shouldn't be able to offend anyone. Lame is one of those words. Are we suggesting we have to start censoring the Simpson's now?

Agree that people can be able to say that people shouldn't take offense to something.

Along the "Simpson's" line of reasoning, it was OK at one point to use "J*p", even in Marvel comics. Sunfire is referred to as a "J*p" Times change and don't think Sunfire or Silver Samurai will be referred to as a "J*p" now.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Or I might be talking about collecting a f***** of wood.

We have the same word in French (but we French pronounce it correctly) . It doesn't have the other meanings though.

So follow question, as this continues to kind of eat at me. At what point do we end up whittling down the English language to one word for each meaning? Vocabulary would become unnecessary, and descriptive words useless. Retardant is a perfect example. So now we saw fire resistant. Now somehow resistant becomes offensive to people fighting oppressive governments. I mean there needs to be a point where people learn to control their own emotions themselves without censoring everyone so they don't have to.

Does it actually, or is this more slippery slop fallacy

 redleger wrote:
So follow question, as this continues to kind of eat at me. At what point do we end up whittling down the English language to one word for each meaning? Vocabulary would become unnecessary, and descriptive words useless. Retardant is a perfect example. So now we saw fire resistant. Now somehow resistant becomes offensive to people fighting oppressive governments. I mean there needs to be a point where people learn to control their own emotions themselves without censoring everyone so they don't have to.

Well...

retardent is often used more to mean a chemical that puts out fires. Resistant means resists heat/flame.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Does it actually, or is this more slippery slop fallacy

does what actually?

 redleger wrote:
So follow question, as this continues to kind of eat at me. At what point do we end up whittling down the English language to one word for each meaning? Vocabulary would become unnecessary, and descriptive words useless. Retardant is a perfect example. So now we saw fire resistant. Now somehow resistant becomes offensive to people fighting oppressive governments. I mean there needs to be a point where people learn to control their own emotions themselves without censoring everyone so they don't have to.

Along those lines, we'd lose the "Lame"nter Chapter of mahreens! I think lame is commonly used now and this is the first time I've ever started questioning whether it is acceptable or not. By that token, I understand how it could be derogatory. That's why this is a very valuable thread because it is making us think about the term lame.

What is the correct extent people must control their emotions? Is it wrong for a person of African-descent to be upset with the use of the word "n*gger"? Is it wrong for a person that has a mentally disabled nephew to be upset with the use of the word "r*tard"? Is it wrong for a woman to get upset with the use of the phrase "it is OK to throw stones at girls" for a jewelry ad?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Does it actually, or is this more slippery slop fallacy

The argument doesn't hold merit.

Racist terms are explicit. Sexist terms are explicit. insults to physical capability are explicit. None of them relate in any way to other usage of common words.
Gimp is an insult. crippled is a term.

As a gimp magoo neanderthal I find only insults insulting. Terms are terms and offense taken of them are typically from "virtue signallers" who are generally a waste of skin.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Does it actually, or is this more slippery slop fallacy

The argument doesn't hold merit.

Racist terms are explicit. Sexist terms are explicit. insults to physical capability are explicit. None of them relate in any way to other usage of common words.
Gimp is an insult. crippled is a term.

Ha, like lame, never thought about the (possible) derogatory nature of the term gimp either. Every time I hear it, I just think of a guy wearing a leather mask with a chain around his neck and a pommel horse.

Edit: As to my explanation above for gimp, it refers to Pulp Fiction. The movie is over 20 years old now!!!