Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    Ian Dury?

    He was a polio sufferer, disabled, and worked hard for disabled peoples rights, and disabled awareness.

    That was kind of a weird move by the BBC, and a good example of the offence being in the eye of the beholder.
    Yes, or the way in which political correctness is often self defeating as it masks the true misconceptions and fears of people by focusing on what they say and not what they think.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think it's actually embarrassing how far the BBC go to try to avoid the risk of offence. I mean, I'm one for everyone-is-equal, which is why I don't need in thrust in my face all the time. Positive discrimination is silly, and so is the promotion of any race/disability/ethnicity etc. They're all the same in my book. The BBC constantly try to appear rounded and politically correct ie. with their man-in-wheelchair-playing-basketball type things etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aetheria)
    Haven't heard the word spaz for quite a while. Might start using it again.

    Don't know why people take offense at the word spaz. After all, who said it was being used as an insult?

    Some people need to get over themselves.
    Let us suppose that you were suffering from some sort of progressive brain condition which will, eventually, render you incapable of remembering any more than the immediate past. This is very distressing for you. You are, in effect, waiting for your own mind to erase itself. People who suffer from this condition are colloquially known as 'spazs'.

    Then, one day, in a park, you hear someone say to a friend, 'Oh, you stupid spaz!'

    Of course, no offense is intended. However, through their carelessness they are belittling you and your condition, as if it were some sort of joke. This is unpleasant and arkward for you; distressed and exasperated you feel worthless.

    To condone this sort of language, therefore, is not only to show a lack of compassion for, but is also to demean the sufferers of the conditions which they reference. It should be stopped.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    OK, I'll see that example and raise you.

    Supposing you are paralysed in a car accident and can never walk again, barring a miracle. Someone saying "cripple", in a totally unrelated conversation as they walk past you, is obviously going to upset you. But so is someone saying "car crash", because it will remind you of the undoubtedly distressing circumstances that confined you to a wheelchair.

    Now, here's the crunch. Neither the person saying "cripple" nor the person saying "car crash" had any intention of causing distress, but both ended up doing so. Is it logical to condemn the one and not the other? The only reason to do so is to cry "insensitivity", but unfortunately that gets the debate nowhere because it is entirely subjective and always will be.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    OK, I'll see that example and raise you.

    Supposing you are paralysed in a car accident and can never walk again, barring a miracle. Someone saying "cripple", in a totally unrelated conversation as they walk past you, is obviously going to upset you. But so is someone saying "car crash", because it will remind you of the undoubtedly distressing circumstances that confined you to a wheelchair.

    Now, here's the crunch. Neither the person saying "cripple" nor the person saying "car crash" had any intention of causing distress, but both ended up doing so. Is it logical to condemn the one and not the other? The only reason to do so is to cry "insensitivity", but unfortunately that gets the debate nowhere because it is entirely subjective and always will be.
    It is the use of words akin to 'cripple' which I am arguing is wrong. Let me use your example to illustrate further why.

    Your distinction rests on the terms identicalness, there sameness. However, 'cripple' is the sort of term which it is recognised can give rise to offense. In your example, 'car crash' is a factual description which is not apt, in most circumstances, to cause upset.

    Therefore, we can condemn, logically, the use of one (known, in some circumstances, to give rise to offense) and not the other (reasonable to assume neutrality).


    Of course, it is a subjective matter whether a term will engender offense or not. However, would it not be best to minimise the risk of upsetting people by avoiding the sort of terms we have reasonable belief to know might cause upset rather than proceed with indifference?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aetheria)
    I don't take offense at things which could offend me. I'm currently a little overweight and all the time I hear "oh my god, I'm so fat, I'm so ugly". I'm not bothered. Or the whole "dumb blonde" thing, or "stupid northerners".
    Firstly, your concerns are trivial when compared to, say, the person in my example. Secondly, a stereotype is different to a term like 'spaz'. Thirdly, that you feel no umbrage does not refute my point that some people do.

    (Original post by Aetheria)
    Most people will use those "stereotypes" with their mates, who won't be offended; they won't calls randoms "spaz" or "dumb blonde" or whatever.
    Then do you agree that the use of the 'stereotypes' you mentioned should be confined, if used at all, to conclaves only?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aetheria)
    The word cripple can be used in other situations, eg "our football team was crippled when two of our players got sent off". If someone overheard that and was offended I'd say they had a few problems!
    In all likelihood you would be right to.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aetheria)
    But I don't think you should have to be really careful about what you say.
    There is a conflict, then, between ease of speech on the one hand and causing inadvertent offense on the other. With regard to my own speech, I should rather appear thoughtful and sensitive by shunning the kind of words which might give rise to offense.

    (Original post by Aetheria)
    I think everyone realises that calling someone a spaz or a r*tard, ok sure, it's saying that they're mentally disabled, but maybe I'm dumb but I don't really get what's wrong with that?
    Between like-minded friends, in private meeting, it is acceptable.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm disabled and a wheelchair user myself and although I would hate it if someone called me 'spaz' or 'cripple' or used these thoughts of words to refer specifically to people with disabilities, I don't particularly mind it if people are using the words as slang terms to refer to something different. Most young people now probably won't even know the other more hurtful meanings of these words anyway, as they have been out of the limelight for a while and they were gradually beginning to disappear. I think the whole situation is being made worse by the 'PC brigade' and the media putting them in the spotlight again.
    I've heard of worse, more OTT Political correctness stuff going on surrounding disability. Some people think that the disabled word should be scrapped because it implies that you aren't able to do anything, and even more over the top than that, that the Channel 4 programme 'T4' shouldn't be named so because it is the name of the killing of disabled people in the holocaust. Someone said 'how would you feel if the BBC had a programme called "The Final Solution"?'. I just think that thinking things like that are so OTT
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zhivago)
    The term '******' is now less used as a racial aggressive term and more used as a brotherhood term between black people (I find this bizzare, by the way), but it is now seen, generally, to not be offensive when black people refer to each other as '*******'.
    I must say it's gotten a bit far when you can't order a 'cafe negro' in a coffee shop and ITV cuts bits out the Dambusters because they've got a dog called '******' in it.

    I believe there was no racist intent in either case.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LibertineNorth)
    I must say it's gotten a bit far when you can't order a 'cafe negro' in a coffee shop and ITV cuts bits out the Dambusters because they've got a dog called '******' in it.

    I believe there was no racist intent in either case.
    "Negro" is Spanish and Portuguese for "black". Plain and simple. It never carried any negative connotations. And cutting bits from films is in itself a worrying road to go down. If I might digress on that subject for a moment:

    The United States prevented the score and parts of Delius' opera, "Koanga" from entering the country, because the word "******" was used. Now, "Koanga" is set on a plantation in the South during the 1860s. Not to use the words of the time would be inaccurate and a distortion of reality, in the same broad category as denying the Holocaust.

    Simply gratuitously cutting bits out of films seems to me to be the same kind of cultural crime. I was going to suggest inserting a little message AFTER the film to the effect that the views and topics of the film may not be those of the broadcaster, but for God's sake, that should be bloody obvious. If the BBC decides to show "Triumph des Willens" as part of a series of programmes about the Third Reich, does that automatically imply that they agree with its message? *******s.

    EDIT: Why is "blolocks" filtered and "******" not filtered? What the hell is wrong with the post moderation system?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 20, 2006

3,836

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.