Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2018 6:57:36 GMT
Another minor party has declared their intention to stand. Guess who? Yep.  |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on May 12, 2018 7:13:28 GMT
Another minor party has declared their intention to stand. Guess who? Yep. I like Maserati cars too. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on May 12, 2018 7:43:48 GMT
The evolving of acceptable language over time is one that has always.interested me. I was intrigued last year when Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates decreed that instead of disabled people, the new definition is ‘People of Determination’. That might be well meaning but it’s incredibly patronising. All these attempts to re-label people fail because as soon as everyone knows what the new label means the old attitudes get applied to the new label - bullshit smells. If People of Determination was adopted the next thing you know is that it would be used ironically and after that "pod" or something similar would be a term of abuse - unless of course we all grow up and stop abusing people. "Spastic" was a medical term, from scholarly Greek, for specific physical symptoms i.e. uncontrollable spasms. The concept isn't offensive, it became offensive due to contempt for those with the condition and then use as a term of abuse against others. "Cripple" is a very old word meaning physically broken and I don't see anything wrong with using it in that sense; but leaving aside deliberate offence I can quite see why anyone might object to being regarded as broken. Is Tanni Grey-Thompson crippled? I think not. Conversely I have occasionally been crippled by grief and to say so isn't offensive, it's accurate. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 12, 2018 8:56:22 GMT
What is wrong with saying crippled? I say it from time to time. It's outdated, prejudicial, judgemental, rude, and asserts dominance. What utter rubbish. It is none of those things. It is just a word describing a condition. The rest of it is all silly inventions inside a certain sort of head and then cascaded out into an innocent world with menaces and moral blackmail by a certain sort of rather fascist mindset. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2018 10:04:50 GMT
It's outdated, prejudicial, judgemental, rude, and asserts dominance. What utter rubbish. It is none of those things. It is just a word describing a condition. The rest of it is all silly inventions inside a certain sort of head and then cascaded out into an innocent world with menaces and moral blackmail by a certain sort of rather fascist mindset. Well, you're wrong. A person who uses a wheelchair is many things but they are not "crippled". That word has taken on too many negative and prejudicial meanings. Maybe it will be readopted and reclaimed (as the "n" word is claimed to have been, as "queer" most certainly has.) Until then, there are many more acceptable, many more accepted, and many more respectful words to be used instead. The "c" word is horrendously outdated and should be consigned to history. THAT SAID, I will repeat what I typed last night. You are of an age and vintage. It is no surprise that the word does not carry the negativity in your head as it does in mine. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 12, 2018 10:17:04 GMT
What utter rubbish. It is none of those things. It is just a word describing a condition. The rest of it is all silly inventions inside a certain sort of head and then cascaded out into an innocent world with menaces and moral blackmail by a certain sort of rather fascist mindset. Well, you're wrong. A person who uses a wheelchair is many things but they are not "crippled". That word has taken on too many negative and prejudicial meanings. Maybe it will be readopted and reclaimed (as the "n" word is claimed to have been, as "queer" most certainly has.) Until then, there are many more acceptable, many more accepted, and many more respectful words to be used instead. The "c" word is horrendously outdated and should be consigned to history. THAT SAID, I will repeat what I typed last night. You are of an age and vintage. It is no surprise that the word does not carry the negativity in your head as it does in mine. Do you not see a form of creeping hysteria here where it could all become cyclic? As the word appears to have 'unacceptable' associations it is replaced by another word with the original being first discarded, then reviled, then made virtually illegal; only for the 'new word' to go from egg to moth itself with need for yet another new word; and hey presto a few decades later the original word is 'rediscovered' and rehabilitated by the opinion forming in-crowd! i stand aside from all that and use a word for what it actually means and ignore all the anxious fashion-conscious nonsense. like a stopped watch i shall be in fashion again every so often. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on May 12, 2018 10:51:11 GMT
Well, you're wrong. A person who uses a wheelchair is many things but they are not "crippled". That word has taken on too many negative and prejudicial meanings. Maybe it will be readopted and reclaimed (as the "n" word is claimed to have been, as "queer" most certainly has.) Until then, there are many more acceptable, many more accepted, and many more respectful words to be used instead. The "c" word is horrendously outdated and should be consigned to history. THAT SAID, I will repeat what I typed last night. You are of an age and vintage. It is no surprise that the word does not carry the negativity in your head as it does in mine. I'm not sure that I accept age and vintage as an excuse, given that I am of even greater antiquity than young Carlton here. The c word used here doesn't bother me at all and as so often with such words I find I simply ignore it- I had joined in the discussion, indeed may have initiated it before Carlton's contribution , and the c-word had just passed me by. But I would not think of using that word myself or any of those other words now considered offensive, because that would be impolite and it just isn't part of my vocabulary. Carlton on the other hand has the sort one man mission to shock more associated with enfants terribles. He doesn't want to let go of the vocabulary of his youth and he despises the mamby-pambyism of today's society and in the end he just doesn't care who he offends. I understand that and have some sympathy for the intent but not the outcome. But I don't see it as generational, more a punk thing rebelling against the norms of civilised society. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,952
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on May 12, 2018 10:57:06 GMT
The lack of women on here is surely just down to the fact they tend to be less interested in politics than men. No. No, its certainly not as simple as that. Though the fact that psephology (as opposed to politics more generally) really *is* overwhelmingly male dominated has to be a factor. |
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on May 12, 2018 11:02:14 GMT
Whilst I am of the Left , my sympathies are with Carlton on this. I do despise Political Correctness - and that partly explains my attitude to All Women Shortlists.
I encountered something similar a while back in relation to the word 'Bastard'.In the context of an argument or dispute the use of that word might be said to be an insult and likely to cause offence.However, when used to refer to those born out of wedlock, the word is not an obscenity at all - but a mere statement of legal fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on May 12, 2018 11:08:05 GMT
There are no regular female contributors whatsoever and @vintris are notable exceptions. zoe also, although she reads more she than posts at the moment. But it has always been this way, not because anyone is preventing or discouraging women from joining in, but because they choose not to do so. I think we do have to ask ourselves why this is. I agree with Adam it is certainly not because women in general aren't interested in politics per se, maybe generally less interested in the nerdiness beloved of many of us here, more interested in actual social outcomes perhaps. But are we in some way putting women off when they do show an interest? Maybe very early in the process, so it would be interesting to know whether a higher proportion of women browse as visitors but never commit to joining, let alone actually posting? The abrasive style of certain posters here would I suspect be fairly off-putting to a lot of female would-be posters. Might be interesting to have some women only threads  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2018 11:10:55 GMT
Well, you're wrong. A person who uses a wheelchair is many things but they are not "crippled". That word has taken on too many negative and prejudicial meanings. Maybe it will be readopted and reclaimed (as the "n" word is claimed to have been, as "queer" most certainly has.) Until then, there are many more acceptable, many more accepted, and many more respectful words to be used instead. The "c" word is horrendously outdated and should be consigned to history. THAT SAID, I will repeat what I typed last night. You are of an age and vintage. It is no surprise that the word does not carry the negativity in your head as it does in mine. I'm not sure that I accept age and vintage as an excuse, given that I am of even greater antiquity than young Carlton here. The c word used here doesn't bother me at all and as so often with such words I find I simply ignore it- I had joined in the discussion, indeed may have initiated it before Carlton's contribution , and the c-word had just passed me by. But I would not think of using that word myself or any of those other words now considered offensive, because that would be impolite and it just isn't part of my vocabulary. Carlton on the other hand has the sort one man mission to shock more associated with enfants terribles. He doesn't want to let go of the vocabulary of his youth and he despises the mamby-pambyism of today's society and in the end he just doesn't care who he offends. I understand that and have some sympathy for the intent but not the outcome. But I don't see it as generational, more a punk thing rebelling against the norms of civilised society. A fair point. No offence to all our vintage posters   |
|
|
|
Post by swanarcadian on May 12, 2018 11:39:37 GMT
Sharon and @vintris are notable exceptions. zoe also, although she reads more she than posts at the moment. But it has always been this way, not because anyone is preventing or discouraging women from joining in, but because they choose not to do so. I think we do have to ask ourselves why this is. I agree with Adam it is certainly not because women in general aren't interested in politics per se, maybe generally less interested in the nerdiness beloved of many of us here, more interested in actual social outcomes perhaps. But are we in some way putting women off when they do show an interest? Maybe very early in the process, so it would be interesting to know whether a higher proportion of women browse as visitors but never commit to joining, let alone actually posting? The abrasive style of certain posters here would I suspect be fairly off-putting to a lot of female would-be posters. Might be interesting to have some women only threads I think this is the same of anoraks of all descriptions, not just psephology and all it entails. Birdwatching, trainspotting, memorising which date each episode of Star Trek was first broadcast, quoting entire films word for word et cetera. Women tend to go for things like fashion and celebrity gossip. Obviously I'm generalising here. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2018 11:55:42 GMT
And now we return to Lewisham East...
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,952
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on May 12, 2018 13:40:40 GMT
Women tend to go for things like fashion and celebrity gossip. Obviously I'm generalising here Just a bit, yeah |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on May 12, 2018 14:12:45 GMT
No, its certainly not as simple as that. Though the fact that psephology (as opposed to politics more generally) really *is* overwhelmingly male dominated has to be a factor. Yes. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on May 12, 2018 14:15:00 GMT
I think we do have to ask ourselves why this is. I agree with Adam it is certainly not because women in general aren't interested in politics per se, maybe generally less interested in the nerdiness beloved of many of us here, more interested in actual social outcomes perhaps. But are we in some way putting women off when they do show an interest? Maybe very early in the process, so it would be interesting to know whether a higher proportion of women browse as visitors but never commit to joining, let alone actually posting? The abrasive style of certain posters here would I suspect be fairly off-putting to a lot of female would-be posters. Might be interesting to have some women only threads I think this is the same of anoraks of all descriptions, not just psephology and all it entails. Birdwatching, trainspotting, memorising which date each episode of Star Trek was first broadcast, quoting entire films word for word et cetera. Women tend to go for things like fashio n and celebrity gossip. Obviously I'm generalising here. Yes I would think that's just the right remark to encourage women to join in here  |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 12, 2018 14:32:42 GMT
Well, you're wrong. A person who uses a wheelchair is many things but they are not "crippled". That word has taken on too many negative and prejudicial meanings. Maybe it will be readopted and reclaimed (as the "n" word is claimed to have been, as "queer" most certainly has.) Until then, there are many more acceptable, many more accepted, and many more respectful words to be used instead. The "c" word is horrendously outdated and should be consigned to history. THAT SAID, I will repeat what I typed last night. You are of an age and vintage. It is no surprise that the word does not carry the negativity in your head as it does in mine. I'm not sure that I accept age and vintage as an excuse, given that I am of even greater antiquity than young Carlton here. The c word used here doesn't bother me at all and as so often with such words I find I simply ignore it- I had joined in the discussion, indeed may have initiated it before Carlton's contribution , and the c-word had just passed me by. But I would not think of using that word myself or any of those other words now considered offensive, because that would be impolite and it just isn't part of my vocabulary. Carlton on the other hand has the sort one man mission to shock more associated with enfants terribles. He doesn't want to let go of the vocabulary of his youth and he despises the mamby-pambyism of today's society and in the end he just doesn't care who he offends. I understand that and have some sympathy for the intent but not the outcome. But I don't see it as generational, more a punk thing rebelling against the norms of civilised society. That is indeed broadly correct. I don't need to or want to fit in to the fashions of the moment. I too do not see it as generational at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on May 12, 2018 14:38:00 GMT
I wouldn't say I did either - but I don't have any great desire to offend people.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on May 12, 2018 14:58:14 GMT
Whilst I am of the Left , my sympathies are with Carlton on this. I do despise Political Correctness - and that partly explains my attitude to All Women Shortlists. I encountered something similar a while back in relation to the word 'Bastard'.In the context of an argument or dispute the use of that word might be said to be an insult and likely to cause offence.However, when used to refer to those born out of wedlock, the word is not an obscenity at all - but a mere statement of legal fact. I don't see this as right or left, nor generational, but to be a sub-set of the cultural. We are largely talking the contemporary and fashion here. That is unless the words have loads of baggage and are/were always part of a general disparagement. Thus the use of wog, nig-nog, blackies and gyppos are off limits in polite society and common discourse. We can all see that and there is no dispute. But when a perfectly valid ordinary word is suddenly newly burdened with inputted baggage I am not prepared to change because of a fashion of the day. I can understand why others do so but I am not fashion conscious and will not change unless I am personally convinced and persuaded. I have never courted popularity and am not overtly concerned at unpopularity over matters I regard to be silly or based on very little. I am concerned that we are on the cusp of a new conformist age where many of you act in a clone like manner with very little reason behind it. I would urge more of you to be robust and stand alone and to question much of this inputted garbage that affirms disabled is good and crippled is bad ,because it does not stand up to any sort of logical scrutiny. Stop being brainwashed into moronity! No doubt many of you have issues with 'moronity'? Perhaps we need a new dictionary published by a politically correct Mr. Bowdler? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2018 15:03:47 GMT
Another confirmation. Attachments:
|
|
