Jump to content

Menu

Community college inappropriateness vent


Murphy101
 Share

Recommended Posts

54 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

it could be argued my brother's likely personality disorder is a mental illness, but his embrace of conspiracy theories (because he's smarter than everyone else) and disdain for those who don't buy into them - is pure arrogance.  that is not a "mental illness".

Oh man.  Don't say that.  It is what keeps me sane with regards to my brother.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, unsinkable said:

You're going to have to elaborate...

If I had to guess, this post looks like you're implying since there is no shame in mentally illness, we can use whatever term we want.

Is that what you mean?

 

I think it's okay for a person to say, "hey that made me feel as though my thoughts and feelings are stupid."

But it is not okay to say this word can't ever be used ever because someone somewhere might be offended.

Context and conversation matter.

The word in and of itself does not imply insult or derision or shame.

Frankly, humans do indeed do crazy crap and have crazy thoughts. And pointing that out doesn't mean we think they are idiots, inferior, shameful or what all else.

So in the context of this thread, I have not seen it used in a shaming or ostracizing manner.

It's a simple fact that someone folks need to get their own crazy in order before they can help others with their crazy.  (Aka get their own oxygen on before helping someone get theirs.)

But eveyone is crazy in some way as far as I can tell these days.

Edited by Murphy101
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

 

Some days I think egotistical jerk should be a mental illness bc it seems to come so natural to some that they sure act like they can't help it. 

But seriously, I would argue his personality disorder is likely related to his arrogance, or vice versa. Mental illness, like many illnesses, is not so clear cut a thing to figure causes and affects.

as I have started therapy for cptsd, I've also learned about the long-term effects of childhood emotional neglect.   that, combined with his being our grandmother's golden child, likely is the source of any personality disorder.   iow: the long term effects of abuse/neglect.

I'm being overwhelmed by what is showing up.  things I always thought were my fault/short-comings.  this wasn't a benign, parents are well meaning - but just too busy neglect.  there were times it crossed the line into narcissistic abuse.  even by our mother.  My sister and I chose a different path.  my brother has chosen to wallow in his arrogance.

I can give slack for her schizophrenia (which was diagnosed when I was 20), but some of the stuff she did - was purely her choice and I am deeply offended when people try to excuse her by saying "she was mentally ill". I'm the one who has to live with/clean up the damage she (and her mother) did to my life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

as I have started therapy for cptsd, I've also learned about the long-term effects of childhood emotional neglect.   that, combined with his being our grandmother's golden child, likely is the source of any personality disorder.   iow: the long term effects of abuse/neglect.

I'm being overwhelmed by what is showing up.  things I always thought were my fault/short-comings.  this wasn't a benign, parents are well meaning - but just too busy neglect.  there were times it crossed the line into narcissistic abuse.  even by our mother.  My sister and I chose a different path.  my brother has chosen to wallow in his arrogance.

I can give slack for her schizophrenia (which was diagnosed when I was 20), but some of the stuff she did - was purely her choice and I am deeply offended when people try to excuse her by saying "she was mentally ill". I'm the one who has to live with/clean up the damage she (and her mother) did to my life.

 

Mental illness is is not an excuse.  Humans still have free will.  But there's no denying how they use that free will is deeply affected by factors outside of their personal decisions in any given moment.  How the free will and other factors intermingle is a big pile of muck we have more ignorance than understanding over.

We can go crazy trying to figure out why bad people do bad things to us, but more often than not, it won't change that the only thing we can do about it is live better lives ourselves.  And part of that for ME is trying to accept that acknowledging possible contributing factors does not mean it was okay.  It doesn't rob me of the justification to be hurt or angry or sad or to not deal with them anymore.  It's just another way I can see it was never about me or anything I did or didn't do.

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

Mental illness is is not an excuse.  Humans still have free will.  But there's no denying how they use that free will is deeply affected by factors outside of their personal decisions in any given moment.  How the free will and other factors intermingle is a big pile of muck we have more ignorance than understanding over.

We can go crazy trying to figure out why bad people do bad things to us, but more often than not, it won't change that the only thing we can do about it is live better lives ourselves.  And part of that for ME is trying to accept that acknowledging possible contributing factors does not mean it was okay.  It doesn't rob me of the justification to be hurt or angry or sad or to not deal with them anymore.  It's just another way I can see it was never about me or anything I did or didn't do.

 

 

if that works for you.  I hope you have respect that it doesn't work for everyone else.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I’m happy to update that there was a blow up in class where this teacher started screaming, cussing and physically intimidating a student. (A 50+ yr old female student who left the class under this harassment.)  Luckily another student caught it on video on their phone and took it to the dean immediately after class. The next class the instructor intimidated the student who did the recording that they shouldn’t how that to anyone else and offered no apology. The next class, the dean brought in a new instructor to introduce. 

Just. Wow. 

Glad that’s done. 

  • Like 21
  • Thanks 4
  • Sad 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

I’m happy to update that there was a blow up in class where this teacher started screaming, cussing and physically intimidating a student. (A 50+ yr old female student who left the class under this harassment.)  Luckily another student caught it on video on their phone and took it to the dean immediately after class. The next class the instructor intimidated the student who did the recording that they shouldn’t how that to anyone else and offered no apology. The next class, the dean brought in a new instructor to introduce. 

Just. Wow. 

Glad that’s done. 

Crazy! I am glad it is over and that the dean took care of it. Sounds like the guy was off his rocker and needed to go. This is one of those times that having cameras everywhere is actually beneficial.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

I’m happy to update that there was a blow up in class where this teacher started screaming, cussing and physically intimidating a student. (A 50+ yr old female student who left the class under this harassment.)  Luckily another student caught it on video on their phone and took it to the dean immediately after class. The next class the instructor intimidated the student who did the recording that they shouldn’t how that to anyone else and offered no apology. The next class, the dean brought in a new instructor to introduce. 

Just. Wow. 

Glad that’s done. 

Wow. I guess if you don't want your employer seeing you act like an out-of-control jerk...it's best not to act like one in the first place. Glad your DD doesn't have to deal with that clown any more.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

I’m happy to update that there was a blow up in class where this teacher started screaming, cussing and physically intimidating a student. (A 50+ yr old female student who left the class under this harassment.)  Luckily another student caught it on video on their phone and took it to the dean immediately after class. The next class the instructor intimidated the student who did the recording that they shouldn’t how that to anyone else and offered no apology. The next class, the dean brought in a new instructor to introduce. 

Just. Wow. 

Glad that’s done. 

Thanks for the update but...Wow.

It's a shame it had to get to that point but and I'm sorry for the student who was harassed, but at the same time I'm glad it was all caught on video (I almost typed caught on tape lol). 

At least it's over and hopefully your dd and the rest of the class can get on with the business of actually learning something about the subject.

Edited by Lady Florida.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, SeaConquest said:

Wow. How stressful. Sounds like it was time for that prof to take a break.

ETA: Unrelated side note, I am 20 days into my term and killing it. 🙂

I was just going to ask!!! So glad!

I also want to say that I do think terms like "nutter" will eventually fade out as people realize that even though they don't mean it for people with actual mental illness, it is an offensive term. It will just take a while, as many people using it don't realize what they are saying.....they mean it as irrational or eccentric, not depressed/anxious/bipolar/etc etc. But it did come from the same root and is still offensive. 

Hugs. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

I was just going to ask!!! So glad!

I also want to say that I do think terms like "nutter" will eventually fade out as people realize that even though they don't mean it for people with actual mental illness, it is an offensive term. It will just take a while, as many people using it don't realize what they are saying.....they mean it as irrational or eccentric, not depressed/anxious/bipolar/etc etc. But it did come from the same root and is still offensive. 

Hugs. 

 

I suspect, as in many other instances where people want a word changed, if people said other words as a replacement, the new word would quickly take on the connotation of the old one.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I suspect, as in many other instances where people want a word changed, if people said other words as a replacement, the new word would quickly take on the connotation of the old one.  

 

Yeah, I guess we should have kept nigger, faggot, tranny, retard, etc. No point in caring about people's feelings.

Edited by SeaConquest
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, SeaConquest said:

 

Yeah, I guess we should have kept nigger, faggot, tranny, retard, etc. No point in caring about people's feelings.

People who use hurtful language are telling us who they are.

I've tried to explain many times about stereotypical and hurtful language regarding seizures and epilepsy. Some people understand and try to avoid it and other people laugh and think it's funny and keep using the hurtful language.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, SeaConquest said:

 

Yeah, I guess we should have kept nigger, faggot, tranny, retard, etc. No point in caring about people's feelings.

 

Those are hardly comparable to nutter, which is a colloquially used word to describe a sort of person we've all met who is not very stable in their behaviour, and it isn't particularly harsh, at about the same level as "screwball".  It's even one not infrequently used by people to refer to themselves.  I'm not sure why you are so convinced that it does, or was meant, to apply to you.  This idea you have that it means "person who has ever been treated for a mental illness" is pretty outside the norm I'd say and several people in the discussion mentioned this.

However - I'd also say there are a heck of a lot of assumptions in your remark here - that the words you've listed have similar histories, that making them taboo has been effective in reducing the use of rude words to describe groups of people or has changed how people think about those groups.  It's not a particularly good thing that this type of comment - that it is simply being an unkind person to really consider how changing language does or does not help - it accepted just on the face of it.

"Retard" s a good example of this - a word that was a technical description and not meant to be unkind at all, and came to be seen and used pejoratively due to people having a certain view of those with intellectual disabilities.  As new words replaced it for this reason, many of them became suspect themselves.  The root of the problem was people's attitudes, not the word.  With it improved, retarded would have been used appropriately.  Without the bad attitude, people will use the descriptor in vogue appropriately, where it exists, they won't and it will come to have offensive connotations.  In another direction, I have met people who come from non-English speaking places where the term "Jew" is considered pejorative.  But I'd question whether the removal of the word from normal speech has actually positively changed anything  - rather, it's created a word that is purely a racial insult and could in itself shape attitudes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Those are hardly comparable to nutter, which is a colloquially used word to describe a sort of person we've all met who is not very stable in their behaviour, and it isn't particularly harsh, at about the same level as "screwball".  It's even one not infrequently used by people to refer to themselves.  I'm not sure why you are so convinced that it does, or was meant, to apply to you.  This idea you have that it means "person who has ever been treated for a mental illness" is pretty outside the norm I'd say and several people in the discussion mentioned this.

First, I don't appreciate the gaslighting of my reality. As Unsinkable mentioned above, "Nuts/nutcase*/nut job...is indeed a colloquial expression for a mentally ill person in the United States." While that may not be true in Australia or in other countries, or even in some regions of the U.S., it is definitely a euphemism in my world. Moreover, even if the comment was not intended to apply to me specifically, I'm trying to point out how these types of statements continue to perpetuate mental health stigma, and, as you've repeatedly expressed throughout this thread, you're either oblivious to, or unconcerned with, that fact.   

However - I'd also say there are a heck of a lot of assumptions in your remark here - that the words you've listed have similar histories, that making them taboo has been effective in reducing the use of rude words to describe groups of people or has changed how people think about those groups.  It's not a particularly good thing that this type of comment - that it is simply being an unkind person to really consider how changing language does or does not help - it accepted just on the face of it.

You're right. I do feel that you have been unkind in this thread, and continue to be so despite several people remarking about it. I also feel that you're being incredibly tone deaf because I doubt that many of the marginalized groups I listed would prefer to be referred to by their former nomenclatures. And, given that I'm telling you -- as a mentally ill woman -- that i find the terms nutter/nutjob/nutcase offensive, the last thing I need is for you to debate me about the appropriateness of my feelings on the matter. Walk a mile in my shoes, living with mental health stigma, and then we will talk. Until then, I'd appreciate if you would cut out the gaslighting.

"Retard" s a good example of this - a word that was a technical description and not meant to be unkind at all, and came to be seen and used pejoratively due to people having a certain view of those with intellectual disabilities.  As new words replaced it for this reason, many of them became suspect themselves.  The root of the problem was people's attitudes, not the word.  With it improved, retarded would have been used appropriately.  Without the bad attitude, people will use the descriptor in vogue appropriately, where it exists, they won't and it will come to have offensive connotations.  In another direction, I have met people who come from non-English speaking places where the term "Jew" is considered pejorative.  But I'd question whether the removal of the word from normal speech has actually positively changed anything  - rather, it's created a word that is purely a racial insult and could in itself shape attitudes.

We can debate the merits of politically correct language until the cows come home, but the best course of action in these instances, IMO, is to ask the marginalized person(s) what he/she/they prefer to be called, or in this case prefer NOT to be called. And simply to listen to them without judgment and debate. I find it incredibly galling for someone not within that marginalized group to even participate in a debate about such words. I'm not going to opine on what AA or Indigenous folks should be called, or what terms they should find offensive. IMHO, this is no different. 

 

Edited by SeaConquest
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't gaslighting to say that a word does not have the meaning someone thinks. Perhaps it is a cultural difference as it is a mainly British word,  but getting so worked up about a cultural difference in usage is not useful.   Would it really solve your problem if I said mentally unstable people should not be going into psychiatric counselling? 

And FWIW, I have been treated for mental health disorders, as have many of my family members, and my father is a mental health patient in a serious way having lived for periods of time in a mental institution - he is also, in an ongoing way, mentally unstable and unpredictable and has a personality disorder, which would absolutely make him a terrible and inappropriate for roles in psychiatry.  I don't think there is anything like the universal association or dislike you are making.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

It isn't gaslighting to say that a word does not have the meaning someone thinks. Perhaps it is a cultural difference as it is a mainly British word,  but getting so worked up about a cultural difference in usage is not useful.   Would it really solve your problem if I said mentally unstable people should not be going into psychiatric counselling? 

And FWIW, I have been treated for mental health disorders, as have many of my family members, and my father is a mental health patient in a serious way having lived for periods of time in a mental institution - he is also, in an ongoing way, mentally unstable and unpredictable and has a personality disorder, which would absolutely make him a terrible and inappropriate for roles in psychiatry.  I don't think there is anything like the universal association or dislike you are making.

 

Jezzus, I just said (and Unsinkable reiterated) that, in my world, ""Nuts/nutcase*/nut job...is indeed a colloquial expression for a mentally ill person in the United States." So, please save the patronizing -- I don't need you to tell me what is "useful" to get worked up about. As this is primarily a U.S.-based message board, I will take my American worldview, apply it in the context of how Americans view certain words, and how those words have been used to harm marginalized groups in America. People from other countries can take their own approach.  

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

It isn't gaslighting to say that a word does not have the meaning someone thinks.

It is gaslighting to tell her that in her culture/circumstances/place of residence it doesn't mean what she has said it means. It does mean the in her world, and according to others in this thread. 

And saying, "well, I have mental illness and I'm not bothered by it so you shouldn't be either" is something people do with a lot of things. You NOT being bothered by it doesn't mean she shouldn't be bothered by it. If some black people are okay with the N word it doesn't mean that other black people can't be offended by it. Or mean that it is okay to use. 

Retard is a good comparison, because aside from the word being considered rude, the very concept of insulting one person by comparing them to the innate traits of another is not okay. I don't care WHAT word you use, insulting Bob by saying he is acting like Beth due to traits Beth has no control over, is not okay. Beth shouldn't be used as an insult, people shouldn't be insults. Be that race, religion, disability, disease, etc etc. Including mental illness. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not linguistic imperialism for me to explain to Bluegoat how those words make me feel. And it is gaslighting for her to tell me that isn't useful or correct for me to feel my feelings. She can go on speaking how she wants to, in her cultural context. But, on a board filled with Americans, it might prove useful for her to know how it makes some of us feel. Or not. Her choice.

I'm reminded of my kid, who is performing in a choir recital in a few weeks. They are singing 'It's a Hard Knock Life' from Annie. Some of the lyrics in the song he's performing have been changed to reflect modern sensibilities. For example, orphan/orphanage has been changed to foster kid. It doesn't rhyme as well, but who cares if it is the preferred term of a marginalized group. I mean, these kids have it hard enough. Is it really that hard to be kind? And if some feel that being kind in these sorts of situations is linguistic imperialism or political correctness run amok, well, so be it, I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also add that in the U.S., it would not be uncommon for someone to say things like: 

"Those nutjobs deserve to be locked up."

"It was probably some nutcase who did it."

"I hope that nutter gets the electric chair."

Our prisons are filled with people who are mentally ill because our system for treating mental illness is broken. And has been for a very long time. Throw in a hefty dose of racism and poverty,  as well as capital punishment in many states, and yes, there is indeed a long history of violence accompanied by these terms in our country.

Edited by SeaConquest
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, StellaM said:

It's not linguistic imperialism to explain - 'In my experience of the US, it means this, and I really dislike it because...'

It is linguistic imperialism to insist others understand that this ( regional ?) US meaning is the universally correct one, should be abided by, and to not do so means you are delighting in the stigmatisation of the mentally ill.

 

 

 

I said that I think she has been unkind in this thread, and several others have agreed with that statement.

Edited by SeaConquest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SeaConquest said:

It's not linguistic imperialism for me to explain to Bluegoat how those words make me feel. And it is gaslighting for her to tell me that isn't useful or correct for me to feel my feelings. She can go on speaking how she wants to, in her cultural context. But, on a board filled with Americans, it might prove useful for her to know how it makes some of us feel. Or not. Her choice.

I'm reminded of my kid, who is performing in a choir recital in a few weeks. They are singing 'It's a Hard Knock Life' from Annie. Some of the lyrics in the song he's performing have been changed to reflect modern sensibilities. For example, orphan/orphanage has been changed to foster kid. It doesn't rhyme as well, but who cares if it is the preferred term of a marginalized group. I mean, these kids have it hard enough. Is it really that hard to be kind? And if some feel that being kind in these sorts of situations is linguistic imperialism or political correctness run amok, well, so be it, I suppose.

 

No one said you can’t feel any way you feel. They said this isn’t about you, which it isn’t, so how you feel doesn’t really factor into this.  That’s not gaslighting.

Sure you can say that to you and some others, this is offensive.  Other people can note they don’t think this is offensive to them and or that in the context of the discussion at hand, it is not intended as insulting to you personally or really anyone else. Maybe the crappy instructor being referred to, but that’s still a maybe as a personal slight vs a professional criticism of her lack of professionalism.  That’s not gaslighting.

Gaslighting is manipulation to make you feel or think you are inferior, stupid, or crazy.  Disagreeing with you or even offending you is not gaslighting just because you don’t like it. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

 

No one said you can’t feel any way you feel. They said this isn’t about you, which it isn’t, so how you feel doesn’t really factor into this.  That’s not gaslighting.

Sure you can say that to you and some others, this is offensive.  Other people can note they don’t think this is offensive to them and or that in the context of the discussion at hand, it is not intended as insulting to you personally or really anyone else. Maybe the crappy instructor being referred to, but that’s still a maybe as a personal slight vs a professional criticism of her lack of professionalism.  That’s not gaslighting.

Gaslighting is manipulation to make you feel or think you are inferior, stupid, or crazy.  Disagreeing with you or even offending you is not gaslighting just because you don’t like it. 

 

There are many forms of gaslighting, and trivializing the harm that is done to someone -- which is what was done here -- is certainly one form of it. Anyway, I didn't come back to this thread to discuss any of this. I stayed on topic about your DD's experience with the prof, and only dropped in a parenthetical that I was doing well in school, for anyone interested. Katy mentioned that she hoped these types of words would fade away, and Bluegoat had to [again] stoke the fires of this topic by making what I perceived to be an insensitive remark. I probably should have just let it go.

Edited by SeaConquest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SeaConquest, Katie re-addressed the linguistic topic part of the thread, and Bluegoat replied to that topic, which made sense to me as it had just been addressed.  It would have been weird maybe if you had just said hey, I'm doing great in school! and Katie had said hey, good job! and Bluegoat had then said, but wait, the societal implications of changing the definition of yada yada yada.

But that is not what happened; the topic was re-introduced and responded to (in the same way that your topic of taking nursing classes was re-introduced and responded to).

 

I disagree strongly that using language that hurts someone's feelings is unkind if the language is not directed at them and/or is a discussion of language and related issues.  I think that about much more controversial language than "nutter," though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, moonflower said:

SeaConquest, Katie re-addressed the linguistic topic part of the thread, and Bluegoat replied to that topic, which made sense to me as it had just been addressed.  It would have been weird maybe if you had just said hey, I'm doing great in school! and Katie had said hey, good job! and Bluegoat had then said, but wait, the societal implications of changing the definition of yada yada yada.

But that is not what happened; the topic was re-introduced and responded to (in the same way that your topic of taking nursing classes was re-introduced and responded to).

 

I disagree strongly that using language that hurts someone's feelings is unkind if the language is not directed at them and/or is a discussion of language and related issues.  I think that about much more controversial language than "nutter," though.

 

 

Well, I suppose as long as you're not calling *me* specifically a faggot/nigger/tranny/retard/beaner/gook/cripple/nutjob/kike/midget, it's totally fine to refer to *other* people that way, you know, just generally speaking, or in jest.  Yeah, that seems perfectly cool. Nothing unkind about that at all. I'll stop taking this whole stigmatizing and ableist language thingy so seriously!

ETA: Hey look! There are even some other fragile flowers in the UK who agree with me! 

https://www.anti-bullyingalliance.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/attachment/Ato-Z-of-Offensive-language-FINAL.pdf

They must be nutters too!

Edited by SeaConquest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, moonflower said:

Using language that hurts someone's feelings can be unkind, of course.  I'm just saying that it isn't automatically unkind by the fact of offending someone.

 

Here's a radical idea. Instead of tiptoeing the "how can we be as close to unkind as possible" line without crossing it we just strive to be kind to marginalized folks? Is this really such a bother for people.

I'll give you another example. I posted an article on FB about Winky, this Bichon Frise competing in an agility tournament.

https://www.elle.com/culture/a26322782/winky-bichon-frise-westminster-dog-show-agility/

I wrote, "Winky is my spirit animal" with the post. Now, what did I mean by this? I meant that I love Winky. That this dog was so cool. That I love this dog so much that I could basically worship this dog (obviously, I jest). A friend of mine messaged me that my post could be offensive to indigenous people whose religious practices invoke actual spirit animals. I didn't debate with my friend about how that wasn't what I meant. How I didn't mean any harm. How I actually thought it was a compliment because Winky is rad, etc. I just changed the post to I heart Winky. How hard was that? Indigenous folks don't need to deal with more crap (from White folks, no less), and it certainly wasn't my intent to hurt anyone with my post. I'm not going to get all bent out of shape about the language police regulating my ability to use the term spirit animal. Just be kind.

Edited by SeaConquest
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Just be kind" as a way to censor speech doesn't interest me.  I'm not keen on being kind instead of honest, or kind instead of direct, or kind instead of thorough, or kind instead of insightful.  

Interpersonally, in real life, I am pretty yielding and all that.  On the internet, which I largely see as a more pure interaction of ideas (and I think that's a great thing about the internet, the free exchange of information), for me, kindness is not my ultimate goal.  I don't think whitewashing language to remove all offense really serves humanity, anyway.

But I'm a lot more yielding about it than for instance most men (ime).  For instance, in an abortion debate I will often give the side I'm not on the benefit of their own label (pro-choice instead of pro-abortion), and I refer to transgender issues as transgender even though I don't really believe in a gender than can exist separate of or opposed to sex.

On the whole though, no, I'm not changing my language in order not to offend one person or several people if the language itself is accurate or fair.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, StellaM said:

It's really uncool to keep insisting that anyone who uses the accepted and not impolite language of their own culture is the equivalent of a racist, homophobe or ableist. 

Nobody is oppressing anybody in this conversation. 

So far as I'm aware from Bluegoat's own post, she has lived experience of mental disorders too.  

This is not a game of Top Trumps, and even if it were, both your voices are valid.

(ugh, I hate using that word. can't think of a better one right now.)

 

 

I'm the one who is being mischaracterized in this thread. I let it go the first time when you made this outrageous claim:

"It is linguistic imperialism to insist others understand that this ( regional ?) US meaning is the universally correct one, should be abided by, and to not do so means you are delighting in the stigmatisation of the mentally ill."

This is specifically what I have said:

"As this is primarily a U.S.-based message board, I will take my American worldview, apply it in the context of how Americans view certain words, and how those words have been used to harm marginalized groups in America. People from other countries can take their own approach."  (This was in response to her telling me not to get worked about it.)

"She can go on speaking how she wants to, in her cultural context. But, on a board filled with Americans, it might prove useful for her to know how it makes some of us feel. Or not. Her choice."

Hardly linguistic imperialism.



 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, moonflower said:

"Just be kind" as a way to censor speech doesn't interest me.  I'm not keen on being kind instead of honest, or kind instead of direct, or kind instead of thorough, or kind instead of insightful.  

Interpersonally, in real life, I am pretty yielding and all that.  On the internet, which I largely see as a more pure interaction of ideas (and I think that's a great thing about the internet, the free exchange of information), for me, kindness is not my ultimate goal.  I don't think whitewashing language to remove all offense really serves humanity, anyway.

But I'm a lot more yielding about it than for instance most men (ime).  For instance, in an abortion debate I will often give the side I'm not on the benefit of their own label (pro-choice instead of pro-abortion), and I refer to transgender issues as transgender even though I don't really believe in a gender than can exist separate of or opposed to sex.

On the whole though, no, I'm not changing my language in order not to offend one person or several people if the language itself is accurate or fair.

 

You do you. But, in my old age, I'd rather be kind than right. As a lawyer, I spent far too much of my life trying to be right. I found that winning was not as personally satisfying as I had thought. But, as always, YMMV.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, StellaM said:

 

Oh for goodness sake. Just stop. 

It's not about being right, it's about being sh*t scared of a world where speech is so heavily policed that freedom of thought begins to disappear. I will gladly pay the price of avoiding that particular dystopia in terms of being personally offended myself.

 

Yeah, I get it. I guess I draw a distinction between government policing and social/cultural linguistic evolution.

Edited by SeaConquest
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

it is if you keep telling her her own language use is akin to being racist, or homophobic, or....

You're basically telling people from other cultures  their own colloquial language is ignorant and harmful. 

Just stop doing it.

I've heard you. For you, and other Americans, your opinion is that use of the word crazy, or nutter, or nutcase is incredibly ableist, and contributes directly to stigma against those with mental illnesses. I hear you!

I disagree with you that this is universal.

Because in other parts of the world it has other connotations, and does not materiallly contribute to stigma. 

Bluegoat disagrees with you, and explained why. 

End of story, surely ?

 

 

She disagreed with me because the word was not linked to violence like the others. I explained how it was very much linked to violence in the United States where the mentally ill are still regularly incarcerated and even put to death because they lack appropriate treatment.

But yeah, I'm done.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, StellaM said:

 

OK. If you would like to consider your  context as evolved, and other people's contexts as primitive, that's up to you.

Is it offensive ? Yes. But you are more than entitled to hold that view and express it.

As I said before, best wishes in your studies. I believe that people with lived experience are an asset in mental health care.

If that's not enough for you, it's not enough for you.  I'm out.

 

I didn't say her view was primitive. I said that language evolves. It doesn't make it a dystopia because it does so. I drew a distinction between government policing and societal cultural linguistic norms changing over time. That her society's norms are different from mine was not even being discussed. You are putting a ridiculous number of words in my mouth, and I do not appreciate it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SeaConquest said:

 

I'm reminded of my kid, who is performing in a choir recital in a few weeks. They are singing 'It's a Hard Knock Life' from Annie. Some of the lyrics in the song he's performing have been changed to reflect modern sensibilities. For example, orphan/orphanage has been changed to foster kid. It doesn't rhyme as well, but who cares if it is the preferred term of a marginalized group. I mean, these kids have it hard enough. Is it really that hard to be kind? And if some feel that being kind in these sorts of situations is linguistic imperialism or political correctness run amok, well, so be it, I suppose.

 

Orphan is offensive???   And if Orphan is offensive, why wouldn't foster kid be offensive?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I happen to be awake and just read through this thread...  It seems to me that everyone who made a comment that offended someone ended up offering a genuine apology and explanation.  And yet two pages later, people still seem to be assuming the worst in each other.  I don't understand why people can't just give people the benefit of the doubt in these situations and move on.

Here's a question:  Would you ever use the word "nuts" when describing a situation?  (Not a person, I mean.)  I do.  If I'm in a restaurant and I've been waiting at a table for 20 minutes and the server still hasn't brought me a menu or even noticed us, I might say, "This is nuts!"  To me, it has nothing to do with a person being mentally ill.  It's a completely different meaning altogether -- like a situation that doesn't make any logical sense and is confusing, off the mark.  Or if I'm waiting at a red stop light that has remained red for 10 minutes, I might say, "This is nuts!"  Again, it's a situation that doesn't make any logical sense.  So to me, the term "nutters" that people have been using here is based on that meaning, not at all on someone who is mentally ill.  I've lived on the east coast, the west coast, and in the mid west, and in fact, no one I know has ever used that term to imply someone who is actually mentally ill.  They wouldn't be so unkind.  

So I think that's what people (who used the term) are trying to say.  It's why the cookie "Nutter Butters" are still on the market, because "nutter" generally isn't thought of to be an offensive term.  Now, you wouldn't find "Retard Biscuits" anywhere on the shelf, because "retard" IS pretty much agreed on as being an offensive term that is pretty directly linked to the term "mentally retarded."  

I think the belief that "nutter" means a mentally ill person is actually not as prevalent as some of you believe it to be. 

On the other hand, I'm guessing that most people on this board will be more careful about using it here in the future, because I think most people here -- even if they disagree that it's offensive, are still sensitive enough to not use it around people who are hurt by it.  And I know everyone here is happy for SeaConquest and her career ambitions.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, moonflower said:

"Just be kind" as a way to censor speech doesn't interest me.  I'm not keen on being kind instead of honest, or kind instead of direct, or kind instead of thorough, or kind instead of insightful.  

Interpersonally, in real life, I am pretty yielding and all that.  On the internet, which I largely see as a more pure interaction of ideas (and I think that's a great thing about the internet, the free exchange of information), for me, kindness is not my ultimate goal.  I don't think whitewashing language to remove all offense really serves humanity, anyway.

But I'm a lot more yielding about it than for instance most men (ime).  For instance, in an abortion debate I will often give the side I'm not on the benefit of their own label (pro-choice instead of pro-abortion), and I refer to transgender issues as transgender even though I don't really believe in a gender than can exist separate of or opposed to sex.

On the whole though, no, I'm not changing my language in order not to offend one person or several people if the language itself is accurate or fair.

If I tell someone that their language is hurtful, I'm not censoring their speech.

ESPECIALLY online, on the internet, and on this board. Like I said, I've pointed out stuff that is offensive about epilepsy here and people laugh and continue to do so. It is like they double down and use it more often.

Use whatever language you want. Like I said, people tell you who they are with their words, good and bad.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, J-rap said:

I happen to be awake and just read through this thread...  It seems to me that everyone who made a comment that offended someone ended up offering a genuine apology and explanation.  And yet two pages later, people still seem to be assuming the worst in each other.  I don't understand why people can't just give people the benefit of the doubt in these situations and move on.

Here's a question:  Would you ever use the word "nuts" when describing a situation?  (Not a person, I mean.)  I do.  If I'm in a restaurant and I've been waiting at a table for 20 minutes and the server still hasn't brought me a menu or even noticed us, I might say, "This is nuts!"  To me, it has nothing to do with a person being mentally ill.  It's a completely different meaning altogether -- like a situation that doesn't make any logical sense and is confusing, off the mark.  Or if I'm waiting at a red stop light that has remained red for 10 minutes, I might say, "This is nuts!"  Again, it's a situation that doesn't make any logical sense.  So to me, the term "nutters" that people have been using here is based on that meaning, not at all on someone who is mentally ill.  I've lived on the east coast, the west coast, and in the mid west, and in fact, no one I know has ever used that term to imply someone who is actually mentally ill.  They wouldn't be so unkind.  

So I think that's what people (who used the term) are trying to say.  It's why the cookie "Nutter Butters" are still on the market, because "nutter" generally isn't thought of to be an offensive term.  Now, you wouldn't find "Retard Biscuits" anywhere on the shelf, because "retard" IS pretty much agreed on as being an offensive term that is pretty directly linked to the term "mentally retarded."  

I think the belief that "nutter" means a mentally ill person is actually not as prevalent as some of you believe it to be. 

On the other hand, I'm guessing that most people on this board will be more careful about using it here in the future, because I think most people here -- even if they disagree that it's offensive, are still sensitive enough to not use it around people who are hurt by it.  And I know everyone here is happy for SeaConquest and her career ambitions.

In some cases, the description I bolded is also why nuts is used to describe a person...They don't make sense, they are confusing, "off the mark," not logical. And all those are used at times to describe some aspects of mental illness.

It is all related.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, unsinkable said:

If I tell someone that their language is hurtful, I'm not censoring their speech.

ESPECIALLY online, on the internet, and on this board. Like I said, I've pointed out stuff that is offensive about epilepsy here and people laugh and continue to do so. It is like they double down and use it more often.

Use whatever language you want. Like I said, people tell you who they are with their words, good and bad.

 

 

Oh, definitely, telling someone their language is hurtful is just an expression of how it affects you and is as legitimate as anything else. 

For me, truth is more important than kindness when the two conflict, at least online or in a general (instead of interpersonal) discussion; part of the reason for this is that it is not kind to let an untruth go on as it can have harmful effects on the actual working of society and people's actual behavior.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, SeaConquest said:

 

Yeah, I get it. I guess I draw a distinction between government policing and social/cultural linguistic evolution.

 

There's little difference between government policing and social stance since they are dependent and created out of each other. 

A society or culture tends to support a government that reflects it's beliefs or opinions on how things should be and vice versa.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Plum Crazy said:

Well now, I guess I’ve been unknowingly offending people for years on this board. I’d insert an emoji here, but it would be enormous. I have a long history and attachment to my name. Yes, I love purple. I also wrote a story ages ago about a girl named Plumeria Castle. So there’s a bonus combo there. 

I’m not intentionally trying to hurt people with my name. I’m not purposely making fun of the mentally ill. There has to be some malicious intent for there to be real bullying; otherwise, isn’t it just a misunderstanding?

Freedom of speech is supposed to feel a little uncomfortable. We can’t grow as a society without challenging ourselves and our ideas every once in a while. In Coddling of the American Mind, the authors describe what happens when college students encounter little to no challenge in our lives. They can’t handle the smallest amount of adversity and have no methods of coping. Words are just words and have no hold except what you give them. Personally, I don’t want to live in a world where there is uniform thought and only certain approved words are spoken. That would be a very undiverse world. Diversity of thought is just as important as all of the other types of diversity. 

Yes, words evolve, but when a new one is introduced to replace the more antiquated unfashionable version, don’t they end up being used in the same way? Does it really make that much of a difference to use orphanage or foster kid? They are the same thing. Shouldn’t we just use “kid” in the song if we really don’t want to offend anyone? But that’s not what the song or the play is about. It’s about a girl who has no parents that lives in a home with other girls who have no parents and gets adopted by a millionaire. 

my mother and my brother-in-law were both schizophrenic. I have also had my own bouts with serious depression. I am not offended by the use of crazy/nuts as used colloquially, and I don't know anyone who applies it for those who are truly mentally ill.  I do know someone with a twisted sense of humor, who has dealt with mental illness first hand, who will use it to apply to themselves. (they find it easier to deal with things by making jokes.)

if there are people who don't like it, they don't need to use it.  I do think it's ridiculous for someone to tell me, or others, what terms I can and can't use to apply to myself.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Isn't that what people are doing? Challenging each other about our uses of certain words?

 

20 minutes ago, Plum Crazy said:

Well now, I guess I’ve been unknowingly offending people for years on this board. I’d insert an emoji here, but it would be enormous. I have a long history and attachment to my name. Yes, I love purple. I also wrote a story ages ago about a girl named Plumeria Castle. So there’s a bonus combo there. 

I’m not intentionally trying to hurt people with my name. I’m not purposely making fun of the mentally ill. There has to be some malicious intent for there to be real bullying; otherwise, isn’t it just a misunderstanding?

Freedom of speech is supposed to feel a little uncomfortable. We can’t grow as a society without challenging ourselves and our ideas every once in a while. In Coddling of the American Mind, the authors describe what happens when college students encounter little to no challenge in our lives. They can’t handle the smallest amount of adversity and have no methods of coping. Words are just words and have no hold except what you give them. Personally, I don’t want to live in a world where there is uniform thought and only certain approved words are spoken. That would be a very undiverse world. Diversity of thought is just as important as all of the other types of diversity. 

Yes, words evolve, but when a new one is introduced to replace the more antiquated unfashionable version, don’t they end up being used in the same way? Does it really make that much of a difference to use orphanage or foster kid? They are the same thing. Shouldn’t we just use “kid” in the song if we really don’t want to offend anyone? But that’s not what the song or the play is about. It’s about a girl who has no parents that lives in a home with other girls who have no parents and gets adopted by a millionaire. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, unsinkable said:

If I tell someone that their language is hurtful, I'm not censoring their speech.

ESPECIALLY online, on the internet, and on this board. Like I said, I've pointed out stuff that is offensive about epilepsy here and people laugh and continue to do so. It is like they double down and use it more often.

Use whatever language you want. Like I said, people tell you who they are with their words, good and bad.

 

Okay, I'll bite.  I know you object to the term "twitchy" when people use it to describe the physical sensation of sensory discomfort when something is visually/audibly/tactually bothersome because it can also be used to describe a seizure.  As someone with a history of seizures (and you know this) and who also uses the term "twitchy", partly because I literally twitch my fingers in the back of my hair when I'm anxious or something is causing sensory overload, I'm curious...

Is it offensive to those with severe GI conditions when someone says something "makes them queasy"?

Is it offensive to people without limbs when I say my arm feels like it's going to fall off after exercise?

Is it offensive to the families of drowning victims when I say I'm drowning in laundry?

Is it offensive to people with brain tumors or aneurysms when I say my headache is killing me?

Is it offensive to people who cannot walk when I say I'm going to run to the store?

Is it offensive to people with cardiac diseases to say you are heartbroken over something?

Is it just the term "twitchy" that's bothersome, or is it that something that concerns you very much does not get as much public acknowledgement as the sensitivity surrounding word usage and mental illness, and conversations like this become a convenient way to bring it to the forefront?  Is it offensive, or is this lobbying?  Believe me, I get it, because this is a bad habit I've had myself and I've been trying to break over time (and not always successfully).  It doesn't help clarify the initial dialogue, it clouds it.  I recognize I have a tendency to take an invisible third side in two-sided arguments, and pulling epilepsy, a disease without a history of throwing its sufferers into jail for their symptoms instead of treatment, into a conversation about mental illness stigma seems like exactly that.  I'm not saying that there is zero history of mistreatment of those with seizure disorders, but that those without those illnesses using a word to describe their own physical sensation does not meet the criteria of "offensive", even if it pales in comparison to the realities of living with a serious, chronic, life-altering disease.

It's okay to be bothered by flippant remarks.  Yeah, it bothers me, as someone with activity-limiting GI conditions who can barely drink water without feeling stuffed and nauseous, to hear people brag about how much they ate and joke how awful the stomach ache was and laugh off the consequences for their overindulgence.  Must be nice!  The bar for offensive is, IMO, higher and generally surrounds the systematic treatment, categorization, and mockery of a group of people as opposed to shining a flashlight in the face of one's individual challenges.

tl;dr: Symptoms aren't trademarked.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, moonflower said:

 

 

I disagree strongly that using language that hurts someone's feelings is unkind if the language is not directed at them and/or is a discussion of language and related issues.  I think that about much more controversial language than "nutter," though.

 

Using hurtful language in front of someone that the language is known to offend is unkind. It's unkind because you are choosing to use language you know is hurtful. That's pretty much the definition of unkind. 

12 hours ago, moonflower said:

Using language that hurts someone's feelings can be unkind, of course.  I'm just saying that it isn't automatically unkind by the fact of offending someone.

If you don't know it is going to be hurtful, of course that's different. But if you have been told, and now know, and purposely do it anyway, and then double down and say it is your right to say it and they shouldn't be offended by it anyway, that's unkind. 

12 hours ago, SeaConquest said:

 

Here's a radical idea. Instead of tiptoeing the "how can we be as close to unkind as possible" line without crossing it we just strive to be kind to marginalized folks? Is this really such a bother for people.

I'll give you another example. I posted an article on FB about Winky, this Bichon Frise competing in an agility tournament.

https://www.elle.com/culture/a26322782/winky-bichon-frise-westminster-dog-show-agility/

I wrote, "Winky is my spirit animal" with the post. Now, what did I mean by this? I meant that I love Winky. That this dog was so cool. That I love this dog so much that I could basically worship this dog (obviously, I jest). A friend of mine messaged me that my post could be offensive to indigenous people whose religious practices invoke actual spirit animals. I didn't debate with my friend about how that wasn't what I meant. How I didn't mean any harm. How I actually thought it was a compliment because Winky is rad, etc. I just changed the post to I heart Winky. How hard was that? Indigenous folks don't need to deal with more crap (from White folks, no less), and it certainly wasn't my intent to hurt anyone with my post. I'm not going to get all bent out of shape about the language police regulating my ability to use the term spirit animal. Just be kind.

Exactly. I learned about the word gypped here, and have stopped using it because why risk offending and hurting someone's feelings if there are other perfectly good ways to express the same thing that are not offensive? And yes, spirit animal is another one. I used it, learned it might be hurtful, so stopped using it. Why be hurtful if it can be avoided?

12 hours ago, moonflower said:

"Just be kind" as a way to censor speech doesn't interest me.  I'm not keen on being kind instead of honest, or kind instead of direct, or kind instead of thorough, or kind instead of insightful.  

 

For people with a decent vocabulary, and I'm sure you are one, it is possible to be both kind and honest, direct, thorough, and insightful. Might just take more effort. 

4 hours ago, unsinkable said:

If I tell someone that their language is hurtful, I'm not censoring their speech.

 

exactly

3 hours ago, moonflower said:

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, SeaConquest said:

 

Well, I suppose as long as you're not calling *me* specifically a faggot/nigger/tranny/retard/beaner/gook/cripple/nutjob/kike/midget, it's totally fine to refer to *other* people that way, you know, just generally speaking, or in jest.  Yeah, that seems perfectly cool. Nothing unkind about that at all. I'll stop taking this whole stigmatizing and ableist language thingy so seriously!

ETA: Hey look! There are even some other fragile flowers in the UK who agree with me! 

https://www.anti-bullyingalliance.org.uk/sites/default/files/field/attachment/Ato-Z-of-Offensive-language-FINAL.pdf

They must be nutters too!

 

They might be. Who knows. Most of those words I wouldn’t use but yeah some of them are ridiculous and presumptuous about how people feel and that everyone has malicious intent bc bullying requires malicious intent. 

For example, I know someone who is wheel-chair bound who laughed at saying that’s offensive. They are in that wheel chair because they were a victim and they absolutely do suffer their condition. I was discussing this with them and they were really pissed about this and felt it really makes light of the difficulty they endure everyday. It would never occur to them or anyone they know that saying something like, “they are a victim of drunk driving and now have to suffer the results for the rest of their lives because they are wheel chair bound”  as in any manner insulting or suggesting that God is punishing them. That’s a load of horse poop.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, BarbecueMom said:

Okay, I'll bite.  I know you object to the term "twitchy" when people use it to describe the physical sensation of sensory discomfort when something is visually/audibly/tactually bothersome because it can also be used to describe a seizure.  As someone with a history of seizures (and you know this) and who also uses the term "twitchy", partly because I literally twitch my fingers in the back of my hair when I'm anxious or something is causing sensory overload, I'm curious...

Is it offensive to those with severe GI conditions when someone says something "makes them queasy"?

Is it offensive to people without limbs when I say my arm feels like it's going to fall off after exercise?

Is it offensive to the families of drowning victims when I say I'm drowning in laundry?

Is it offensive to people with brain tumors or aneurysms when I say my headache is killing me?

Is it offensive to people who cannot walk when I say I'm going to run to the store?

Is it offensive to people with cardiac diseases to say you are heartbroken over something?

Is it just the term "twitchy" that's bothersome, or is it that something that concerns you very much does not get as much public acknowledgement as the sensitivity surrounding word usage and mental illness, and conversations like this become a convenient way to bring it to the forefront?  Is it offensive, or is this lobbying?  Believe me, I get it, because this is a bad habit I've had myself and I've been trying to break over time (and not always successfully).  It doesn't help clarify the initial dialogue, it clouds it.  I recognize I have a tendency to take an invisible third side in two-sided arguments, and pulling epilepsy, a disease without a history of throwing its sufferers into jail for their symptoms instead of treatment, into a conversation about mental illness stigma seems like exactly that.  I'm not saying that there is zero history of mistreatment of those with seizure disorders, but that those without those illnesses using a word to describe their own physical sensation does not meet the criteria of "offensive", even if it pales in comparison to the realities of living with a serious, chronic, life-altering disease.

It's okay to be bothered by flippant remarks.  Yeah, it bothers me, as someone with activity-limiting GI conditions who can barely drink water without feeling stuffed and nauseous, to hear people brag about how much they ate and joke how awful the stomach ache was and laugh off the consequences for their overindulgence.  Must be nice!  The bar for offensive is, IMO, higher and generally surrounds the systematic treatment, categorization, and mockery of a group of people as opposed to shining a flashlight in the face of one's individual challenges.

tl;dr: Symptoms aren't trademarked.

I actually said i wasn't going to get into it bc I know how people reacted before. It's fruitless. 

I'll just sit back and watch the increase in the use of the comments for their own tickles and grins.

 

 

 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, unsinkable said:

I actually said i wasn't going to get into it bc I know how people reacted before. It's fruitless. 

I'll just sit back and watch the increase in the use of the comments for their own tickles and grins.

 

 

 

 

I just wanted to say that it's possible the increase (if it's a popular thread in which you're discussing the term, which I'm pretty sure this one isn't), isn't because of deliberate malice but because the way language spreads in a population is familiarity.  I noticed this in myself a couple of days ago or maybe yesterday; I was inclined to (or maybe did?) use "nutty," I think, which is actually a term I almost never use, just not part of my normal vocab.  I do use crazy, insane, etc.  But I think talking and thinking about it here put it more in my mind and so it became part of my language.  I bet some of the increase is due to that kind of thing.

 

I don't think people "shouldn't be offended" by this or that - being offended is an emotion, and not necessarily under conscious control.  I think that just the fact of someone's emotion about language doesn't require or even indicate a change in the use of that language when the purpose of the language is to communicate, not to reinforce or change emotions.

So if I'm trying to make someone feel good, which interpersonally I often am, it makes sense not to make them unhappy and offended by using a term that hurts their feelings.  That is a different situation, for me, than when I'm talking about something separately on the internet - either something not to do with language, in which the language is incidental, or something about language or the issue, in which the language is central - in a way that is abstract instead of interpersonal, largely speaking.  In the second situation, I'm trying to get at a better understanding of the truth, not protect (or hurt) someone's feelings.

This is because, for me, the truth has value.  EDIT: I didn't mean that it doesn't have value to everyone, that sounded snide.  I mean that in this context, truth has ultimate value for me, and I believe only open, free speech really elucidates truth.

Edited by moonflower
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...