preventing Ableism-Too much or not enough/ ideals vs people, a discussion on whats ok.

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.

**CthulhuDawg**

Popsghostly wrote:
zeragrin wrote:
Popsghostly wrote:
zeragrin wrote:
As a Wargamer with severe Hemophilia, Degenerative Joint Disease, Muscle Atrophy, Osteoarthritis and Contracture of 3 joints I have been called lame, gimp, cripple, hobbles, Howard (like the duck, because I waddle) and Sir Limps Alot....by my closest friends and family. It's because of them these words don't hurt me and I feel like all of the energy people spend being offended by them could be better used putting chairs by the tables in Games Workshops, I would like to sit down.

Good to hear you have thick skin. It's a valuable trait very integral for success.

But, what if people that weren't your closest friends and family called you these terms? Someone you didn't know? Or if they just referred to you as that guy, you know the "fill-in-the-blank term you described above" that plays Warhammer? How do your friends/family feel when others call you those terms? Or if you had a child that had those conditions and she/he cried when people called him/her those terms?

I've been called those names by other people and my loved ones would definitely be more offended than me. I honestly can't explain to you how little I care about what others think of me as I don't receive my validation in life from sources other than myself. As an intelligent person who understands genetics I won't be having children, my wife and I never even considered it, so I have no worldview to accurately answer your last question. I can only give you my anecdotal experiences and the advice based on them.

Edited for spelling.

Good answer. I agree that more effort needs to be placed on things like getting chairs for you at the table and making everything more accessible to all people rather than just taking offense. Nothing irks me more than not being able to get a stroller up the stairs because there's no elevator/ramp/escalator!!!

Ahh if only elevators and chairs were everywhere

When my legs got bad enough that I couldn't get to the store by myself anymore it actually pushed me into buying my first terrain sets and crafting my own table for home play. Got my wife playing, brother in law, a couple of friends. When I do go to the occasional event at the store I usually call the manager ahead of time and explain my situation and ask if it's alright if I bring my own stool. I've never had anyone say no.

**Sgt_Smudge**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, we use a word that compares something to a class of people in order to express a negative opinion of that something, then tell the class of people used as a descriptor of negative value not to be offended by us using them as the standard of that which is terrible and substandard?

Like, if I said Frazz was a total Texas who texased up this thread until it was all Texas, a state of being I and all good people find distasteful, then it would be Frazzled's fault for being offended by the usage of the idea that being Texan in nature is a horrible, horrible thing that connotes all kinds of unpleasantness? We can count on Frazzled not to be offended when we use his very texasness as an insult for people we don't like.

The difference being that Frazzled can move out of Texas and shed his horrible texasness, but a lame person cannot choose to stop being lame. And that's just Texas for that poor person.*

*At first I was going to use the verb "to Jew", but I've heard people use it and then tell me to stop whining when I was offended. However, in the past that analogy has been less than successful on Dakka, so I went for phrasing that might actually communicate the idea to others.

Not disagreeing with you, but as a spin on this, someone says I have black hair. Or someone says the word "black", perhaps asking for their coffee, as a pure adjective. I get offended by the use of that adjective describing something completely unrelated to me, or get offended by someone pointing out I have black hair.

Am I permitted to censor them for using the term black to describe things? Or am I wrong for being offended when someone points out my physiology or a descriptive term/adjective?

**Popsghostly**

redleger wrote:
Spinner wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
The Issue is this Frazz
Whiny people are upset because words hurt.
Whatever happened to
"Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"
Because we need to be saying that ALOT more often.

Try using that one to get around Rule #1, see how far it gets you.

Yes, that is no excuse to break rule #1. It is not an excuse to be impolite by any means. It is a personal philosophy that could be used to prevent filling out hurt feelings reports though when you happen to hear something you don't like.

Agree. As soon as people are treated negatively beyond words or the words themselves are used in a derogatory fashion, then that's where the impoliteness steps in and behavior/use must stop.

**skyth**

First off, the claims that the free speech is under attack are quite frankly BS. No government is involved. The situation as described is you visit someone's home, they ask you not to do something, you do it anyway, so they ask you to leave.

Second off, I could see how 'lame' is offensive. The term is originally used to describe a medical condition. However, people have decided to conflate that medical condition with something that is boring or bad. Think of it this way...if someone mentions that a person you have no knowledge of being lame, is your first thought that they have trouble walking or is your first thought about them something else?

Really it comes down to being polite and respectful for other people. Unfortunately, that is something that certain people have issues with.

**redleger**

skyth wrote:
First off, the claims that the free speech is under attack are quite frankly BS. No government is involved. The situation as described is you visit someone's home, they ask you not to do something, you do it anyway, so they ask you to leave.

Second off, I could see how 'lame' is offensive. The term is originally used to describe a medical condition. However, people have decided to conflate that medical condition with something that is boring or bad. Think of it this way...if someone mentions that a person you have no knowledge of being lame, is your first thought that they have trouble walking or is your first thought about them something else?

Really it comes down to being polite and respectful for other people. Unfortunately, that is something that certain people have issues with.

So definitions from the dictionary have no meaning then?

**CthulhuDawg**

skyth wrote:
First off, the claims that the free speech is under attack are quite frankly BS. No government is involved. The situation as described is you visit someone's home, they ask you not to do something, you do it anyway, so they ask you to leave.

Second off, I could see how 'lame' is offensive. The term is originally used to describe a medical condition. However, people have decided to conflate that medical condition with something that is boring or bad. Think of it this way...if someone mentions that a person you have no knowledge of being lame, is your first thought that they have trouble walking or is your first thought about them something else?

Really it comes down to being polite and respectful for other people. Unfortunately, that is something that certain people have issues with.

Telling someone how they can and cannot refer to things absolutely is an assault on free speech. Furthermore it's a form of mind control because of the way words shape our world. Hold on I have primary sources on these I'll brb.

**Popsghostly**

skyth wrote:
First off, the claims that the free speech is under attack are quite frankly BS. No government is involved. The situation as described is you visit someone's home, they ask you not to do something, you do it anyway, so they ask you to leave.

Second off, I could see how 'lame' is offensive. The term is originally used to describe a medical condition. However, people have decided to conflate that medical condition with something that is boring or bad. Think of it this way...if someone mentions that a person you have no knowledge of being lame, is your first thought that they have trouble walking or is your first thought about them something else?

Really it comes down to being polite and respectful for other people. Unfortunately, that is something that certain people have issues with.

Totally right. I can't count how many times I tell one kid to stop calling the other one something because it is hurting their feeling. What was it last week, oh yeah... Bowser from Mario Kart. But they just keep on doing it until the name caller is crying because I yelled at her!!!

**skyth**

redleger wrote:
skyth wrote:
First off, the claims that the free speech is under attack are quite frankly BS. No government is involved. The situation as described is you visit someone's home, they ask you not to do something, you do it anyway, so they ask you to leave.

Second off, I could see how 'lame' is offensive. The term is originally used to describe a medical condition. However, people have decided to conflate that medical condition with something that is boring or bad. Think of it this way...if someone mentions that a person you have no knowledge of being lame, is your first thought that they have trouble walking or is your first thought about them something else?

Really it comes down to being polite and respectful for other people. Unfortunately, that is something that certain people have issues with.

So definitions from the dictionary have no meaning then?

The dictionary definitions are meaningless without the history especially when a new meaning was derived from the original and intended to be deragatory.

**Galas**

People should be free to speak as they want and say what they want.

Then, in base of what they say, consequences can apply.
Remember that the Chart of Human Rights recognise the free of speech, but also says that free speech its not free of consequences.

**redleger**

skyth wrote:
redleger wrote:
skyth wrote:
First off, the claims that the free speech is under attack are quite frankly BS. No government is involved. The situation as described is you visit someone's home, they ask you not to do something, you do it anyway, so they ask you to leave.

Second off, I could see how 'lame' is offensive. The term is originally used to describe a medical condition. However, people have decided to conflate that medical condition with something that is boring or bad. Think of it this way...if someone mentions that a person you have no knowledge of being lame, is your first thought that they have trouble walking or is your first thought about them something else?

Really it comes down to being polite and respectful for other people. Unfortunately, that is something that certain people have issues with.

So definitions from the dictionary have no meaning then?

The dictionary definitions are meaningless without the history especially when a new meaning was derived from the original and intended to be deragatory.

I agree to disagree with you. I believe context matters.

**CthulhuDawg**

An article written by Guy Deutscher of the University of Manchester on how language shapes the world around us.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/magazine/29language-t.html

I don't have access to my repository as my Uni e-mail is no longer active but I was going to look an article by Mike Goodwin, in specific the one spoken about in this Wiki article (do your own research, wiki can be trash, but the man is real and so is the book.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Rights

**skyth**

zeragrin wrote:
skyth wrote:
First off, the claims that the free speech is under attack are quite frankly BS. No government is involved. The situation as described is you visit someone's home, they ask you not to do something, you do it anyway, so they ask you to leave.

Second off, I could see how 'lame' is offensive. The term is originally used to describe a medical condition. However, people have decided to conflate that medical condition with something that is boring or bad. Think of it this way...if someone mentions that a person you have no knowledge of being lame, is your first thought that they have trouble walking or is your first thought about them something else?

Really it comes down to being polite and respectful for other people. Unfortunately, that is something that certain people have issues with.

Telling someone how they can and cannot refer to things absolutely is an assault on free speech. Furthermore it's a form of mind control because of the way words shape our world. Hold on I have primary sources on these I'll brb.

No government involvement means no assault on free speech. Calling someone on them using offensive language is exercising free speech just the same as using that offensive language.

Free speech doesn't protect you from consequences of that speech other than from the government. It especially doesn't limit other people's free speech.

**Galas**

Yeah. I'm totally on board with free speech, but in today society "free speech" its something more like "Let me say what I want, but then just shut up and don't criticise me"

**feeder**

I was worried this thread would not be full of hyperbolic cries of oppression and stalwart defenders of free speech for imaginary attacks. I'm glad I was wrong.

**CthulhuDawg**

skyth wrote:
zeragrin wrote:
skyth wrote:
First off, the claims that the free speech is under attack are quite frankly BS. No government is involved. The situation as described is you visit someone's home, they ask you not to do something, you do it anyway, so they ask you to leave.

Second off, I could see how 'lame' is offensive. The term is originally used to describe a medical condition. However, people have decided to conflate that medical condition with something that is boring or bad. Think of it this way...if someone mentions that a person you have no knowledge of being lame, is your first thought that they have trouble walking or is your first thought about them something else?

Really it comes down to being polite and respectful for other people. Unfortunately, that is something that certain people have issues with.

Telling someone how they can and cannot refer to things absolutely is an assault on free speech. Furthermore it's a form of mind control because of the way words shape our world. Hold on I have primary sources on these I'll brb.

No government involvement means no assault on free speech. Calling someone on them using offensive language is exercising free speech just the same as using that offensive language.

Free speech doesn't protect you from consequences of that speech other than from the government. It especially doesn't limit other people's free speech.

https://www.utoronto.ca/taxonomy/term/3422/feed

Edited to add context. This talks about Toronto bill C-16 and it's restriction on speech when it comes to non binary genders.

**redleger**

Galas wrote:
Yeah. I'm totally on board with free speech, but in today society "free speech" its something more like "Let me say what I want, but then just shut up and don't criticise me"

I agree but allowing people to meet with the consequences is their right. However we are not talking about yelling fire in a theater. Simply interpretation of one's words out of context.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Whatever happened to
"Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"
Because we need to be saying that ALOT more often.

It was bs, still is bs, will still be bs.

zeragrin wrote:
Telling someone how they can and cannot refer to things absolutely is an assault on free speech. Furthermore it's a form of mind control because of the way words shape our world. Hold on I have primary sources on these I'll brb.

OOooooh spooky! And telling people that they cannot tell you how you can refer to to things, is that also an attack on free speech? Why do you hate free speech Zeragrin?

I remember when “Free speech” was about fighting actual censorship not fighting criticism for saying gakky things. I 'member.

As for the offense debate, I have absolutely no problem with offending some people. You are offended because I belittled your religion? Fine by me. I just don't want to offend people by mistake, when I actually think the offense is justified.

**Frazzled**

Really it comes down to being polite and respectful for other people. Unfortunately, that is something that certain people have issues with.

No, it doesn't, at least not how its being discussed here. If a person if using the word correctly, and someone is trying to "correct them" then it comes down to someone trying to exert power over another.

In your instance if I say something is "lame" then that is not the appropriate use. If someone says that insulting to lame people then their point could be taken (I would tell them to F off most likely), unless the person saying it is actually lame in which case they have standing to pursue the claim.

If calling someone lame as an insult well thats a clearcut insult.

But if I say flamer retardent or Modelo Negro then I am using the correct term. If you then try to "correct me" you are trying to exert power over me and I will react to your despotic attempt with vitriol.

**Tactical_Spam**

skyth wrote:
First off, the claims that the free speech is under attack are quite frankly BS. No government is involved. The situation as described is you visit someone's home, they ask you not to do something, you do it anyway, so they ask you to leave.

If I go to someone's house and they tell me not to say something, i.e. "lame," they are probably way too thin skinned. That's not to say I won't censor myself in certain company, for instance I wouldn't dare say "r*tard" at my Uncle's house because his step daughter has Down Syndrome.

Second off, I could see how 'lame' is offensive. The term is originally used to describe a medical condition. However, people have decided to conflate that medical condition with something that is boring or bad. Think of it this way...if someone mentions that a person you have no knowledge of being lame, is your first thought that they have trouble walking or is your first thought about them something else?

I never hear "lame" used in reference to someone who has a physical handicap. If a person says someone is lame, I will automatically assume they mean the person is uninteresting. My brother's best friend is handicapped and not once in the decade I have known the guy has anyone referred to him as "lame."

Really it comes down to being polite and respectful for other people. Unfortunately, that is something that certain people have issues with.

I think the problem people have is having people police their word choice. Should I get "triggered" that everyone refers to me as white or slow?

**Frazzled**

skyth wrote:
zeragrin wrote:
skyth wrote:
First off, the claims that the free speech is under attack are quite frankly BS. No government is involved. The situation as described is you visit someone's home, they ask you not to do something, you do it anyway, so they ask you to leave.

Second off, I could see how 'lame' is offensive. The term is originally used to describe a medical condition. However, people have decided to conflate that medical condition with something that is boring or bad. Think of it this way...if someone mentions that a person you have no knowledge of being lame, is your first thought that they have trouble walking or is your first thought about them something else?

Really it comes down to being polite and respectful for other people. Unfortunately, that is something that certain people have issues with.

Telling someone how they can and cannot refer to things absolutely is an assault on free speech. Furthermore it's a form of mind control because of the way words shape our world. Hold on I have primary sources on these I'll brb.

No government involvement means no assault on free speech. Calling someone on them using offensive language is exercising free speech just the same as using that offensive language.

Free speech doesn't protect you from consequences of that speech other than from the government. It especially doesn't limit other people's free speech.

Cool then that person has the same free speech right to tell you to go

yourself when you try to exert dominion on them.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Galas wrote:
Yeah. I'm totally on board with free speech, but in today society "free speech" its something more like "Let me say what I want, but then just shut up and don't criticise me"

Fair point.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Tactical_Spam wrote:
Should I get "triggered"

No. Regardless of what comes next, you shouldn't be triggered. If you are triggered it means you had a traumatic experience and it's pretty sad. PTSD is seriously terrible.

**skyth**

There are plenty of available words to say something is uninteresting without relying on words derived from a type of person that paint that type of person in a negative light.

**Galas**

Frazzled wrote:

Cool then that person has the same free speech right to tell you to go yourself when you try to exert dominion on them.

Yep, basically.

So as I said early, its all down to respect and being polite to other people. Like when you were a child and say to other child "Son of a b*tch!" and he says that his mother was dead and you instantly apoligice.

But when I encounter someone with a skin to thin and "You should don't say that because MAYBE someone that isn't here can be offended" I just tend to ignore him. But, again, in public forums and in general, speaking in public, I restrain myself to a neutral and educated form of speech.

Thats why I hate Tweeter. So many entitled people that think that they have a holy right to just sput gak (In all directions of the political and social spectre) and receive no consequences from it, its disgusting.

**Frazzled**

Galas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Cool then that person has the same free speech right to tell you to go yourself when you try to exert dominion on them.

Yep, basically.

So as I said early, its all down to respect and being polite to other people. Like when you were a child and say to other child "Son of a b*tch!" and he says that his mother was dead and you instantly apoligice.

But when I encounter someone with a skin to thin and "You should don't say that because MAYBE someone that isn't here can be offended" I just tend to ignore him. But, again, in public forums and in general, speaking in public, I restrain myself to a neutral and educated form of speech.

Its this type of calmness that has no place on the internet!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

skyth wrote:
There are plenty of available words to say something is uninteresting without relying on words derived from a type of person that paint that type of person in a negative light.

And?

**skyth**

Tactical_Spam wrote:
skyth wrote:
First off, the claims that the free speech is under attack are quite frankly BS. No government is involved. The situation as described is you visit someone's home, they ask you not to do something, you do it anyway, so they ask you to leave.

If I go to someone's house and they tell me not to say something, i.e. "lame," they are probably way too thin skinned. That's not to say I won't censor myself in certain company, for instance I wouldn't dare say "r*tard" at my Uncle's house because his step daughter has Down Syndrome.

Guess what, that person still has the right to ask you to leave their house and you are in the wrong if you don't leave.

But nice to know someone is 'thin skinned' if offended by something that doesn't affect you but not if they are someone you know and care about...

**CptJake**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:

The difference being that Frazzled can move out of Texas and shed his horrible texasness, but a lame person cannot choose to stop being lame.

Unfortunately for the 'lame' person, the word lame has too many legitimate uses. As a horse (and other critter) owner, the word lame is a term that gets used, because well, it is the correct term. If a person is lame and is offended by my use of the term in day to day conversations with the farrier or vet or any other person with whom I talking about my critters they can deal with it. Easier and cheaper to deal with hurt feelings than a lame horse...

Actually, one of our goats, Moonshine, is currently lame after having foundered. I have to trim her hooves every 2 weeks or so and inject her with Banamine every other day or so. Hope to heck we can get it under control soon.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Galas wrote:
But when I encounter someone with a skin to thin and "You should don't say that because MAYBE someone that isn't here can be offended" I just tend to ignore him.

Sometime it can be justified though. Say, if you are making a rape joke, you never know if there are rape survivors around, and just because no-one tells you they are doesn't mean no-one is.

**kronk**

Back to the Original Post, I agree with you on the point that context matters. One of the additives in my manufacturing process is a retarder, as in it delays a certain part of the chemical process for various reasons. In that context, there is nothing wrong with the word.

hotsauceman1 wrote:
The Issue is this Frazz
Whiny people are upset because words hurt.
Whatever happened to
"Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"
Because we need to be saying that ALOT more often.

Weren't you studying to be a counselor or Human Resources person or something like that?

**Tactical_Spam**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
Should I get "triggered"

No. Regardless of what comes next, you shouldn't be triggered. If you are triggered it means you had a traumatic experience and it's pretty sad. PTSD is seriously terrible.

Spoiler:

I am no stranger to PTSD. I used " "triggered" " in that sentence as a call to the special snowflake crowd and their liberal use of the word.

skyth wrote:
Tactical_Spam wrote:
skyth wrote:
First off, the claims that the free speech is under attack are quite frankly BS. No government is involved. The situation as described is you visit someone's home, they ask you not to do something, you do it anyway, so they ask you to leave.

If I go to someone's house and they tell me not to say something, i.e. "lame," they are probably way too thin skinned. That's not to say I won't censor myself in certain company, for instance I wouldn't dare say "r*tard" at my Uncle's house because his step daughter has Down Syndrome.

Guess what, that person still has the right to ask you to leave their house and you are in the wrong if you don't leave.

But nice to know someone is 'thin skinned' if offended by something that doesn't affect you but not if they are someone you know and care about...

Did you miss the part where I said I censor myself around people who would get offended by my word choice? I am not going to yell at someone for being deaf if there is a deaf person in the room regardless if they heard me or not.

**skyth**

CptJake wrote:
BobtheInquisitor wrote:

The difference being that Frazzled can move out of Texas and shed his horrible texasness, but a lame person cannot choose to stop being lame.

Unfortunately for the 'lame' person, the word lame has too many legitimate uses. As a horse (and other critter) owner, the word lame is a term that gets used, because well, it is the correct term. If a person is lame and is offended by my use of the term in day to day conversations with the farrier or vet or any other person with whom I talking about my critters they can deal with it. Easier and cheaper to deal with hurt feelings than a lame horse...

Actually, one of our goats, Moonshine, is currently lame after having foundered. I have to trim her hooves every 2 weeks or so and inject her with Banamine every other day or so. Hope to heck we can get it under control soon.

Most people wouldn't be offended by calling a horse lame when they were speaking of being unable to walk.

Granted, I could see mods of a forum being tired of arguments that the word was used 'correctly' and decide to ban all use of the word.