Disability and "Softer/Sterile" words

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[nikomas]

_{This thread comes partly from the heart, I'll tell you why at the bottom if you stick with me and my poorly structured writing.}

As I still got the subject is still sort of in mind and I'm in a short writing mood, Well... Why this came to mind is because of one of those derailed and now locked (Poor XIIcorps) threads.


For starters, lets take two words that seemed to stick out last thread. It's argued that words like "Cripple" and "Handicapped" are derogatory terms and are liable to be cause for offence when used... Why? These words do not carry any ill intent by themselves and going by dictionaries they are pretty straightforward about what they mean.
For example: A crippled person is used to generally reefer to someone is someone with one or several disabilities, often physical and a Handicapped person is simply someone with a temporary or permanent disability that leaves the person with a disadvantage compared to people without said handicap.

So, then such a term is derogatory as it would imply this person has less value than a person without these issues? Ideologically speaking, every human being has the same worth but practically speaking this is impossible. Someone missing an arm is unable to perform any task that requires two arms as well as someone that has both. On the mental side someone with HFA or Aspergers might be able to perform most tasks as well as anyone else, but as these diagnoses are broad there might be areas were they are still Handicapped. For example, a friend of mine with Aspergers is for lack of a better word socially handicapped. While he is otherwise very smart and a good guy that makes him extremely unsuitable for service related jobs dealing with a lot of human interaction, This is still a handicap however.

For sure these are cold, hard and rather unspecific in regards to the specific cause of the disability. They do however carry a point across in general conversation were the use of words like "Physical/Mental Disability/Impairment" would feel awkward and out of place to use, let me give an example...


"My childhood was troublesome due to suffering from Aspergers syndrome, I was quite socially retarded and had trouble interacting with others back then."*
"My childhood was troublesome due to me having Aspergers syndrome, My social skills were poor and I could not interact with other people well back then."
_{*True Story}

So the second sentience looks nicer, does it not? It's certainly more friendly, less "offensive" and more politically correct but it lacks one important thing. The thing it lacks is why I'm personally more likely to say the first line in a conversation rather than the second one and that is emotion. This is the crux of why I hate these "Nicer/Proper" words. They are often dry, long, complicated and completely without emotion. Saying that someone is suffering from a disorder/handicap is certainly not really wrong as most are, that's how handicaps and disorders work and you wont fool anyone by switching the words around. I should know...

A Handicap, Condition or Disability is part of who a person is for better and for worse. A person is defined by their struggles and handicaps and they are part of who they are. I believe if sterilizing these words to the point where they lose all emotional value is a terrible thing to do, and almost an insult to the people with those issues, for example...

"My poor crippled old man, He can't walk no more..."**
"My poor disabled old man, He can't walk no more..."
_{*Not True, just making that clear, lol}

Simply put, the first line there carries more emotion than the second one.
Edit: And for you bible people out there (afaik) Jesus healed the cripples not the disabled ones, so how could it be a bad word if you're religious?



So why is this subject important to me? It's because as you might have noticed earlier I do have Asperger syndrome and several of my friends have some variation of this, the friend referenced above is certainly real to. While the problems I have due to this are certainly much lighter than most with a diagnose like this and most were related to a sob story of a childhood I've put behind me, I still have some issues to this day but not enough that you'd notice it without me pointing it out (or living with me). Also, For the Record? Handicap to me implies one has it harder in some areas than others while the more correct term Disability seems to imply that one simply could not do what others can.

Oh, if someone would like to know exactly what Asperger Syndrome is I'd be happy to tell you, a lot of people seem to be quite off about this one.


/Useless, poorly formatted post. Sorry for wasting your time with my tired ramble but feel free to discuss the subject!

[PonySlaystation]

I find it interesting that Idiot, Moron and Imbecile used to be formal medical terms.

[shockcoil]

Words only have as much power as you give them... that's it really. If you just take it on the chin nothing can hurt you.

[nikomas]

Words only have as much power as you give them... that's it really. If you just take it on the chin nothing can hurt you.

Kind of what I meant, instead of making softer words people should just be taught to take words for their proper meaning instead.

[Smokaz]

So far zero people without a disability has posted

[Baine]

Kill Smokaz. The deathwish is my only disability.

[Hicks58]

You know Tig, the amount of women (Working under the assumption you are one, humour me) that I have wanted to punch throughout my entire life has been a grand total of one.

You haven't quite made that list, but fuck me you're getting annoyingly close.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNk_kzQCclo

Watch that link. George Carlin might be a comedian but he's got a much better idea of what's going on than you ever will by the sounds of it.

The 2010 equality act can blow me. Stupid laws pass all the time, usually with the pretence of getting something specific in there thrown in.

Granted, I like equality. I like men and women having equal pay, black and white having equal chances to be employed when having the same qualifications and experience, nationality not having a bearing on how you are treated, the list goes on. However, equality frequently oversteps itself thinking that it can fix things with laws and regulations.

However, disabilities be them physical or psychological should fall under a different category for a reason. They have a displayed effect on a person's ability to perform a given task. Being black or white won't affect how you serve customers. Being male or female won't affect how you serve customers. Being English or Scottish won't affect how you serve customers. Being Christian or Muslim won't affect how you serve customers. Being straight or gay or lesbian or bisexual won't affect how you serve customers.

Having Aspergers will affect how you serve customers. Having a knee twisted out of place will affect how you can get to the workplace, or how long you can even be on your feet in the workplace for. For that specific job, having one of a wide range of disabilities WILL hinder you. No amount of positive language, back patting or outright bullshitting will change that fact.

If society wants to TRULY be kind to handicapped, crippled, retarded, disabled, disadvantaged (and any other word you can think of) people? It'll place them where their disability doesn't mean shit, rather than trying to bullshit them into believing their disability doesn't matter. Guy with Aspergers? DON'T put them in a job serving people all day. Find them a job where human interaction is at a minimum, yet they can still be productive. An Office job working accounts for example, it'd be much simpler for a person with Aspergers to get used to/deal with a small number of regular people than to constantly face new people every day. Same thing for physically disabled people. A person with crippled knees can do a job just as well as a person with fine knees, so long as the job didn't really need the person to do too much standing/moving around in the first place.

As well as that, they'd have to do one other thing. Accept that some levels of disability permanently affect ALL areas of life. Accept that some disabilities ONLY affect SOME areas of life, and aren't a blanket disadvantage which leads to the inevitable spoon feeding of feel-good bullshit. Society needs to say look, you CAN'T do this, but you CAN do that.

Trying to convince them otherwise is just downright insulting. I've personally had a physical disability (I use that term only because it handily hides what was up, my medical history is mine and all that) before which lasted for 7 years. I knew what it was, what I was, what I could do and what I couldn't do. I didn't try to wrap it up in nice words, try to convince myself I was just as good as everybody else. What I did was realise that some areas were utterly out of my reach, but I could still out-shine the shit out of people in the areas I still had access to.

Oh, and last little point...

Not everyone is strong enough to do that

If you can't take a few harsh words, then good fucking luck living life with a disability. Anybody whose had a temporary, or has a permanent disability of any kind will know that you either learn to suck it up or let the disability wreck you twice as fast.

[Hicks58]

The words are not incorrect.

They are short, simple and to the point. They were never created as an insult, never created as a put down. They were created to simply describe it in a way that everybody can understand. You call a black guy a nigger and THAT is an insult, as it was CREATED as a derogatory term.

Prime example, Shell Shock. You'd know it better as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Tell me, which one sounds worse? Which one sounds like an actual problem, something that NEEDS looking at?

PTSD sounds like somebody just can't get over a bad accident, rather than going through seeing and committing to death on a daily basis which utterly fucks a person's psyche.

Watch that video.

The more you water down the words you use to describe it, the more you water down the perception of just how serious the conditions are. This in turn affects people's attitudes to it. Sure, you're being nice about it, but being nice is not being helpful. You be nice to somebody who is feeling bad, not to somebody who has a problem. You give a person with a problem a solution, not kind words.

Your pandering to people's feelings will ultimately distance and alienate people, not using 'Harsh' words. It'll happen right when they realise that no matter how much you tell them that they are normal, they know inside that they aren't. They'll now have the problem that instead of people accepting that they are different, that they have problems, people walk on egg shells around them. They effectively can't speak up or be spoken to properly for fear of fucking something up with the wording. You'd have a society which 'Accepts' them, yet they'd effectively be even more alone than they were in the first place.

The 2010 equality act CAN blow me. There's been laws in place for longer than 2010 which protects against racism, gender inequality, and the likes. Recent laws such as that one do add progression to the parts of equality which I like. But the reason that it can blow me is that after all the steps forward, it's taking steps back.

One more time I'll say it. Watch that video.

[Hicks58]

The word cripple is an accurate term. It's an emotional word, a strong word. Not a bad word. It reminds you that there is a person behind the word when you use words with strength and emotion.

Disability? It's impersonal. It draws away from the emotion, it draws away from the feeling.

(Good parts of equality act 2010: putting all laws together under 1 protection, discrimination by association made illegal (someone associated with a black person is racially discriminated against if they can't enter somewhere because one of them is black), other stuff I can't remember, and certain words like cripple not being allowed. Bad parts: some silly new words to replace words that were fine. I don't think that enough reason to have it blow you Hicks).

Here in lies a good part of what is wrong with you. Specifically this:

I don't think that enough reason to have it blow you Hicks).

Assumptions. You believe that with all the benefit it has provided, it means I should regard the law as positive, and not hit it with negativity.

I like parts of the 2010 equality act, I've already said this. But the law can blow me for one firm reason: It's setting a chain of events. That law, and other recent ones with regards to what we say have been creeping changes. If you look at them in only the instance of themselves, they are a minor inconvenience at worst. My big gripe with it is where it is eventually going, and for that I have a strong resentment for it. The removal of freedoms starts in small steps in 'Civilised' societies. The replacement of words is not to get rid of bad ones, it's to get rid of negativity. To get rid of criticism. From a political view that's great, because developing that means you can keep spiralling with it, leading into other areas for 'Replacement' words.

Eventually criticism itself will become frowned upon in a good 20-30 years time if laws like that keep slipping in their 'Replacements'. When a government is difficult to criticise, it can start doing whatever the hell it wants.

The world is not black and white. Nothing provided by governments and politics is ever pure good or pure bad. You can't just weigh something up and say "Well, it gives more benefits than drawbacks so I'm cool with it, let it go". That's usually how idiotic ideas and laws slip in. I mean shit, for a little while you couldn't sing a couple of traditional English nursery rhymes due to ridiculous laws in the name of equality...

[tank130]

I like men and women having equal.......

Let's talk about women's equality for a second.

True Story:

I am walking into a clothing store one day. My mind is on stuff and I am not really paying much attention to what is around me.
I open the door and step into the shop not bothering to look behind me.

Suddenly a women behind me says, 'where did you learn your manners'.

I turn to look at her and she says 'a gentlemen would have held that door for a lady'

My first thought was to say, 'fuck off', but I am glad I took a moment to respond.

I replied, 'mam, women in this country have fought long and hard to gain equality.'

She gave me 'the look' and stormed off.


Women piss me off by wanting to be treated equal, while still expecting to be treated like a lady.
I do not know Alphatig well, but I have a feeling she falls in that category.....

Here comes the fight

[Spartan_Marine88]

Everyone made equal is BS, its a nice comforting thought, following on misguided attempts to make children feel better.

Truth is, everyone has there strengths and weaknesses. The sooner you accept that the sooner you can make your life better. As for disabilities half of the mental disabilities like ADHD are an excuse for parents who did a poor job of raising their kid, a great excuse for kids to act out (I nearly took my cousins head off when i heard him say "I can do what i want I got ADHD") And a great way for Psychs to get lots of money. While at the same time diluting and softening how we look at real serious issues.

[tank130]

mental disabilities like ADHD are an excuse for parents who did a poor job of raising their kid

I think often this is used as a catch phrase for - I am too lazy to do it right.

However, I think with increases in chemicals, pollutants, social differences etc, the real cases of ADHD are becoming more common. I think there some people who really do suffer from this illness. Unfortunately they are missed by all the fake bullshit one.

[Hicks58]

The 'True' sufferers of ADHD are usually a case of mis-diagnosis.

ADHD is a crock of shit. I've regularly interacted with a number of supposed ADHD sufferers and I've had a good look at it during my time when I was studying Psychology.

It really is a way for America particularly to boom up drug sales and keep kids quiet without effort... With few considerations for long term effects of course. Drugs for treating/controlling ADHD may not have any real long term physical effects, but they sure as hell screw up the development of children doped up on them. Case in point would be looking at the typical 10-16 year old in America and England. Can't speak so much for the rest of the EU mind you, as the studies I looked into were focused primarily in the US and UK.

'True' ADHD sufferers? Usually a very mild case of Aspergers, Autism, possibly even variations of Schizophrenia or Tourettes. It's sad really, I can imagine that a good portion of supposed 'True' ADHD sufferers are receiving entirely the wrong treatment due to being diagnosed as ADHD rather than what they more likely have.

Shit, I'm willing to bet ADHD wouldn't even be too much of a problem if it wasn't spun totally out of proportion by the media.

[aeroblade56]

It's simple we get treadmills and mirrors. that we they get the attention and release some NRG.

[Tymathee]

Oh, and last little point...

If you can't take a few harsh words, then good fucking luck living life with a disability. Anybody whose had a temporary, or has a permanent disability of any kind will know that you either learn to suck it up or let the disability wreck you twice as fast.

As someone who here is actually disabled somewhat, this is true. I cant' see out my left eye, there are certain things I either can't or couldn't do (law enforcement, certain sports, military etc.) cuz of my issues with depth perception and peripheral vision.

When I was younger when teased or even someone mentioned it I was very sensitive, I didn't like people talking about something I couldn't control or fix.

However, as I got older I learned to accept it was a part of who I am and not bring a lot of attention to it. Now, I'm still a bit sensitive about it and don't like when people ask me a bunch of questions but if someone tries to tease me about it, I join in with them.

My wife works with special needs kids, they're some of the happiest people, they don't give a crap. The people who get sensitive are usually the family or friends, I tell ya right now, they call each OTHER retarded sometimes among other words that we get all super sensitive about.

I agree, put 'em where they can work, don't try and put people with disabilities, mental or physical in a situation to fail, put them in a situation to succeed.

No two people will ever truly be equal but we can treat each other with dignity and respect that we'd want for ourselves THAT'S true equality.

[8thRifleRegiment]

No, no fight

I'm glad that being female is no longer a term on car insurance. However, it would have been better if the amount men pay went down to the amount women pay, and not the amount women pay go up to men pay (then everyone gets cheaper insurance! yay! though, then insurance companies would loose lots of money - maybe a meet in the middle?).

Insurance companies base their rates on statistics... not here-say

[Sachaztan]

I think often this is used as a catch phrase for - I am too lazy to do it right.

However, I think with increases in chemicals, pollutants, social differences etc, the real cases of ADHD are becoming more common. I think there some people who really do suffer from this illness. Unfortunately they are missed by all the fake bullshit one.

How about the obvious reason? That there's more diagnoses simply because were better at diagnosing them? Wasn't that long ago that ADHD didn't even "exist".

[Smokaz]

Everyone can get a diagnosis now if you want one. I went with something called "hyper-kinetic disorder". Basically you "idle-step" with your foot a bit too fast at the doctor's and then you can cash in crypoints and roofies for it later

[aeroblade56]

No, no fight

I'm glad that being female is no longer a term on car insurance. However, it would have been better if the amount men pay went down to the amount women pay, and not the amount women pay go up to men pay.

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Evidently it's different in England, as unless they have changed it somehow without my knowing, here in Canada they still give you a different quote based on gender. Looking at the statistics, it only makes sense - women get in fewer crashes, but are more likely to be involved in fatal crashes - they pay less insurance as it's more likely that they'll get killed as opposed to simply sustaining damage and having the insurance pay the resulting costs. Men, on the other hand, frequently get in non-threatening accidents. It only makes sense that they pay more in the eyes of the insurance company.