Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
28-02-2019, 23:27   #211
AndrewJRenko
Registered User
 
AndrewJRenko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 6,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wibbs View Post
And yet you go right ahead and define them. One would struggle to make this up. And yet...
Nope - the difference is that I identified one aspect - something they HAVE, not something they ARE. You defined them as BEING disabled, not HAVING a disability.


That's the difference.
AndrewJRenko is offline  
Advertisement
28-02-2019, 23:55   #212
Ads by Google
Registered User
 
Ads by Google's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 12,438
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.
Ads by Google is offline  
(2) thanks from:
28-02-2019, 23:55   #213
One eyed Jack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 11,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewJRenko View Post
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

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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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


Quote:
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.

Last edited by One eyed Jack; 01-03-2019 at 00:04.
One eyed Jack is offline  
01-03-2019, 00:08   #214
AndrewJRenko
Registered User
 
AndrewJRenko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 6,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by One eyed Jack View Post
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
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.
AndrewJRenko is offline  
Thanks from:
01-03-2019, 00:13   #215
One eyed Jack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 11,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewJRenko View Post
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.
One eyed Jack is offline  
Advertisement
01-03-2019, 00:36   #216
Ads by Google
Registered User
 
Ads by Google's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 12,438
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.
Ads by Google is offline  
Thanks from:
01-03-2019, 00:52   #217
old_aussie
Registered User
 
old_aussie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,063
The word "moderate" in front of islam
old_aussie is offline  
(2) thanks from:
01-03-2019, 06:31   #218
rgodard80a
Registered User
 
rgodard80a's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 380
Tranpedonigger
rgodard80a is online now  
01-03-2019, 06:43   #219
AndrewJRenko
Registered User
 
AndrewJRenko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 6,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ads by Google View Post
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.
AndrewJRenko is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
01-03-2019, 06:44   #220
AndrewJRenko
Registered User
 
AndrewJRenko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 6,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by One eyed Jack View Post
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.
AndrewJRenko is offline  
01-03-2019, 07:33   #221
One eyed Jack
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 11,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewJRenko View Post
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.
One eyed Jack is offline  
02-03-2019, 09:47   #222
seekenee
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 7
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
seekenee is offline  
(2) thanks from:
03-03-2019, 10:00   #223
AndrewJRenko
Registered User
 
AndrewJRenko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 6,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by One eyed Jack View Post
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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by One eyed Jack View Post
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.



Quote:
Originally Posted by One eyed Jack View Post
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.
AndrewJRenko is offline  
15-03-2019, 05:52   #224
gormdubhgorm
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Johnson View Post
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.
gormdubhgorm is offline  
(4) thanks from:
15-03-2019, 10:18   #225
Paddy Cow
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 5,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by gormdubhgorm View Post
'Going to an actual handicap'

Well...

Ah I won't bother.
He means well
Paddy Cow is offline  
Thanks from:
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet