Ian Birrell: Mind your language: words can cause terrible damage

Chris Coady / NB Illustration

Share
Close
- Digg
- del.icio.us
- Facebook
- Reddit
- Google
- Stumble Upon
- Fark
- Newsvine
- YahooBuzz
- Bebo
- Mixx
- Independent Minds
Print
Email

« Back to Ian Birrell: Mind your language: words can cause terrible damage

Comments

Page 1 of 2
<<	[1] [2]	>>

pc nonsense

archie23 wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 12:56 am (UTC)

I think this kind of journalistic self indulgence should be dismissed as PC. How dare you suggest we think about the feelings of other people when we are just trying to enjoy ourselves!

Link | Reply | Thread

Taig?

ron_broxted wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 01:03 am (UTC)

One cannot legislate against ignorance. The term retard can accurately be used to describe a person with learning difficulties. The old scale was imbecile, moron, slow, etc. Ethnic minorities can use the "N" word. Northern Ireland? I can call myself a Taig but you cannot (unless you are a Taig). In East Timor "maubere" was used in just such a way (fem Bibere) as a method of opposing first Portuguese, then Indonesian rule. It is a matter of place. In Ireland the insults are most graphic dealing with gypsies, in Dixie with those of mixed heritage.

Link | Reply | Thread

Here here!

know_comment wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 01:23 am (UTC)

I completely agree. I am always shocked at the way these words are used, even in my own family without a second thought; and even more dismayed when any challenge I pose is simply shrugged off as 'I don't mean it that way'.

The PC world can sometimes drive me to distraction too, but getting rid of the 'r' word and the 's' word is not PC, its just common sense. Only when we stop using terms that were once applied to a group of people in a derogatory way will we truely be able to start recognising those people as equal.

Link | Reply | Thread

Not soon enough.

know_comment wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 01:24 am (UTC)

I completely agree. I am always shocked at the way these words are used, even in my own family without a second thought; and even more dismayed when any challenge I pose is simply shrugged off as 'I don't mean it that way'.

The PC world can sometimes drive me to distraction too, but getting rid of the 'r' word and the 's' word is not PC, its right. Only when we stop using terms that were once applied to a group of people in a derogatory way will we truely be able to start recognising those people as equal.

Link | Reply | Thread

Wasn't the correct wording "mentally challenged" anway?

yosemitejoe wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 06:12 am (UTC)

Sigh. Language control is all fine, but there are practical problems...

Can I still use "idiot" (probably not)? How about "witch"? "Imbecile"? "Sociopath"? Sociopaths are not yet classed under persons with special needs, as far as I know.

"Imbecilic sociopathic politicians" doesn't flow too well though. But it actually expresses better what I feel.

Link | Reply | Thread

retard

orangiey wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 06:57 am (UTC)

looking from another view, the medical word uses 'retard' for drugs that have a long half life in the body or slow release into the body for example..'DICLOFENAC RETARD', does the author propose the removal of this word?

Link | Reply | Thread

Re: retard

lisy_babe wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 05:00 pm (UTC)

Missing the point, much?

The word "retard" means "delayed". So Diclofenac Retard means it's a slow-release version of the drug. The dissolving of the pill has been delayed.

The author calls for the term to no longer be used as an insult. Just like "gay" is perfectly fine to use in the context of "this person is attracted to someone of the same sex," but it's not acceptable to use as an insult.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

That article was so gay.

mmurray57 wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 07:04 am (UTC)

Can we get stop gay being used as a synonym for broken or damaged as well please.

Michael

Link | Reply | Thread

Re: That article was so gay.

uanime5 wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 10:14 am (UTC)

Gay is generally used as a synonym for lame, rather than broken or damaged; so okay then.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

well.....

jaffgyp wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 09:28 am (UTC)

actually all this hypersensitivity re disability is getting counter-progressive : what ARE 'disabled' folk to be called?
as it is, people, especially children, naturally identify one another by physical and other traits - i have taught classes of ( yes, mixed ability) teenaged boys who routinely referred to one cheery well loved and much admired 'disabled' lad as 'hump', and another as 'china', as well as using much more coarse nicknames for the 'non-disabled' - it bonded them; really hurtful names they usually reserved for the girls - but that was a different matter, involving trying to cover up raging adolescent hormonal turmoil;
i still recall with agony my schooldays when i said that my classmates were a stingy crew for not forking out towards some collection or other - and the hysterical reaction of one of the jewish girls who had 'misheard' me in classic freudian mode...
if the disabled are to be supported by the able (including rather too many able who receive far less social or financial help themselves) they are perhaps being unreasonable in expecting to have all the benefits of such support as well as endless special treatment?; high time that a new classification, of the 'enabled' was created, for those who have received all the help they need and are now ready to face real life with all its hurts and failures and lonelinesses as all the rest of us have to?

Link | Reply | Thread

Re: well.....

lisy_babe wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 05:09 pm (UTC)

what ARE 'disabled' folk to be called?

How about "disabled"?

There's an excellent simple guide to disability related language here: http://www.manchester.gov.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?categoryID=200041&documentID=106&pageNumber=5 or if you're looking for a more in depth explanation try: http://blobolobolob.blogspot.com/2008/04/language-of-disability.html

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand

Re: well..... -

jaffgyp - Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 08:51 am (UTC) Expand

Name calling

rosa31 wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 09:37 am (UTC)

thibbit has obviously not been subjected to the kind of name calling that exactly this article was addressing, or he/she would not make such a stupid comment. It's not a question of being "thin-skinned". Being abused, verbally or physically, day in and day out, is exhausting. Add that to the added effort of just getting through daily life as a disabled person, even in a society that does more to integrate disabled people than ours does. Hate crimes are very real - even if you aren't conscious of what you're doing when you abuse a disabled person.

Link | Reply | Thread

guilty as charged maybe, but...

contrastcolour wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 09:53 am (UTC)

If I have used the word "retard" in the past I was in no way using it in a way that was designed to cause offence to any person with learning disabilities. And, I have a strong feeling, this is the case with 99.99% of all contemporary usage of this word.

However, if I were to use the word "nigger" there isn't really any ambiguity about it, is there? It's a word with direct contemporary usage as a word of disparagement against black people. Therefore, it's hardly a word I (or anybody with any sensibilities) would use.

Link | Reply | Thread

Re: guilty as charged maybe, but...

lisy_babe wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 05:12 pm (UTC)

If I have used the word "retard" in the past I was in no way using it in a way that was designed to cause offence to any person with learning disabilities.

However, if I were to use the word "nigger" there isn't really any ambiguity about it, is there?

How can just justify a difference? Oh, yes. Disablism is socially acceptable. Racism isn't.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread | Expand

Re: guilty as charged maybe, but... -

contrastcolour - Friday, 6 November 2009 at 06:38 pm (UTC) Expand

Re: guilty as charged maybe, but... -

ladyjulian - Friday, 6 November 2009 at 07:40 pm (UTC) Expand

Carol Thatcher: "low-rent celebrity "

billdavy1949 wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 09:55 am (UTC)

Oh what bliss!

Link | Reply | Thread

Re: Carol Thatcher: "low-rent celebrity "

mallamb wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 08:20 pm (UTC)

Being so much lower-rent than Prince Harry, I take it. Would it be a case of the lower the rent the higher the probability of malice aforethought?

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

slow down

snowdonwatcher wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 10:40 am (UTC)

I read this article & was trying to work out what it was about. I always thought the word meant to slow down, as in a throttle. On tractors & on old cars a hand throttle is used & the word for slowing down was to retard the throttle.

Mind, if someone is using this word to describe a person for the reasons stated in the article then I do agree that that use would be wrong.

However there is a problem with banning words. Some as with the "n" word to describe someone who is black appears to have a single meaning, but many others have multiple meanings.
I walk with a stick, & someone once said very brusquely, "don't bother, you're useless!"
I wonder if we should ban the word "useless"?

Link | Reply | Thread

slaveweknow wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 12:05 pm (UTC)

Is this including more tolerant society to the Muslims?

Link | Reply | Thread

Thanks

chissylou wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 12:19 pm (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I couldn't agree more. I've seen this kind of thing going on for years in stand-up comedy: http://www.mencap.org.uk/page.asp?id=4199 It's cruel and unnecessary.

Link | Reply | Thread

slaveweknow wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 12:32 pm (UTC)

read "wide sky " by Daniel Tammet,ISBN-13: 978-1-4165-6969-5.
not all you said is true,need more time to read and study in this controversial issue.

Link | Reply | Thread

Hmmm...

annelew wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 12:50 pm (UTC)

Wholly agree with nobody being abused sentiment, however think the extreme PC part of this article is being blown up out of context.

If someone is accused of acting 'like a retard' my thoughts would be that, for someone who is not inflicted with an illness or disability, their level of behaviour is totally unacceptable. saying 'are you deaf' to someone who is blanking you deliberately is no slight on a deaf person, it is saying 'hey, you've got no excuses not to answer me'

This article is hypersensitive.

For the record I have been the victim of rudeness several times by people in wheel chairs because I haven't gotten out of the way quick enough. I watched a disabled man on a crowded path ram the back legs of a little girl because he was impatient that the throng wasn't moving quickly enough for him

We are ALL due respect. Articles that place emphasis on one group are discriminatory in themselves. EVERYONE OF US is part of a smaller element that can be abused. Ever said 'cry like a girl'? Ever said 'women drivers!' Im both!!! Ever said 'even a man could do it!' Ever laughed at a joke about old people...the list is endless

Link | Reply | Thread

Re: Hmmm...

contrastcolour wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 06:41 pm (UTC)

Hmm. Some common sense. Well done. Not much around...

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

Are you deaf?

rosa31 wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 02:06 pm (UTC)

Actually, annelew, saying "ars you deaf?" in that way, to imply someone is in fact mentally deficient, is an aggressive slight on deaf people.
The mere fact that all the nondisabled people who are posting messages assume they have a right to judge what is or is not offensive to disabled people demonstrates perfectly the discrimination that disabled people face. Why not ask a disabled person what he or she finds offensive, rather than imposing your own ill-informed views? Or do you assume they are too dim to know?

Link | Reply | Thread | Expand

Re: Are you deaf?

lucid1984 wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 05:57 pm (UTC)

I don't think you can force people to comment, so unfortunately you'll have to deal with the people who care enough to comment, like you.

I used to have a best friend who had spina bifida. She's not around any more, but the kind of patronising tone you take, as Guardian of The Disabled, would really get her goat. The chip on her shoulder was from people who wouldn't josh about with her as a normal person, which is the best kind of acceptance there is.

Do you assume they're all offended? Have you asked?

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

Re: Are you deaf? -

mallamb - Friday, 6 November 2009 at 08:33 pm (UTC) Expand

bonoffee wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 03:12 pm (UTC)

So many people here are missing the point. Verbal abuse like this seems insignificant until it leads to wider problems like assault and murder (as detailed here, and that's only a small part). It's the same as the rise in homophobic insults and connected bullying (as the article by Johann Hari pointed out). I think people need to stop crying about 'PC' and using it as an excuse to keep doing damaging behaviour. You might not think it's important, but to those of us who live with someone with special needs (and are used to all sorts of unpleasant things associated with that) it's a pretty big deal. I don't think it is too much to ask for everyone else to just think of nicer things to say, or to change what they do to make others' lives a little easier.

Link | Reply | Thread

Rosa...

annlewis wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 03:34 pm (UTC)

'Are you deaf' implies that the person is not listening, it has nothing to do with mental faculties, that would be 'are you stupid' surely? Which really would be an affront.

Why do you think you are more special than me? Why are my babies not special, why are my problems so un important?

Sorry, being disabled doesn't automaticaly make a person a nice person or that they are more deserving of respect.

I speak from experience in how i have seen some disabled people treating the rest of us with contempt. Are you saying being in a motobility scooter gives people the right to abuse those not in a one? Hence my point, we should be treating each other respectfully. As usual we are back to positive discrimination because we seem to have no right to be offended when treated badly because we are 'not special'

Link | Reply | Thread

Re: Rosa...

bonoffee wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 05:50 pm (UTC)

What are you talking about?

This has nothing to do with whether someone is nice or not. As I said, completely missing the point. Hey, so, not all black people are nice either. Does this mean we should let racism go unchecked?

A few words of abuse from one or two disabled people does not equate to systematic abuse and oppression of a minority by those who should know better. I'm sorry but it's not the same thing at all.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

Watching your language ...

john_b_ellis wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 05:09 pm (UTC)

It always seems to me that the litmus test in this "watch what you say" versus "PC gone mad" debate is to engage brain before opening gob, and ask yourself whether or not the words you were about to come out with might make the person to whom you're speaking think, even momentarily, that those words could logically and naturally be followed by a slap round the head or, at the least, an overt, completely unambiguous insult.

If you're in doubt, find some other way of saying it. Why be gratuitously and heedlessly hurtful and discourteous? The world's ungracious enough without adding to it.

Forrget about whether it's PC or not. Just aim to be nice to folk.

Link | Reply | Thread

Yes, but...

whatdoyoudo2 wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 05:13 pm (UTC)

I agree with your point, which is well-made, especially about the insult to a group of people who are less able to stand up for themselves. But I question the language you are using - I feel it would have been more accurate to distinguish between people who experience mental health as a disability and those who are developmentally disabled; you only cover the second topic but seem to be using the terms interchangeably, which is a shame as those with mental illness are often written and spoken about in similarly hateful ways. Tabloid coverage of Leona Lewis's recent attacker, a man who was presumably not well considering he was sectioned, called him "a maniac", "a buck-toothed nut", "warped" and a "crazed thug", for example (http://www.zimbio.com/Leona+Lewis/articles/DDpP0dsRZiB/Leona+Lewis+attacked+fan+buck+toothed+nut) and that seems to be acceptable.

Link | Reply | Thread

wholeheartedly agree

erinnorman wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 05:17 pm (UTC)

Very well said. I agree completely. When I was younger I used the word "retard" and I had no idea whatsoever where it came from, it was like saying someone was an idiot.

Low level forms of abuse and discrimination act as building blocks to far larger crimes. It would pay people to remember that many believe your worth is directly equated to how you treat others.

I'm glad to see this here - its an issue that a lot of parents with disabled children discuss amongst themselves but you dont see so much on the news.

Link | Reply | Thread

As someone too young to have ever called a disabled person a 'retard'

lucid1984 wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 05:54 pm (UTC)

(by the same token, I'm also too young to remember when black people were charmingly called wogs on national television, and gay people being called 'shirtlifters') I know that the only way to give a word no power as an insult is to not care. Sticks and stones may break my bones and all that. Act all shocked and horrified and you're showing what YOU associate with the word retard, nobody else. How progressive.

Link | Reply | Thread | Expand

Re: As someone too young to have ever called a disabled person a 'retard'

whatdoyoudo2 wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 06:45 pm (UTC)

I don't think this is true. We cannot help the associations that words have in society; it is not a personal decision but deeply ingrained and strongly related to prejudice.
It's admirable that you don't use offensive language for minority groups, but only those groups can truly tell us if a term still carries the weight of prejudice.

Link | Reply | Parent | Thread

Re: As someone too young to have ever called a disabled person a 'retard' -

bonoffee - Friday, 6 November 2009 at 07:57 pm (UTC) Expand

Okay, no more retarded

had_it wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 09:16 pm (UTC)

I get it. Retarded is no longer an acceptable word in any circumstances.
Deja vu: Backward nations, poor nations, developing nations... as soon as a word is associated with reality it must be retired in favour of a new euphemism. All of these semantics are much more important than actually dealing with the problem. (or, if not more important, at least easier).

If we can just get everyone hung up about words, we don't have to actually do anything while we argue about what to call it.

Link | Reply | Thread

Sad but true..

fulkehunke wrote:

Friday, 6 November 2009 at 09:51 pm (UTC)

The problem is whatever words are chosen to describe a person with a particular disability, someone will abbreviate the term and use it to describe an individual. Children then pick up on this a run with it. When I was young, blue peter had a number of episodes featuring a disabled man called Joey Deacon, you can guess what happened next. The problem is ignorance is only overcome by experience. I now have a disabled sister in law and I am sensitive to particular words, she however is not.

Link | Reply | Thread