glenfieldman wrote: Dont get me wrong Sinéad Burke is an amazing lady and inspiration for everyone to look up to, but is there anything people cannot get offended by ?
Westernyelp wrote: » Care to expand on this?
Eric Cartman wrote: » Theres so many new ‘ists’ in the lexicon , pay no heed, just more of the professionally outraged. Twitter and the op ed section of papers are just full of the professionally outraged now.
Chris_Heilong wrote: » Infrastructure to make people with handicaps that prevent them from living a normal life is good however do not stat demanding normal people need to change drastically. This goes for all these woke minority concepts.
paw patrol wrote: » gotta keep attention on your issue keeps the grant money/donation/appearance money coming in. Applies not only to Sinead Burke but to all campaigning types. Especially important to get your hands on those government grants.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » So when you say 'change drastically', would you consider not suggesting that other people are not 'normal' as being a drastic change? Or how about not using offensive and dated terminology like 'handicaps' - would that be drastic too? Or you could just follow the boards.ie rule of 'don't be a dick'. If you're not being a dick, you won't find many people getting outraged.
alan partridge aha wrote: » Take your own advice stop labelling people with offensive terminology.
Westernyelp wrote: » This thread makes no sense. I'm out
Chris_Heilong wrote: » Seems you follow the beat of someone else drum, why be so willing to keep changing speech because someone in America has deemed it 'problematic', the majority should be respected, minorities of all kinds are not as important in society, not to ignore them completely as I said before about infrastructure and such but a few people out there have a skewed view on this. The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few.
glenfieldman wrote: » Nobody asked you to contribute
Still waters wrote: » Wss he black ? Was he a dwarf ? Was he Brazilian ? It could be a very accurate description of the wee man
AndrewJRenko wrote: » The term 'dwarf' is generally recognised as causing offence to people with dwarfism. Here's a decent explanation from the Little People of Ireland about term 'midget', which has similar impact.http://www.lpi.ie/lpi-themword/
Still waters wrote: » Do they call their condition dwarfism ? If they do i can't see what they've got to be upset about
Irish Guitarist wrote: » Most people are going to find a black Brazilian dwarf with ginger hair noteworthy. You can demand people remove their tweets all you like but you can't change human nature. Has Sinead Burke genuinely never seen someone with something weird about their appearance and laughed?
Chris_Heilong wrote: » It is not the people with Dwarfism getting offended, it is the "regular sized" busybodies who take offense on other peoples behalf and actually convince the would be victim that they should be offended.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » They don't get to choose medical terminology. They do, or at least they should, get to choose personal labels.
Still waters wrote: » Ok, ill stick with the medical terminology, in general terms its perfectly fine to call them dwarfs, in personal terms ill stick to calling anyone i meet by their first name
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Dwarfism is a medical term. Dwarf is not a medical term. Dwarf is a term of abuse that causes great offence. This has been pointed out to you now, and you are choosing to deliberately continue to use it presumably because of sheer pigheadedness.
suicide_circus wrote: » I would see "little people" as potentially problematic in Ireland. Darby O'Gill etc
Still waters wrote: » Its not a big jump to shorten (snigger) dwarfism to dwarf
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Except that it is, and coming up with derogatory terms for people with certain types of disabilities isn't really something to snigger about.
