What would be the most offensive word in the English language now?

Andrew, you blew every bit of credibility you possibly could have by calling out Wibbs on that.

You're just a whinger. If you had to say something about that, it means you'll say say something about everything. So there's no point listening to you.

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

This is the exact issue that is caused by the constant, repeated negative stigmatising of people with intellectual disabilities. People with disabilities are absolutely NOT defined by their disability. They ARE people first, just like you and me, with all the ups, downs, strengths, weaknesses of everyone else. Some of them are fantastic, some of them are lazy as hell, some of them are obnoxious.

They are Andrew, as I’ve just shown you, and as I’ve also just shown you, in speaking for themselves, many deaf, blind and autistic people reject your linguistic gymnastics. A deaf person or an autistic person isn’t anything like me, because I’m neither deaf nor autistic, and “Jack who is blind in one eye” is a bit of a mouthful :pac:

Unlike you Andrew, I can use people first language, or I can use identity first language, I’m not so up myself that I imagine myself to be the language police and everyone should conform to the way I want them to speak. I make allowances for the fact that other people don’t express themselves the way I do, and I take my cues from the way they speak about themselves.

The term 'special needs kids' defines those kids with their disabilities - not by their hair or their size or their football skills or whatever.

Because their disabilities are relevant in the context in which they are being spoken about! If we were talking about their hair or their football skills, then their hair or football skills would be relevant in those contexts. It’s similar to the way in which you refer to people as gammon - you’re defining people by their politics and their skin colour. You’re defining a group of people by what you perceive to be a common identifier.

Are you the 'desperate fcukwit' given that you've come along and corrected me?

I haven’t corrected you Andrew. I was making the point that someone else who wants to appear morally superior to you would be along to correct you. That’s how these things generally go - someone always has to up the ante to make themselves out to be even more woke than the last guy :pac:

I have come across this issue in the autism sector, where there is a hot debate about people with autism vs autistic people. I haven't seen the debate in other sectors in Ireland - have you? What Irish disability organisations have rejected people-first language?

I’ve had the debate in many other sectors in Ireland, in employment, education and healthcare. I’m not aware of any Irish organisations which have rejected people first language, but that was never my point. You said that we should listen to people with disabilities, I pointed out to you disabled people who don’t share your opinions, and now you’re doing the same as you did on the thread about transgender people and trying to nail it down to Irish organisations only.

What? American disability organisations aren’t good enough for you, but you don’t mind using terms like gammon where they make no sense in an Irish context? As I already pointed out - cognitive dissonance.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I haven’t corrected you Andrew. I was making the point that someone else who wants to appear morally superior to you would be along to correct you. That’s how these things generally go - someone always has to up the ante to make themselves out to be even more woke than the last guy :pac:

Yeah, that's exactly what what happened - somebody upped the ante to appear morally superior. It's actually hilarious that you can't see that this is EXACTLY what you did. PMSL here.

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yeah, that's exactly what what happened - somebody upped the ante to appear morally superior. It's actually hilarious that you can't see that this is EXACTLY what you did. PMSL here.

That’s not what happened Andrew. I don’t care about appearing morally superior to you because we couldn’t possibly be more different, we have nothing in common other than I’d imagine you’re as gammon coloured as I am.

Person with disabilities. Person of colour. etc.

The only way to argue for it is to define everyone like that. "He's an altruistic person." should be frowned upon as well and replaced with "He's a person with altruistic tendencies."

Otherwise, you're saying disabilities are worse than altruism. There is no getting around it, and that's why so many people hate this condescending wordplay.

old_aussie

The word "moderate" in front of islam

rgodard80a

Tranpedonigger

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Person with disabilities. Person of colour. etc.

The only way to argue for it is to define everyone like that. "He's an altruistic person." should be frowned upon as well and replaced with "He's a person with altruistic tendencies."

Otherwise, you're saying disabilities are worse than altruism. There is no getting around it, and that's why so many people hate this condescending wordplay.

I'm not saying anything about altruism. I'm talking about a well established principle for around 20 years for anyone who respects people with disabilities.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s not what happened Andrew. I don’t care about appearing morally superior to you because we couldn’t possibly be more different, we have nothing in common other than I’d imagine you’re as gammon coloured as I am.

Fair enough Jack. I believe you.

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm not saying anything about altruism. I'm talking about a well established principle for around 20 years for anyone who respects people with disabilities.

And identity first language has been around even longer, and just like people first language, doesn’t indicate anything about a person’s views on disabled people. It’s linguistics Andrew is all, and as I’ve demonstrated already - numerous organisations which represent disabled people reject the idea of people first language - an idea which originated in the US, rejected by disabled people in the US.

It’s not that commonly used here in my experience - special needs assistants, social workers, employers, legal professionals, they’ll still generally refer to disabled people by their disability, as that for them is treating disabled people with respect. They’re not afraid to acknowledge a disabled person, as opposed to this idea that a person cannot be defined by their disability - they can, and they generally are defined by their disability. It’s how we identify their needs, as opposed to treating them as though they don’t have special needs.

seekenee

if you're insulting someone by calling them "X"

you're implying that "X" is inferior

therefore it is offensive to anyone identified as "X"

doesn't matter if "X" is a previously official term (now slang) or the currently used word - it amounts to the same thing

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And identity first language has been around even longer, and just like people first language, doesn’t indicate anything about a person’s views on disabled people. It’s linguistics Andrew is all, and as I’ve demonstrated already - numerous organisations which represent disabled people reject the idea of people first language - an idea which originated in the US, rejected by disabled people in the US.

I'm not sure that you've actually demonstrated this. YOu have claimed it, but I don't recall any evidence - though given that it is largely a US phenomenon, it is really a moot point when it comes to appropriate language for an Irish discussion board. Do any of those organisations that you're referencing suggest that it's a good idea to use 'retard' as a casual, derogatory term?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s not that commonly used here in my experience - special needs assistants, social workers, employers, legal professionals, they’ll still generally refer to disabled people by their disability, as that for them is treating disabled people with respect. They’re not afraid to acknowledge a disabled person, as opposed to this idea that a person cannot be defined by their disability - they can, and they generally are defined by their disability. It’s how we identify their needs, as opposed to treating them as though they don’t have special needs.

Certainly, the 'special needs' terminology is deeply embedded in the education sector, with SNAs and the EPSEN Act and more. This certainly contributes to the often patronising and infantilising attitudes experienced by students with disabilities in schools here.

And you've fallen into one of the age-old trap of making assumptions about people's needs. If you want to identify a person's needs, ask them what they need. Anything else is an assumption.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And identity first language has been around even longer, and just like people first language, doesn’t indicate anything about a person’s views on disabled people. It’s linguistics Andrew is all, and as I’ve demonstrated already - numerous organisations which represent disabled people reject the idea of people first language - an idea which originated in the US, rejected by disabled people in the US.

It’s not that commonly used here in my experience - special needs assistants, social workers, employers, legal professionals, they’ll still generally refer to disabled people by their disability, as that for them is treating disabled people with respect. They’re not afraid to acknowledge a disabled person, as opposed to this idea that a person cannot be defined by their disability - they can, and they generally are defined by their disability. It’s how we identify their needs, as opposed to treating them as though they don’t have special needs.

Ted Johnson wrote: »

Going up to an actual handicap and shouting 'retard!' in his face would be a bit ****ty alright. But calling people retards online is just slagging.

My two cents anyway.

'Going to an actual handicap'

Well...

Ah I won't bother.

Paddy Cow

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

'Going to an actual handicap'

Well...

Ah I won't bother.

He means well

Deebles McBeebles

Gobermouch

Here is a list of ethnic slurs according to wikipedia.

From a worldwide perspective - some of them are fairly creative/dare I say it amusing!

They even have 'Taig' and 'Knacker' on the list! (Is it blurred out by boards?)

Ethnic slurs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs

It would be interesting to see what words boards.ie blocks out from this list.

'Taig, Pickaninny, Paki , Spic, Chink' are perfectly fine?

I remember poor auld Mary O'Rourke got in trouble for saying 'working like blacks'.
In the thick of an election.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/orourke-sparks-row-over-blacks-remarks-26403140.html

Is that racist or just a slip of the tongue? Colloquialism??? Ignorance or latent racism?

Profanities list

There is a list of profanities as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Profanity

I never heard of this one 'CHWDP' I will have to try it if I ever meet a polish policeman. Oh sorry police-PERSON.

CHWDP or HWDP (read ha-voo-de-pe) is a frequently used acronym of the Polish phrase chuj w dupę policji, literally meaning "(put a) dick in the police's ass."[1][better source needed] It can be seen as a Polish equivalent to the English-language phrase ACAB ("All Cops Are Bastards"), although is more accurately translated as **** the police. policeman.

CHWDP ???? I never heard of ACAB either ? Should we use AGAB in Ireland?

LGBT slurs

There are even more Gay slurs or LGBT slurs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LGBT-related_slurs

ACDC ? Back in black will never be the same for me again.
That's a gas one.
Also 'Diet Gay' ? surely that would make any potential target laugh not be insulted?

Disabled related terms

Disabled related terms with negative connotations (there is a list for that too)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disability-related_terms_with_negative_connotations

According to the disabled list retard has become 'tard'. I am not sure it could get much shorter!
'Window licker' sounds like the potential name of a window cleaning company to me.
Be careful when using 'Differently abled' by the way!
Daft is even on the list...
The use of the phrase 'Deaf people' is perfectly fine still.
It is not an insult.

According to wikipedia they are a different grouping entirely:

"In Deaf culture, person-first language (i.e., "Person who is deaf", "person who is hard of hearing") has long been rejected since being culturally Deaf is seen as a source of positive identity and pride. Instead, Deaf culture uses Deaf-first language: "Deaf person" or "hard-of-hearing person".Capital D -Deaf is as stated prior, is referred to as a student who first identifies as that. Lower case d- deaf is where a person has hearing loss. Typically, those that consider themselves Deaf, first and foremost prior to any other identity."

But then again if you you shout at a deaf person they would not hear you. So I cannot see much of a problem here.

Misogynistic slurs

There is a mysoginst list as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Misogynistic_slurs

Who heard of Virago?
I suppose it is better than 'good girl yourself!?
And there was me thinking he was a former snooker player now commentator?
I pefer my auld fellas one 'she's no clocking hen' thankfully I did not see that on any list so I assume it is still OK?

So there is plenty there for people to enjoy/get offended by/to tell other people to get offended by.

Potential boards list?

I was thinking there should be separate boards.ie list that people seem to get offended by.
'Back seat modder' 'SJW' 'Straw man' etc

Personally I find 'have you a source for that?' the most offensive thing that can be said on boards.ie

****** or ****

Fifty grades of shay.

"Work".

Feisar wrote: »

****** or ****

The whole ****ing thing is blurred out you ****ing white ******, ****, retard, knacker of a poster.

(used sarcastically mods - by the way)

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The whole ****ing thing is blurred out you ****ing white ******, ****, retard, knacker of a poster.

(used sarcastically mods - by the way)

Yea but I bet you know the words I typed!

Lux23

It's still moist.

Ted Johnson wrote: »

Going up to an actual handicap and shouting 'retard!' in his face would be a bit ****ty alright. But calling people retards online is just slagging.

My two cents anyway.

Just to let you know that I think the use of the word handicap does not seem offensive in your post of itself - as in context is it well meaning when judged by the rest of the post.

However, what is amusing and possibly offensive to 'handicaps' maybe the use of the word 'actual' before the word handicap.
Which gives the implied sense that you have limited contact with 'actual handicaps' and view them as a collective sub-species.
But it is good that you do not call the 'handicaps' - 'retards' all the same!

Lux23 wrote: »

It's still moist.

I googled it, apparently there has been a lot of study into why people dislike the word.

Feisar wrote: »

Yea but I bet you know the words I typed!

I assume the N word is in there somewhere

So

Paddys ?

Noel?

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I assume the N word is in there somewhere

So

Paddys ?

Noel?

Patty's, now that sh!t is offensive!

If someone called me a Sassenach/Seoinín I wouldn't be too pleased.

Brexiters on the other-hand would be delighted (if they had google translate handy)

I suppose it does not count in this thread because the OP only said English language?
But I call my brother a 'Sassenach' he lives over there and has intermarried with them. I think I should disown him when I think of it....

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

If someone called me a Sassenach/Seoinín I wouldn't be too pleased.
Brexiters on the other-hand would be delighted (if they had google translate handy)

I suppose it does not count in this thread because the OP only said English language?
But I call my brother a 'Sassenach' he lives over there and has intermarried with them. I think I should disown him when I think of it....

No, keep in touch, you can call his kids plastic paddy's!

Feisar wrote: »

Patty's, now that sh!t is offensive!

Oh yeah it is that time of year.
The worst part is when American's correct you online for writing Paddy's day...
and saying Patty's.

This Irish American website tried to clear thinks up for the yanks (am I allowed to say yanks?)

https://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/others/is-paddys-day-offensive

But as Irish people are grand with Paddy Wagon because people have forgotten its origins.

https://www.irishcentral.com/culture/entertainment/new-york-times-says-term-paddy-wagon-not-offensive-to-the-irish

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=paddy%20wagon

Talbot street is what people think of when they hear paddywagon now...

jimgoose