Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Anne Hathaway apologies for depiction of limb difference
Options
Comments
-
Deleted User wrote: »It's this ****ery that makes me sad.
It makes zero sense.
We're going to struggle to describe obvious things in the future if these types continue to have their way.“The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it.”-― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov0 -
Nonsense.
"Colored people" and "People of color" are BOTH Americanisms and the pretend/oversensitivity comes from there as well. It has fuck all to do with Britain, except as an imported commodity in recent times.
The faux outrage over that particular terminology is the most egregious kind of word policing and it's especially galling when an entire organisation dedicated to the "advancement" of "colored people" wears that very same terminology as its banner.
The term 'coloured people' is not in widespread use in the UK today, except maybe by people who stopped listening somewhere around 1979. The title of a US organisation is not some kind of trump card that gets you over this.
And as you know, if you're read the thread, he wasn't fired for using one word. It went a lot deeper than that.
It’s not me telling you what terminology is appropriate. It is theDeleted User wrote: »Well Andrew, you have finally discarded any facade you had of being a person willing to engage in actual conversation.
You have presented me with "sources" as to what words I can use? With all due *respect.... **** off.
Handicapped may offend some people, but I'm not addressing them. I specifically was referring to my family who reference their afflictions as their handicap.
Are you telling me they can't refer to their disability as that?
And yeah, tell me more about how disability should be representative in comedy if you can't define it because you aren't a practitioner? **** off.
What is your obsession that we should have disabled comedians? Do you honestly do it with ANY other profession?
Disabled comedians are well represented.
And as for your ****ty comment about "some of my best friends are..."
I do have friends who are "p.o.c." (I'd never refer to them as that), HAD a sibling who was gay, am the father of a "child of colour" and the uncle of a downs syndrome child.
So with all due respect (which is none, as I do not respect you or your position) **** you if you think I am coming from any other position other than give my opinion.
Yet you get to tell people what is acceptable vernacular.
You are a bully.
National Disability Authority; http://nda.ie/Publications/Attitudes/Appropriate-Terms-to-Use-about-Disability/ , and
The UK government; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inclusive-communication/inclusive-language-words-to-use-and-avoid-when-writing-about-disability , and
Wikipedia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disability-related_terms_with_negative_connotations#H , and
The National Center on Disability and Journalism; https://ncdj.org/style-guide/#H , and
People with Disability Australia; https://pwd.org.au/resources/disability-info/language-guide/words-to-describe-people-with-disability/ , and
The Association of University Centers on Disability; http://www.aucd.org/docs/add/sa_summits/Language%20Doc.pdf
Would you like me to keep going? And you’re not just using the term to your family members. You’re using the term here, in a public forum, that will undoubtedly be read by people with disabilities. And you’re deliberately choosing to use a term that you know causes offence.
Classy.
I’ve no obsession with comedians at all, though it is interesting to see you shifting the goalpost from people with disabilities being 19% of comedians to being ‘well represented’. Comedians are just one example. The representation issue should indeed apply to lots of professions, to lawyers, to accountants, to movie designers and more.
But unfortunately, some people still perpetuate negative attitudes towards people with disabilities, using outdated language like handicapped and ‘Downs syndrome child’ instead of child with Down Syndrome, so they still struggle to get access to employment, to transport, to housing and more.
Madness indeed, imagine exploiting burn victims to sell a video game?Here's some more madness to add to the pot0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »The term 'coloured people' is not in widespread use in the UK today, except maybe by people who stopped listening somewhere around 1979. The title of a US organisation is not some kind of trump card that gets you over this.
And as you know, if you're read the thread, he wasn't fired for using one word. It went a lot deeper than that.
It doesn't matter what mental hoops you want to try and jump through, the hypocrisy of it all remains.
In addition, "firing" someone who isn't racist, sexist, or homophobic, because they said an "archaic term" is a deep level of absurdity.
And you bet your life that the title of a prominent US organisation that's seeks to advance "colored people" is a trump card, because it's a glaring example of the type of nonsense that all of this amounts to.
As has been said to you before, BOTH terms come from the states in the first place and the anxiety over one of the them stems purely from America's history, where "coloreds" were segregated. The faux outrage is a very recent import into the UK.
Real racists, sexists and homophobes are sniggering up the sleeves.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »Madness indeed, imagine exploiting burn victims to sell a video game?
How are they being exploited?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
It doesn't matter what mental hoops you want to try and jump through, the hypocrisy of it all remains.
In addition, "firing" someone who isn't racist, sexist, or homophobic, because they said an "archaic term" is a deep level of absurdity.
Jumping through mental hoops? The FA hired him to promote diversity, and instead he made himself a liability for the FA who they could ill afford to keep on. That’s what it comes down to.And you bet your life that the title of a prominent US organisation that's seeks to advance "colored people" is a trump card, because it's a glaring example of the type of nonsense that all of this amounts to.
As has been said to you before, BOTH terms come from the states in the first place and the anxiety over one of the them stems purely from America's history, where "coloreds" were segregated. The faux outrage is a very recent import into the UK.
Had the British Empire not exported their funky ideas in the first place, their history wouldn’t be coming back to haunt them now. I don’t think it’s faux outrage either, they’ve every reason to be pissed. It’s the very reason the NAACP was founded in 1910 by a group of white liberals -
In 1908, a deadly race riot rocked the city of Springfield, the capital of Illinois and resting place of President Abraham Lincoln. Such eruptions of anti-black violence – particularly lynching – were horrifically commonplace, but the Springfield riot was the final tipping point that led to the creation of the NAACP. Appalled at this rampant violence, a group of white liberals that included Mary White Ovington and Oswald Garrison Villard (both the descendants of famous abolitionists), William English Walling and Dr. Henry Moscowitz issued a call for a meeting to discuss racial justice. Some 60 people, seven of whom were African American (including W. E. B. Du Bois, Ida B. Wells-Barnett, and Mary Church Terrell), signed the call, which was released on the centennial of Lincoln’s birth.
Black people referring to themselves as colored wouldn’t have been all that unusual at the time and it’s no surprise the NAACP kept on the term. Essentially your point is about as relevant as saying that because some black people refer to themselves and other black people using the n-word, they shouldn’t get pissed when someone who isn’t black uses the term. Some will, some won’t, they’re individuals that way, as opposed to a homogeneous group that are represented by a small minority of individuals within that group. You’d really have to have the intellectual capacity of a cantaloupe to be incapable of understanding the idea of discretion.Real racists, sexists and homophobes are sniggering up the sleeves.
No doubt they are, and they’ll be positively apoplectic if the guy Gareth Southgate has endorsed is so much as considered the best person for the role, precisely because they’ll just see black, and ignore his merits and all the work he has done throughout his life to promote diversity in football which qualifies him for the position.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »It’s not me telling you what terminology is appropriate. It is the
National Disability Authority; http://nda.ie/Publications/Attitudes/Appropriate-Terms-to-Use-about-Disability/ , and
The UK government; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inclusive-communication/inclusive-language-words-to-use-and-avoid-when-writing-about-disability , and
Wikipedia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disability-related_terms_with_negative_connotations#H , and
The National Center on Disability and Journalism; https://ncdj.org/style-guide/#H , and
People with Disability Australia; https://pwd.org.au/resources/disability-info/language-guide/words-to-describe-people-with-disability/ , and
The Association of University Centers on Disability; http://www.aucd.org/docs/add/sa_summits/Language%20Doc.pdf
Would you like me to keep going? And you’re not just using the term to your family members. You’re using the term here, in a public forum, that will undoubtedly be read by people with disabilities. And you’re deliberately choosing to use a term that you know causes offence.
Classy.
I’ve no obsession with comedians at all, though it is interesting to see you shifting the goalpost from people with disabilities being 19% of comedians to being ‘well represented’. Comedians are just one example. The representation issue should indeed apply to lots of professions, to lawyers, to accountants, to movie designers and more.
But unfortunately, some people still perpetuate negative attitudes towards people with disabilities, using outdated language like handicapped and ‘Downs syndrome child’ instead of child with Down Syndrome, so they still struggle to get access to employment, to transport, to housing and more.
Madness indeed, imagine exploiting burn victims to sell a video game?
A lot to unpack here.
I think you will find I was SPECIFICALLY referring to my family members. Yes, I did it publicly. But the adjective was used specifically about my relatives who have no problem with that word being used. Are you honestly saying that people shouldn't use words referring to specific people on the off chance that other people may take offence on their behalf, despite it having nothing to do with them?? You honestly can't be that far removed from reality?
And back to your 19% representation bollocks..... Yes. I believe that OVER 19% of comedians would be able to class themselves as disabled by your examples of what will pass for disabled.
And what? What the ****?
Downs syndrome child..... Child with downs syndrome? This type of nitpicking ****wittery is why people lose patience with absolute cretins who want to be seen to be fighting for a cause instead of actually caring for people. I have two very close relatives that have downs syndrome and I know their parents couldn't give two shiny ****s if they are referred to as down syndrome children just once they are treated with consideration. That's an appalling argument.
I doubt very much you would take legal advice from a downs syndrome afflicted lawyer (**** was that offensive? Should it be a lawyer with downs syndrome?)
Again, you have avoided the question, what makes you so angry about white men? Do you think women, Asians and black people are under represented? Do you believe that 19% of all firefighters should be disabled?
Your posts are dishonest.
You know this.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Jumping through mental hoops? The FA hired him to promote diversity, and instead he made himself a liability for the FA who they could ill afford to keep on. That’s what it comes down to.
Had the British Empire not exported their funky ideas in the first place, their history wouldn’t be coming back to haunt them now. I don’t think it’s faux outrage either, they’ve every reason to be pissed. It’s the very reason the NAACP was founded in 1910 by a group of white liberals -
In 1908, a deadly race riot rocked the city of Springfield, the capital of Illinois and resting place of President Abraham Lincoln. Such eruptions of anti-black violence – particularly lynching – were horrifically commonplace, but the Springfield riot was the final tipping point that led to the creation of the NAACP. Appalled at this rampant violence, a group of white liberals that included Mary White Ovington and Oswald Garrison Villard (both the descendants of famous abolitionists), William English Walling and Dr. Henry Moscowitz issued a call for a meeting to discuss racial justice. Some 60 people, seven of whom were African American (including W. E. B. Du Bois, Ida B. Wells-Barnett, and Mary Church Terrell), signed the call, which was released on the centennial of Lincoln’s birth.
Black people referring to themselves as colored wouldn’t have been all that unusual at the time and it’s no surprise the NAACP kept on the term. Essentially your point is about as relevant as saying that because some black people refer to themselves and other black people using the n-word, they shouldn’t get pissed when someone who isn’t black uses the term. Some will, some won’t, they’re individuals that way, as opposed to a homogeneous group that are represented by a small minority of individuals within that group. You’d really have to have the intellectual capacity of a cantaloupe to be incapable of understanding the idea of discretion.
No doubt they will, and they’ll be positively apoplectic if the guy Gareth Southgate has endorsed is so much as considered the best person for the role, precisely because they’ll just see black, and ignore his merits and all the work he has done throughout his life to promote diversity in football which qualifies him for the position.
Yet more mental hoops to jump through.0 -
-
Deleted User wrote: »A lot to unpack here.
I think you will find I was SPECIFICALLY referring to my family members. Yes, I did it publicly. But the adjective was used specifically about my relatives who have no problem with that word being used. Are you honestly saying that people shouldn't use words referring to specific people on the off chance that other people may take offence on their behalf, despite it having nothing to do with them?? You honestly can't be that far removed from reality?
And back to your 19% representation bollocks..... Yes. I believe that OVER 19% of comedians would be able to class themselves as disabled by your examples of what will pass for disabled.
And what? What the ****?
Downs syndrome child..... Child with downs syndrome? This type of nitpicking ****wittery is why people lose patience with absolute cretins who want to be seen to be fighting for a cause instead of actually caring for people. I have two very close relatives that have downs syndrome and I know their parents couldn't give two shiny ****s if they are referred to as down syndrome children just once they are treated with consideration. That's an appalling argument.
I doubt very much you would take legal advice from a downs syndrome afflicted lawyer (**** was that offensive? Should it be a lawyer with downs syndrome?)
Again, you have avoided the question, what makes you so angry about white men? Do you think women, Asians and black people are under represented? Do you believe that 19% of all firefighters should be disabled?
Your posts are dishonest.
You know this.
It doesn't matter who or what you're referring to - you're in a public forum and you're choosing to use a word that you know causes offence based on guidance from right across the disability sector, and you're continuing to do so. Is this just trolling now?
You might want to look at the advice from Down Syndrome Ireland about using 'people first' language to avoid defining the person by their disability;
https://downsyndrome.ie/person-first-language/
You can try your childish trick questions about lawyers and firefighters all you like. I clearly referenced the essential requirements for the job in this context.
And please leave out the afflicted' and suffering ' language. There's enough negativity around disability without you loading on more with your big, clumsy shovel.How are they being exploited?
By making up stories about burn victims who become angry and violent as a result of their burns. It might have been more realistic if they had made it a game developer who became angry and violent as a result of the toxic employment conditions in their sector;
https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/07/12/5-worrying-facts-about-mental-health-in-game-developmentIt doesn't matter what mental hoops you want to try and jump through, the hypocrisy of it all remains.
In addition, "firing" someone who isn't racist, sexist, or homophobic, because they said an "archaic term" is a deep level of absurdity.
And you bet your life that the title of a prominent US organisation that's seeks to advance "colored people" is a trump card, because it's a glaring example of the type of nonsense that all of this amounts to.
As has been said to you before, BOTH terms come from the states in the first place and the anxiety over one of the them stems purely from America's history, where "coloreds" were segregated. The faux outrage is a very recent import into the UK.
Real racists, sexists and homophobes are sniggering up the sleeves.
Once again, you're brushing over the points that;
1) his resignation was about a lot more than using one particular word
2) the historical title of the NAACP in the USA has no relevant for employment decisions in the FA in the UK.
Clutching at straws....0 -
Advertisement
-
AndrewJRenko wrote: »It doesn't matter who or what you're referring to - you're in a public forum and you're choosing to use a word that you know causes offence based on guidance from right across the disability sector, and you're continuing to do so. Is this just trolling now?
You might want to look at the advice from Down Syndrome Ireland about using 'people first' language to avoid defining the person by their disability;
https://downsyndrome.ie/person-first-language/
You can try your childish trick questions about lawyers and firefighters all you like. I clearly referenced the essential requirements for the job in this context.
And please leave out the afflicted' and suffering ' language. There's enough negativity around disability without you loading on more with your big, clumsy shovel.
By making up stories about burn victims who become angry and violent as a result of their burns. It might have been more realistic if they had made it a game developer who became angry and violent as a result of the toxic employment conditions in their sector;
https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/07/12/5-worrying-facts-about-mental-health-in-game-development
Once again, you're brushing over the points that;
1) his resignation was about a lot more than using one particular word
2) the historical title of the NAACP in the USA has no relevant for employment decisions in the FA in the UK.
Clutching at straws....
That is one of your most bizarre posts, and that is saying quite a lot.
It does matter who or what I am talking about as words on their own aren't offensive. The context in which they are used, the manner in which they are said and the intent are what gives words the ability to offend.
Sadly you think that context should be eliminated and words should be taboo. And afflictions and suffering should not be mentioned as it is too negative? Give me a break.
I am not convinced that you are arguing in good faith but I'll circle back. I never asked you a trick question. You said you believe 19% representation of disabled people should be extended through different professions, lawyers accountants etc. I asked if firefighters should be included in that.
Then you accused me of having a big clumsy shovel (erm...ok) because I used the words afflicted and suffering... Then almost immediately afterwards you used the word "victim" when describing someone who had been burnt. Is that not breaking your "negativity" rule? Should you not go "people first" with that? Tad insensitive.
You see, it's hard to remain consistent with your values when you constantly change the parameters in order to seem pious. Sad thing is people like that very rarely are able to live up to their own ridiculous standards.
Although you have repeatedly attempted to misrepresent me and my position and accused me of attempting to move the goalposts, I have remained consistent.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »Once again, you're brushing over the points that;
1) his resignation was about a lot more than using one particular word
2) the historical title of the NAACP in the USA has no relevant for employment decisions in the FA in the UK.
Clutching at straws....
The only ones "clutching at straws" here are you and one eye.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Not at all, you’re perfectly free to maintain your position that Greg Clarke was “fired”. I should have stopped there instead of entertaining the rest of it, but I’m not going to lose any sleep over it now.
It might be better for the entire thread if you just stopped the endless jumping through mental hoops instead.
It doesn't strengthen your position like you seem to think it does.
And, I put the word fired in quotes because it was what your fellow traveller said...AndrewJRenko wrote: »And as you know, if you're read the thread, he wasn't fired for using one word. It went a lot deeper than that.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »By making up stories about burn victims who become angry and violent as a result of their burns. It might have been more realistic if they had made it a game developer who became angry and violent as a result of the toxic employment conditions in their sector;
One burn victim, you mean? Also, if you have a character that has suffered burns, you can only show them feeling positive about it? Right0 -
One burn victim, you mean? Also, if you have a character that has suffered burns, you can only show them feeling positive about it? Right
Katie Piper is inspiring purely because she talks of overcoming (and managing) her suffering after her acid attack.
Certain posters on her would pull me up for referencing that but the girl herself talks about it. She suffered.
Some can be too “woke”.
I imagine he’d have Harvey Two Face as a benevolent uncle to Bruce Wayne (who never sees his scars, he’s so cool like that) - and Vicki Vale as an out and out psycho due to her unblemished skin and perky positive nature.0 -
Katie Piper is inspiring purely because she talks of overcoming (and managing) her suffering after her acid attack.
Certain posters on her would pull me up for referencing that but the girl herself talks about it. She suffered.
Some can be too “woke”.
I imagine he’d have Harvey Two Face as a benevolent uncle to Bruce Wayne (who never sees his scars, he’s so cool like that) - and Vicki Vale as an out and out psycho due to her unblemished skin and perky positive nature.
With people like AJR it only goes one way too. If someone they disliked had some facial disfiguration they'd have no issue using it against them. AJR was also on the Gogglebox thread awhile back wishing death upon Trump because he had the virus, or at least was justifying others who had wished death on him. If people like him applied their "compassion" across the board I'd at least respect that they're principled, but the mask very quickly slips when it comes to people that they don't like.“The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it.”-― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov0 -
With people like AJR it only goes one way too. If someone they disliked had some facial disfiguration they'd have no issue using it against them. AJR was also on the Gogglebox thread awhile back wishing death upon Trump because he had the virus, or at least was justifying others who had wished death on him. If people like him applied their "compassion" across the board I'd at least respect that they're principled, but the mask very quickly slips when it comes to people that they don't like.
Unfortunately for you, both of your claims above are outright lies.
I've never used facial disfigurement against someone.
I've never wished death on Trump, or justified others who have wished death on Trump. I've gone back over the Gogglebox thread and I don't see anyone wishing death on Trump.
If you have any decency, you will withdraw your false claims or provide evidence to support them.0 -
Lol.AndrewJRenko wrote: »If you have any decency, you will withdraw your false claims or provide evidence to support them.0 -
Yeah, making up blatant lies about people is just so hilarious, right?Deleted User wrote: »Lol.Katie Piper is inspiring purely because she talks of overcoming (and managing) her suffering after her acid attack.
Certain posters on her would pull me up for referencing that but the girl herself talks about it. She suffered.
Some can be too “woke”.
I imagine he’d have Harvey Two Face as a benevolent uncle to Bruce Wayne (who never sees his scars, he’s so cool like that) - and Vicki Vale as an out and out psycho due to her unblemished skin and perky positive nature.
Just to be clear, it's not me telling you what you can or can't say. It is guidance from government bodies and disability at home and abroad that you want to deliberately ignore.
And thanks for confirming how effective the movie industry is at linking disability with the evil bad guy.One burn victim, you mean? Also, if you have a character that has suffered burns, you can only show them feeling positive about it? Right
How about you show the reality of what happens, instead of exploiting them with scary stories about people being turned into wild aggressors? Why do you think they don't choose people who've been horrifically burnt in mental health terms by working in the gaming industry for their characters?Deleted User wrote: »That is one of your most bizarre posts, and that is saying quite a lot.
It does matter who or what I am talking about as words on their own aren't offensive. The context in which they are used, the manner in which they are said and the intent are what gives words the ability to offend.
Sadly you think that context should be eliminated and words should be taboo. And afflictions and suffering should not be mentioned as it is too negative? Give me a break.
I am not convinced that you are arguing in good faith but I'll circle back. I never asked you a trick question. You said you believe 19% representation of disabled people should be extended through different professions, lawyers accountants etc. I asked if firefighters should be included in that.
Then you accused me of having a big clumsy shovel (erm...ok) because I used the words afflicted and suffering... Then almost immediately afterwards you used the word "victim" when describing someone who had been burnt. Is that not breaking your "negativity" rule? Should you not go "people first" with that? Tad insensitive.
You see, it's hard to remain consistent with your values when you constantly change the parameters in order to seem pious. Sad thing is people like that very rarely are able to live up to their own ridiculous standards.
Although you have repeatedly attempted to misrepresent me and my position and accused me of attempting to move the goalposts, I have remained consistent.
You're right, I really shouldn't have used the term 'burn victim'. Unfortunately I fell into the trap of using the term used by the video game makers. My bad, and an interesting example of the influence of media.
And yes, context matters - the context here is a public discussion on disability matters, not a private family matter. You've seen guidance from national and international sources confirming that handicap is not appropriate terminology. It adds nothing and takes away quite a lot. It would cost you nothing to use different terminology, and you are deliberately choosing to be offensive.
The only 'moving goalposts' here relates to your own lack of knowledge of these matters. Take an hour and go through a couple of the links I've provided to national and international guidance from government and NGO sources and you can bring yourself up to the level where you'll be ready for a civilized conversation with adults.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »Yeah, making up blatant lies about people is just so hilarious, right?
You seem to think it's ok to do. I wonder if we will find more misrepresentations (lies) in the rest of your post.Just to be clear, it's not me telling you what you can or can't say. It is guidance from government bodies and disability at home and abroad that you want to deliberately ignore.
And thanks for confirming how effective the movie industry is at linking disability with the evil bad guy.
Absolutely not true and a misrepresentation (lie) of what the poster said. And I think you will find that Bruce Wayne's past has given PTSD which is classed also as a disability. So technically the movie industry is showing people with disability as a hero. Funny how you didn't mention that aspect. Doesn't suit your white knighting though.How about you show the reality of what happens, instead of exploiting them with scary stories about people being turned into wild aggressors? Why do you think they don't choose people who've been horrifically burnt in mental health terms by working in the gaming industry for their characters?
Oops. "Horrifically burnt". Is that not you using negative words again to describe people? What reality should they have shown in a game set during the time of Vikings? Someone was burnt, but received counselling and overcame her scarring and now works in a mental health charity to aid people who have gone through similar trauma? I don't think that would work.You're right, I really shouldn't have used the term 'burn victim'. Unfortunately I fell into the trap of using the term used by the video game makers. My bad, and an interesting example of the influence of media.
No, it's an example of you not living to your own impossible standards and blaming others for your "mistake". Instead of admitting that in your day to day life, you aren't as pious as you pretend to be on here.And yes, context matters - the context here is a public discussion on disability matters, not a private family matter. You've seen guidance from national and international sources confirming that handicap is not appropriate terminology. It adds nothing and takes away quite a lot. It would cost you nothing to use different terminology, and you are deliberately choosing to be offensive.
Even though I am posting on a public forum, I was specifically referring to certain people I know, who refer to their own disabilities as their handicap. You or any government body can't tell them they cant.
I would have thought you of all people would recognise that calling people by their preferred/accepted descriptors is absolutely the most respectful way to address them. I respect my family members so I give them the courtesy of using their terms.The only 'moving goalposts' here relates to your own lack of knowledge of these matters. Take an hour and go through a couple of the links I've provided to national and international guidance from government and NGO sources and you can bring yourself up to the level where you'll be ready for a civilized conversation with adults.
I am well versed in these matters. As I have said, I have plenty of personal experience and lived experiences often trump any amount of links you could provide. Your assumption that I'm not is bogglingly arrogant and your assertion that I am not "ready to have a civilized conversation with adults" is patronising, unfounded and unnecessary.
You have already shown that you aren't able to avoid falling foul of your own rules, yet bleat on hypocritically admonishing people for not using words you deem acceptable.
You accused me of moving goalposts when you who declared that there should be 19% visibility for disabled people across society in comedy. I said that they were well represented and could even be over represented as not all disabilities are immediately apparent. And don't forget you also lumped in women, black people and asian people, alluding they were also underrepresented, which would point to the fact you believe that there should be some sort of "positive discrimination" to ensure everyone has exact representation according to their numbers.
They shouldn't. They should be able to apply for any job, but nobody should get a job because of their skin colour, sex or disability.
Would you honestly say to someone who was disabled and referred to themselves as handicapped that the word is offensive and they need to use a more socially acceptable term when talking about themselves?0 -
Advertisement
-
Dunne/
They shouldn't. They should be able to apply for any job, but nobody should get a job because of their skin colour, sex or disability.
Depends, really. How about if their skin colour, sex and infirmity are marketable features? They could go a long way.0 -
Kaybaykwah wrote: »Depends, really. How about if their skin colour, sex and infirmity are marketable features? They could go a long way.
Well the best person for the job should get it.
If one of the most important parts of a particular position is to be black, female and in a wheelchair, it probably shouldn't be going to Lionel Messi.0 -
Could you please be specific about what I’ve said that you’re claiming is a lie? That’s a serious allegation.Deleted User wrote: »You seem to think it's ok to do. I wonder if we will find more misrepresentations (lies) in the rest of your post.
Absolutely not true and a misrepresentation (lie) of what the poster said. And I think you will find that Bruce Wayne's past has given PTSD which is classed also as a disability. So technically the movie industry is showing people with disability as a hero. Funny how you didn't mention that aspect. Doesn't suit your white knighting though.
Oops. "Horrifically burnt". Is that not you using negative words again to describe people? What reality should they have shown in a game set during the time of Vikings? Someone was burnt, but received counselling and overcame her scarring and now works in a mental health charity to aid people who have gone through similar trauma? I don't think that would work.
No, it's an example of you not living to your own impossible standards and blaming others for your "mistake". Instead of admitting that in your day to day life, you aren't as pious as you pretend to be on here.
Even though I am posting on a public forum, I was specifically referring to certain people I know, who refer to their own disabilities as their handicap. You or any government body can't tell them they cant.
I would have thought you of all people would recognise that calling people by their preferred/accepted descriptors is absolutely the most respectful way to address them. I respect my family members so I give them the courtesy of using their terms.
I am well versed in these matters. As I have said, I have plenty of personal experience and lived experiences often trump any amount of links you could provide. Your assumption that I'm not is bogglingly arrogant and your assertion that I am not "ready to have a civilized conversation with adults" is patronising, unfounded and unnecessary.
You have already shown that you aren't able to avoid falling foul of your own rules, yet bleat on hypocritically admonishing people for not using words you deem acceptable.
You accused me of moving goalposts when you who declared that there should be 19% visibility for disabled people across society in comedy. I said that they were well represented and could even be over represented as not all disabilities are immediately apparent. And don't forget you also lumped in women, black people and asian people, alluding they were also underrepresented, which would point to the fact you believe that there should be some sort of "positive discrimination" to ensure everyone has exact representation according to their numbers.
They shouldn't. They should be able to apply for any job, but nobody should get a job because of their skin colour, sex or disability.
Would you honestly say to someone who was disabled and referred to themselves as handicapped that the word is offensive and they need to use a more socially acceptable term when talking about themselves?
Fascinating to see your new claim that ‘handicapped’ is now their preferred descriptor. So now you expect people to believe that you’ve had discussions about terminology with your family members about this issue and they’ve all assured you that they prefer to use ‘handicapped’.
As we say in Dublin, yeah rih.
And you’re right, ‘horrifically burnt’ wasn’t a great choice of words, here’s two good examples today from people promoting ‘people first’ language that you show disdain for.
https://twitter.com/GaryJk64/status/1327604843008172035?s=20
https://twitter.com/orlatinsley/status/1327569476380979200?s=20
That’s the difference between you and me – when I get it wrong, I’m happy to learn from my experiences and do better next time.
You’re absolutely determined to not show even a modicum of respect and basic decency for the many people with disabilities, their families and their advocates who have all advised not to use language like handicapped and suffering.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »Could you please be specific about what I’ve said that you’re claiming is a lie? That’s a serious allegation.
Fascinating to see your new claim that ‘handicapped’ is now their preferred descriptor. So now you expect people to believe that you’ve had discussions about terminology with your family members about this issue and they’ve all assured you that they prefer to use ‘handicapped’.
As we say in Dublin, yeah rih.
And you’re right, ‘horrifically burnt’ wasn’t a great choice of words, here’s two good examples today from people promoting ‘people first’ language that you show disdain for.
https://twitter.com/GaryJk64/status/1327604843008172035?s=20
https://twitter.com/orlatinsley/status/1327569476380979200?s=20
That’s the difference between you and me – when I get it wrong, I’m happy to learn from my experiences and do better next time.
You’re absolutely determined to not show even a modicum of respect and basic decency for the many people with disabilities, their families and their advocates who have all advised not to use language like handicapped and suffering.
Yes. I can be specific.
You accused me of moving goalposts. That's a lie.
You said I had no understanding of the matter which is a lie.
You espoused how people should live by your standard and you failed to do so.
You didn't take ownership of it and blamed media for influencing you to do so.
You never once acknowledged your ridiculous claim of 19% representation to be a ridiculous expectation.
You never once acknowledged your insidious racism in your "white male" posts.
You laughably claim that to win internet points, I have concocted a scenario where my disabled relatives refer to themselves as handicapped, just so I can "stick it to some self righteous ****" on the internet?
No.
We never say down and discussed their preferred descriptor. They just openly talk about what their refer to as their handicap.
We never felt a reason to get a HR Rep in.
The reality is, I have spoken, at length, to members of my family, who are disabled in your view, handicapped in theirs, at length about their "disability" because it's part of our lives.
It's part of our lives. Not part of your validation. Me and my family live this. Do I insult people who choose not to call themselves handicapped by insisting on my family members preferred descriptor?
No.
I don't. If they want to not be called handicapped, I won't call them that.
Yet you have the ****ing audacity to tell my relatives that they are being disrespectful to others by using a word to describe THEMSELVES.
****ing double standards. Respect only goes one way with people like you.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »You’re absolutely determined to not show even a modicum of respect and basic decency for the many people with disabilities, their families and their advocates who have all advised not to use language like handicapped and suffering.
I have been nothing but respectful.
But if me referring to my family by a term which upsets someone else, I will respectfully tell them to mind their own ****ing business.
Do you know what my family has gone through? No you don't.
Do I know what your family has gone through or what terminology offends other people going through similar situations offends them? No I dont.
I refer to my family in the terms they find acceptable.
Your blanket refusal to accept that handicapped can be sometimes used as an acceptable description is in and of itself discriminatory.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I have been nothing but respectful.
But if me referring to my family by a term which upsets someone else, I will respectfully tell them to mind their own ****ing business.
Do you know what my family has gone through? No you don't.
Do I know what your family has gone through or what terminology offends other people going through similar situations offends them? No I dont.
I refer to my family in the terms they find acceptable.
Your blanket refusal to accept that handicapped can be sometimes used as an acceptable description is in and of itself discriminatory.Deleted User wrote: »Yes. I can be specific.
You accused me of moving goalposts. That's a lie.
You said I had no understanding of the matter which is a lie.
You espoused how people should live by your standard and you failed to do so.
You didn't take ownership of it and blamed media for influencing you to do so.
You never once acknowledged your ridiculous claim of 19% representation to be a ridiculous expectation.
You never once acknowledged your insidious racism in your "white male" posts.
You laughably claim that to win internet points, I have concocted a scenario where my disabled relatives refer to themselves as handicapped, just so I can "stick it to some self righteous ****" on the internet?
No.
We never say down and discussed their preferred descriptor. They just openly talk about what their refer to as their handicap.
We never felt a reason to get a HR Rep in.
The reality is, I have spoken, at length, to members of my family, who are disabled in your view, handicapped in theirs, at length about their "disability" because it's part of our lives.
It's part of our lives. Not part of your validation. Me and my family live this. Do I insult people who choose not to call themselves handicapped by insisting on my family members preferred descriptor?
No.
I don't. If they want to not be called handicapped, I won't call them that.
Yet you have the ****ing audacity to tell my relatives that they are being disrespectful to others by using a word to describe THEMSELVES.
****ing double standards. Respect only goes one way with people like you.
Is that really the best you've got to justify your false claim of lying? It's a really poor response.
On the shifting goalposts issue, let's remember how you shifted when asked about the representations of comedians with disabilities on TV from;Deleted User wrote: »Yes I do.Deleted User wrote: »Hang on wait a minute....
Is that how you do your little inclusivity sums?
Ok so I assume you expect disabled people to be 19%of the prison population, 19% of all rapists, 19%of all academy award winners, 19% of teachers etc....
Thats not how it works. Especially on television.
If enough people want to see something, the networks will make it and continue it until people don't want to see it.
Unfortunately for you, there is not much of a clamouring for a comedy series about black Muslim transgender feminist in a wheelchair who goes about checking everyone's privilege.
That's the shifting of goalposts I referred to. So which is it - are comedians with disabilities represented on TV in proportion to the presence of disabilities in the rest of the population or not?
On the matter of your lack of understanding, your simplistic comments about the 'best person getting the job' make it obvious that you have no understanding of the barriers to employment for people with disabilities.
The best person won't get the job if they happen to be in a wheelchair and the interview is on the 2nd floor of a building with no lift. The best comedian won't get the spot on the line-up if they happen to be in a wheelchair and the gig is in the room upstairs above the pub with no lift.
The best person won't get the job if they happen to have sight loss and the application form is an MS Word doc or a PDF doc that hasn't been designed to work with assistive technology, like screen readers. The best comedian won't get the spot on the line up if they happen to have sight loss and the gig is announced on social media with text inside an image that can't be read by a screen reader.
So there's your lack of understanding shining through
Your other complaints aren't matters of fact. It's just that you don't like what I said.
So you claim of lying has no foundation.
It is pretty hilarious though to see the guy who rails against others calling out discrimination being so quick to play the discrimination card himself when backed into a corner.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »Is that really the best you've got to justify your false claim of lying? It's a really poor response.
Pointing out your lies is not false. You have consistently misrepresented people but ensured you remained within the boundaries accepted as to not get yourself reprimanded on here, yet you have attempted to entice people to use language that may get themselves an infraction.
It's plain for all to see.:eek:On the shifting goalposts issue, let's remember how you shifted when asked about the representations of comedians with disabilities on TV from;
That's the shifting of goalposts I referred to. So which is it - are comedians with disabilities represented on TV in proportion to the presence of disabilities in the rest of the population or not?
None of your examples showed a shift of opinion, never mind goalposts. I am confident disabled people are well represented and perhaps even more represented than your poxy statistic. You have obviously no ability to comprehend why your expectation of 19% visibility is ridiculous.On the matter of your lack of understanding, your simplistic comments about the 'best person getting the job' make it obvious that you have no understanding of the barriers to employment for people with disabilities.
The best person won't get the job if they happen to be in a wheelchair and the interview is on the 2nd floor of a building with no lift. The best comedian won't get the spot on the line-up if they happen to be in a wheelchair and the gig is in the room upstairs above the pub with no lift.
The best person won't get the job if they happen to have sight loss and the application form is an MS Word doc or a PDF doc that hasn't been designed to work with assistive technology, like screen readers. The best comedian won't get the spot on the line up if they happen to have sight loss and the gig is announced on social media with text inside an image that can't be read by a screen reader.
So there's your lack of understanding shining through
Absolute horse**** from start to finish. Absolute horse****. I'm almost sure you are a parody account apart from the fact you lack humour or any example of wit.
My point was, and you ****ing know it, that people shouldn't be given any job because of discrimination, "positive" or otherwise. You again misrepresented my clear point (lied)in order to try and legitimise your false narrative.Your other complaints aren't matters of fact. It's just that you don't like what I said.
So you claim of lying has no foundation.
I do not like what you say. But I feel like people like you try their best to coerce people to say things that will get them infracted.It is pretty hilarious though to see the guy who rails against others calling out discrimination being so quick to play the discrimination card himself when backed into a corner.
I've not been backed into a corner nor have I played a discrimination card. I guess that's another lie you could add to your constantly expanding list0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Pointing out your lies is not false. You have consistently misrepresented people but ensured you remained within the boundaries accepted as to not get yourself reprimanded on here, yet you have attempted to entice people to use language that may get themselves an infraction.
It's plain for all to see.
None of your examples showed a shift of opinion, never mind goalposts. I am confident disabled people are well represented and perhaps even more represented than your poxy statistic. You have obviously no ability to comprehend why your expectation of 19% visibility is ridiculous.
Absolute horse**** from start to finish. Absolute horse****. I'm almost sure you are a parody account apart from the fact you lack humour or any example of wit.
My point was, and you ****ing know it, that people shouldn't be given any job because of discrimination, "positive" or otherwise. You again misrepresented my clear point (lied)in order to try and legitimise your false narrative.
I do not like what you say. But I feel like people like you try their best to coerce people to say things that will get them infracted.
I've not been backed into a corner nor have I played a discrimination card. I guess that's another lie you could add to your constantly expanding list
This is quite bizarre now - 'coercing' and 'enticing'! This is fairly classical gaslighting, like the abusive husband who blames his missus after he hits her for messing up dinner.
No-one coerced or enticed you to do anything. You dug your own grave, with your jumping from 'Yes I do' about the 19% representation to your rants about how ridiculous the idea of 19% representation is in the first place.
You weren't coerced or enticed to do anything. If you can't manage yourself through a civilised, adult debate, that's your problem, not mine.0 -
AndrewJRenko wrote: »This is quite bizarre now - 'coercing' and 'enticing'! This is fairly classical gaslighting, like the abusive husband who blames his missus after he hits her for messing up dinner.
No-one coerced or enticed you to do anything. You dug your own grave, with your jumping from 'Yes I do' about the 19% representation to your rants about how ridiculous the idea of 19% representation is in the first place.
You weren't coerced or enticed to do anything. If you can't manage yourself through a civilised, adult debate, that's your problem, not mine.
Jesus. What part of this do you not understand?
You use purposely antagonistic arguments, lie about what people say, repeat said lies, speak patronisingly and repeat lies. I can only assume it is done in order to antagonise people into losing their temper and recieving an infraction.
I mean comparing my post with a man who abuses his wife is needlessly provocative and nonsensical in any context, but it's "on brand" with you.
If it isn't done on purpose, then I guess we can just chalk it down to you naturally having a propensity to either make stuff up about people to misrepresent what they said or you have difficulty in comprehension.
Your 19% representation claim is bollocks. I clearly stated it was unreasonable to expect that, just because 19% of the population describes themselves as disabled, every industry or facility would have that proportion of representation.
But comedians, yes, I do think they are well represented and may even exceed the 19% mark. In what way is that digging my own grave?
I have been adult and have treated you with more respect than you deserve. You constantly belittle and attempt to shout down arguments by ignoring questions, repeating lies and low key insulting people0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,125 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59054
When you see this in any debate on any matter by anyone it simply means their argument is thin. And they know it.Deleted User wrote: »You use purposely antagonistic arguments, lie about what people say, repeat said lies, speak patronisingly and repeat lies.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement