Community college inappropriateness vent

[Bluegoat]

20 hours ago, SeaConquest said:

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.

 

I'd not say anything similar while saying "mental health patient" either, so I'm not sure you examples are really fit for purpose.  You might remember that the original comment wasn't referencing mental health patients at all, but a particular psychiatrist.  You really are and have been talking about ideas that have little reference to what I said, whatever you feel about them.

[SeaConquest]

21 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

I'd not say anything similar while saying "mental health patient" either, so I'm not sure you examples are really fit for purpose.  You might remember that the original comment wasn't referencing mental health patients at all, but a particular psychiatrist.  You really are and have been talking about ideas that have little reference to what I said, whatever you feel about them.

 

I live on the beach in San Diego, where homeless folks with untreated mental illness are very common. People say these types of things regularly about the mentally ill here. We also have incredibly easy access to guns in the United States, and every time there is a mass shooting, people blame the mentally ill (despite the fact that statistics show that the mentally ill are the ones more likely to be the victims of crime vs the perpetrators https://www.nami.org/learn-more/mental-health-public-policy/violence-and-gun-reporting-laws). Nevertheless, people will makes these types of statements about how that nutcase is clearly off his rocker, etc. and should burn in hell. We don't treat people in the United States -- especially males and minorities -- we incarcerate them. And we don't want to deal with our gun problem. We want to blame the nutjobs/mentally ill.

ETA: And I get that I'm coming from a completely different cultural perspective from others where they have universal healthcare and, you know, sensible gun control. I am sure that it's hard to imagine how out of control the U.S. has become.

Edited February 22, 2019 by SeaConquest

[moonflower]

I think with regard to mass shooters, a lot of people think that people who commit really heinous and, I don't know, what seem like no-win-situation-impersonal crimes are in some way mentally ill, and also that they should be held responsible for doing something so awful.

So like with say Adam Lanza, who shot all the 1st graders - that does seem like mental illness to me.  I'm not a psychologist, I have no idea how his mind worked, but something that extreme makes no sense to me outside of the context of mental illness.  I can understand why a guy comes home and kills his wife if she's cheating on him, or why someone commits a home invasion looking for money and ends up killing the people at home, or why a gang member kills a member of a rival gang after an encroachment of territory.  These things are not things I would do but they make sense to me in the scheme of human behavior.  Killing twenty 6 year olds makes no sense to me outside of the context of mental illness.  I still think society should stigmatize the behavior, though, even if it is the result of mental illness; it's a disruptive and, imo, evil behavior, regardless of cause.

Now, mass shootings where it's like a guy shows up at a rival gang member's corner and shoots up the street and hits 4 people or something, that doesn't read mental illness to me and I don't tend to hear people saying that it does (although esp. if he kills an innocent kid, people still want him to burn in hell).  

 

[Bluegoat]

14 hours ago, SeaConquest said:

 

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.

 

I'm not sure where you got the idea that not being linked to violence was the reasoning.  

 

[Bluegoat]

25 minutes ago, SeaConquest said:

 

I live on the beach in San Diego, where homeless folks with untreated mental illness are very common. People say these types of things regularly about the mentally ill here. We also have incredibly easy access to guns in the United States, and every time there is a mass shooting, people blame the mentally ill (despite the fact that statistics show that the mentally ill are the ones more likely to be the victims of crime vs the perpetrators https://www.nami.org/learn-more/mental-health-public-policy/violence-and-gun-reporting-laws). Nevertheless, people will makes these types of statements about how that nutcase is clearly off his rocker, etc. and should burn in hell. We don't treat people in the United States -- especially males and minorities -- we incarcerate them. And we don't want to deal with our gun problem. We want to blame the nutjobs/mentally ill.

ETA: And I get that I'm coming from a completely different cultural perspective from others where they have universal healthcare and, you know, sensible gun control. I am sure that it's hard to imagine how out of control the U.S. has become.

 

Yes, I am not debating that some people think that way and express those thoughts, or that they can have significant effect.  Prisons are full of mentally ill people here as well.

I am suggesting that the problem with those comments, and these kinds of situations, is the content of the thoughts.  They would be equally problematic using the approved language.

I am not sure whether nutcase is equivalent to nutter, fwiw.  But neither is equivalent to mental health patient or mental health sufferer, and that was not the context of the remark.  

Communication is not about checking the boxes of rightspeech.  It's about communicating ideas and depends on context, always.  If I'd said that mentally ill people, using any type of language, should be shot, that would be worthy of challenging - the idea, not the particular words.  

The drive to rightspeech is not helping American society overcome its problems - if anything it is a factor in the continuing disintegration of the social fabric.

[unsinkable]

3 hours 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 was going to let this go but I thought I'd let the general public know some facts and not let your ignorance stand:

People are arrested bc of epilepsy, and thrown in jail, and sometimes die there. 

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2675812&page=1

As to why I brought epilepsy and language up...i brought it up bc it fits with the conversation and I have experience with it. *These words (XYZ) are hurtful to (ABC).* I also said I wasn't going to fill in the blanks bc of the YEARS of responses here. Yeah, you saw twitchy but there has been other situations. But, USE ANY WORDS YOU (general you) WANT.

I dont need public acknowledgement of anything to do with epilepsy, considering the impact I watch my  daughter live with daily and how caring for her impacts my life. as for the "and you know this" comment...what the heck? yeah, I trusted you with a lot of private, personal struggles my daughter is going through and it feels like this whole post of yours is just a big "STFU, unsinkable."

[J-rap]

8 hours ago, unsinkable said:

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.

Well, I think it's only related if you want it to be.  It can also describe a situation that has nothing to do with mental illness, but simply describes an "off" or illogical situation or person.   A lot of words are like that.   Same as "crazy."   I might say that I had a "crazy" day at work, or that my workload is "crazy" these days, but I do not mean mentally ill.  Or I could use the word "mad" as in "I'm madly in love with you!" -- and it does not imply a mental illness.

[moonflower]

5 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

 

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. 

 

 

 

I hear this all the time from people who don't like cursing.  It's not accurate.  "Spirit animal," used colloquially like SeaConquest was using it, has different connotations and means a different thing than "I love my dog."

Similarly, bullsh#$ means something different than "argument I find invalid," and f#@cking bullsh#$ means something else again.

 

[Bluegoat]

5 minutes ago, moonflower said:

 

I hear this all the time from people who don't like cursing.  It's not accurate.  "Spirit animal," used colloquially like SeaConquest was using it, has different connotations and means a different thing than "I love my dog."

Similarly, bullsh#$ means something different than "argument I find invalid," and f#@cking bullsh#$ means something else again.

 

 

I really wonder how much of this kind of disagreement is about cultural context, and how much is about feelings about language and the degree to which particular words have different meanings. 

[unsinkable]

1 hour ago, J-rap said:

Well, I think it's only related if you want it to be.  It can also describe a situation that has nothing to do with mental illness, but simply describes an "off" or illogical situation or person.   A lot of words are like that.   Same as "crazy."   I might say that I had a "crazy" day at work, or that my workload is "crazy" these days, but I do not mean mentally ill.  Or I could use the word "mad" as in "I'm madly in love with you!" -- and it does not imply a mental illness.

Are you really saying you've never heard the words you used to describe a situation to describe a mentally ill person? That they "don't make sense, confusing, off the mark. "

Because I have. ..And that is what I'm saying. You're saying a situation is nuts and describing it as "doesn't make sense, confusing, off the mark." And I'm saying I've heard people with mental illness described similarly.

I know a *situation* can't be mentally ill. Are you really saying that's what you think I meant?

[unsinkable]

20 minutes ago, moonflower said:

 

I hear this all the time from people who don't like cursing.  It's not accurate.  "Spirit animal," used colloquially like SeaConquest was using it, has different connotations and means a different thing than "I love my dog."

Similarly, bullsh#$ means something different than "argument I find invalid," and f#@cking bullsh#$ means something else again.

 

I've heard motherf*cker means "that guy" if you're from Detroit.

[BarbecueMom]

49 minutes ago, unsinkable said:

i was going to let this go but I thought I'd let the general public know some facts and not let your ignorance stand:

People are arrested bc of epilepsy, and thrown in jail, and sometimes die there. 

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2675812&page=1

As to why I brought epilepsy and language up...i brought it up bc it fits with the conversation and I have experience with it. *These words (XYZ) are hurtful to (ABC).* I also said I wasn't going to fill in the blanks bc of the YEARS of responses here. Yeah, you saw twitchy but there has been other situations. But, USE ANY WORDS YOU (general you) WANT.

I dont need public acknowledgement of anything to do with epilepsy, considering the impact I watch my  daughter live with daily and how caring for her impacts my life. as for the "and you know this" comment...what the heck? yeah, I trusted you with a lot of private, personal struggles my daughter is going through and it feels like this whole post of yours is just a big "STFU, unsinkable."

I should not have made my words so pointed and accusatory, and assumed that bringing up my own personal experience (other than the specific word and your own  public posts I never mentioned anything about your situation) would aid in making my point and that backfired.  I apologize for that.  I saw some of my own tendencies in the post, jumped on it, and didn’t word it well.

 I still don’t believe that any word or phrase that can be connected to any condition is off-limits for off-label use in general (not direct, personal) conversation, provided that it is not derogatory towards a group or used as an insult.  You may disagree, and that’s fine.  It’s stressful, especially for someone like me with a degree of social anxiety, to have it frequently pointed out that it’s not good enough to be kind, to avoid derogatory language, or to avoid insults or put downs of any specific group.  That all conversation is an exercise in constant vigilance and running through a list of everyone’s possible situation in order to avoid certain phrases.   I can’t agree an honest description of one’s own physical sensation is 100% wrong to use ever because it might personally bothersome to someone who might hear or read it (again, general conversation, not personal 1-on-1 type interactions).  I can recognize that you find it personally bothersome (and I realize I was assuming this was what you are referring to, based on previous threads) , while also recognizing that it doesn’t apply to a discussion of an insult, whether that insult is offensive or not.

I do agree with you that many medical conditions end up misunderstood and that lack of knowledge causes tragedies.  That is relevant to the slightly earlier discussion that set this particular tangent off.  And there are certainly enough derogatory terms for every health problem out there to fill a dictionary.  But it doesn’t help to change our interactions for the better if we try to tie in every word or phrase that personally bugs us to the List of Culturally Unacceptable Words.  At some point, it becomes easier just to avoid talking to new people all together.  Our world is not better for that.

Again, I’m sorry I got personal.  Like I said, I saw my own tendency in that post and thought I could relate, but I could have kept my mouth shut.

[Bluegoat]

5 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

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. 

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. 

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?

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. 

exactly

 

 

This doesn't leave much room for the possibility that the person who dislikes the word does so for reasons that are in some way inaccurate, or purely apply to themselves, and it might be a better idea for them to rethink their relationship to that language.  

This idea of language being hurtful - well, sure it can be. Mostly if someone is trying to use it that way, or the content in itself is hurtful, telling someone they are worthless, ugly, etc.  But the sense that certain words are in themselves, no matter what the content, hurtful, is really debilitating in so many ways - for communication obviously  but also for the individual.  If saying something using the "right" word would be ok, it might be reasonable to question if something really different is meant using the "wrong" word.  We all bring our own experience, and we don't  know what others have - why put ourselves in a position when our own issues get hung on the words of others that are not meant to carry them - that is not good for mental health and it's worth going to the effort to try and get past that kind of offence.

 

 

[J-rap]

31 minutes ago, unsinkable said:

Are you really saying you've never heard the words you used to describe a situation to describe a mentally ill person? That they "don't make sense, confusing, off the mark. "

Because I have. ..And that is what I'm saying. You're saying a situation is nuts and describing it as "doesn't make sense, confusing, off the mark." And I'm saying I've heard people with mental illness described similarly.

I know a *situation* can't be mentally ill. Are you really saying that's what you think I meant?

No, that's not what I'm saying...  I guess I'm trying to explain that sometimes a word can mean something completely different to different people.   And at least in my experience and in the circle of people I'm with, it's not used in the way you suggest.  

But yes, of course I've heard it (not by people I personally know) used in the way you suggest, but to be honest -- even then, I don't think it's about someone who simply has a mental illness.  (Aren't most of us somewhere on some sort of mental spectrum?)   It would be more about someone who has a mental illness that is completely uncontrolled.  So the word "nutters" is really not about the mental illness as much as the craziness that results from an uncontrolled mental illness.  I hope that makes sense.  I really mean no offense here.  Just trying to clarify. 

[moonflower]

I wonder if part of the issue is that we use some words in ways that suggest we've stigmatized mental illness, or disability.  Or maybe not stigmatized, exactly, but viewed negatively.

So like, for crazy, when I say, "man, that lady driving too fast in the parking lot is crazy!" what I'm saying is that the lady is behaving in a way that is outside the social norm and destabilizing and possibly harmful, and I'm using a term that connects the behavior to mental illness, because there is a general social/linguistic connotation that some mental illness leads to behavior that is outside the norm, socially destabilizing, and possibly harmful.

And for me, maybe, this linguistic connotation makes sense and I don't perceive it as hate speech, or harmful speech, because I do actually think that the lady is behaving in a destabilizing way and that some mental illness leads to destabilizing behavior, or is a way of describing a tendency toward destabilizing behavior.

Is that the kind of thing you all mean, where you would find the use of crazy in that scenario unacceptable language because it stigmatizes mental illness?  

 

[Bluegoat]

36 minutes ago, unsinkable said:

Are you really saying you've never heard the words you used to describe a situation to describe a mentally ill person? That they "don't make sense, confusing, off the mark. "

Because I have. ..And that is what I'm saying. You're saying a situation is nuts and describing it as "doesn't make sense, confusing, off the mark." And I'm saying I've heard people with mental illness described similarly.

I know a *situation* can't be mentally ill. Are you really saying that's what you think I meant?

 

Language can be related, even closely, without the one use being a comment on the other.  It's pretty common really.

 

[unsinkable]

23 minutes ago, BarbecueMom said:

I should not have made my words so pointed and accusatory, and assumed that bringing up my own personal experience (other than the specific word and your own  public posts I never mentioned anything about your situation) would aid in making my point and that backfired.  I apologize for that.  I saw some of my own tendencies in the post, jumped on it, and didn’t word it well.

 I still don’t believe that any word or phrase that can be connected to any condition is off-limits for off-label use in general (not direct, personal) conversation, provided that it is not derogatory towards a group or used as an insult.  You may disagree, and that’s fine.  It’s stressful, especially for someone like me with a degree of social anxiety, to have it frequently pointed out that it’s not good enough to be kind, to avoid derogatory language, or to avoid insults or put downs of any specific group.  That all conversation is an exercise in constant vigilance and running through a list of everyone’s possible situation in order to avoid certain phrases.   I can’t agree an honest description of one’s own physical sensation is 100% wrong to use ever because it might personally bothersome to someone who might hear or read it (again, general conversation, not personal 1-on-1 type interactions).  I can recognize that you find it personally bothersome (and I realize I was assuming this was what you are referring to, based on previous threads) , while also recognizing that it doesn’t apply to a discussion of an insult, whether that insult is offensive or not.

I do agree with you that many medical conditions end up misunderstood and that lack of knowledge causes tragedies.  That is relevant to the slightly earlier discussion that set this particular tangent off.  And there are certainly enough derogatory terms for every health problem out there to fill a dictionary.  But it doesn’t help to change our interactions for the better if we try to tie in every word or phrase that personally bugs us to the List of Culturally Unacceptable Words.  At some point, it becomes easier just to avoid talking to new people all together.  Our world is not better for that.

Again, I’m sorry I got personal.  Like I said, I saw my own tendency in that post and thought I could relate, but I could have kept my mouth shut.

thank you for explaining. It means a lot to me.

I'm sorry about conversations like this, and my part in them, add to your social anxiety. I will keep that in mind if I try to address this type of situation  again.

[Bluegoat]

12 minutes ago, moonflower said:

I wonder if part of the issue is that we use some words in ways that suggest we've stigmatized mental illness, or disability.  Or maybe not stigmatized, exactly, but viewed negatively.

So like, for crazy, when I say, "man, that lady driving too fast in the parking lot is crazy!" what I'm saying is that the lady is behaving in a way that is outside the social norm and destabilizing and possibly harmful, and I'm using a term that connects the behavior to mental illness, because there is a general social/linguistic connotation that some mental illness leads to behavior that is outside the norm, socially destabilizing, and possibly harmful.

And for me, maybe, this linguistic connotation makes sense and I don't perceive it as hate speech, or harmful speech, because I do actually think that the lady is behaving in a destabilizing way and that some mental illness leads to destabilizing behavior, or is a way of describing a tendency toward destabilizing behavior.

Is that the kind of thing you all mean, where you would find the use of crazy in that scenario unacceptable language because it stigmatizes mental illness?  

 

 

I don't know that it would be possible to separate people's perception of certain mental issues to problems.  I think of the kinds of threads we see here fairly regularly talking about NPD - a description of a personality disorder.  They tend to give the term a pretty negative connotation, understandably so.  I'd not call that stigmatising though.

[J-rap]

To try and explain a little more...

I just think it's difficult to keep up with everything!  The world has gotten so small, and I do believe it's important that we try to keep up with what's considered kind and appropriate, not just in our community but across the world.  I think that's a good thing to aim for.  But I think what it boils down to for me is that we'll never keep up completely, and we all come from such different backgrounds and such.  Sometimes, words can hold completely different meanings to different people.  Other times, people are just naive.  I think it's more important to look at the intent behind the words, and let that be the final judge.

As examples...

We might laughingly say "bloody" after watching Harry Potter movies, but if we lived in England, that might be very offensive.  

Some people say the expletive "Jesus Christ!" or even "Jeezus" (which I've always understood to be an offshoot of Jesus) when they're mad or frustrated, and that could easily be offensive to me because that name is sacred to me.  But I know that anyone using his name that way does not mean it to be personally offensive, nor would they hold the same beliefs as I do.  So why would I hold it against them and expect the world to change?

Or if someone says something like "She's going to be so mad she'll have a stroke!" in front of me, when my own dh actually had a big, bad stroke that was so debilitating that he'll never be the same again or hold a job again or drive again or on and on and on.  But I know without a doubt that they don't mean it to be offensive.  They've just never been confronted with that situation and are probably somewhat naive.

Our state is slowly changing location names back to their original native American names, and I support that whole-heartedly.  But some of those names I can't even pronounce and the old names were in existence for generations.  I try, but I stumble over or forget the new changes all the time.  And I'm sure my parents' generation (in their 90's) will never get it right.  Sometimes, change happens slowly.  It doesn't mean bad intent.

I guess it just seems like there are too many more important things in the world to worry about than the exact language people use who come from a different perspective and experience than our own.  Intent is everything.   And of course if the intent is meant to be unkind, then that changes everything.

I believe I understand what you're saying though (Unsinkable).  And, I can't imagine how I'd feel if I told people not to say "She's going to be so mad she'll have a stroke" in front of me and then they decided to say it even more.  That might change how I look at all of this.  I'm sorry you've had that experience with words related to epilepsy.  (I have three family members with epilepsy, and my dh only developed it after his stroke), and I'm sure I'd be very upset if people in my "circle" kept using words that felt unkind to me and that I specifically asked them not to use in my presence.

Edited February 22, 2019 by J-rap

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

 

This doesn't leave much room for the possibility that the person who dislikes the word does so for reasons that are in some way inaccurate, or purely apply to themselves, and it might be a better idea for them to rethink their relationship to that language.  

.

 

 

Why can't you just not use the word in front of that person, if you know it bothers them, rather than expecting them to change and stop being bothered by it?

54 minutes ago, J-rap said:

To try and explain a little more...

I just think it's difficult to keep up with everything!  The world has gotten so small, and I do believe it's important that we try to keep up with what's considered kind and appropriate, not just in our community but across the world.  I think that's a good thing to aim for.  But I think what it boils down to for me is that we'll never keep up completely, and we all come from such different backgrounds and such.

Right, and I think everyone has said that using a term inadvertently is fine, and that grace should be given based on the intent. But that doesn't mean that one shouldn't try. Once someone tells you directly that it bothers them, it behooves you to try to stop using it, rather than insist you can if you want to and they shouldn't be bothered by it, which is what some seem to be saying. A "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" thing, where we shouldn't give up trying just because we won't be perfect. (not that you are saying that)

[gardenmom5]

43 minutes ago, StellaM said:

OMG, anyone would think that - instead of apologising and sending good wishes and affirming and reaffirming the offended posters career plans, which is what actually happened - the original n*tcase user - me! - had then spent an entire thread calling that poster a n*tcase - which didn't happen. 

You are all carrying on like pork chops.

I feel you are all very lucky people if the level of your oppression is a random Aussie using slang on the interwebz.

 

that is a colloquialism in use in the US, so I don't understand why people are  claiming it ISN'T used in the US.  I have a hard time believing it's merely regional.

and I've never heard it applied to someone with a genuine mental illness.

[unsinkable]

1 hour ago, StellaM said:

OMG, anyone would think that - instead of apologising and sending good wishes and affirming and reaffirming the offended posters career plans, which is what actually happened - the original n*tcase user - me! - had then spent an entire thread calling that poster a n*tcase - which didn't happen. 

You are all carrying on like pork chops.

I feel you are all very lucky people if the level of your oppression is a random Aussie using slang on the interwebz.

 

As a person who has an ass like 2 hams in a sack, I am offended by your use of pork chops.

[unsinkable]

2 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

lol, I knew someone would be! smiley

I don't speak for all Ham-assed; only for myself...

[Bluegoat]

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

Why can't you just not use the word in front of that person, if you know it bothers them, rather than expecting them to change and stop being bothered by it?

 

 

That might be the best thing to do, sometimes.  I don't think it is actually always best to take this kind of approach, even with individuals.

But there is a big difference between what you might call a pastoral response to an individual you are having a personal interaction with, and saying as a point of principle that if a person has bad feelings about a word or language choice, those are always intellectually and socially valid and should therefore be avoided by people, regardless of the foundations of that feeling.

[SKL]

Personally, words aside, when I see someone acting erratic, I always think of actual mental illness as a real possibility.  Why not?  The older I get, the more I think that what is usually thought of as intentional jerk behavior or jerk personalities is actually a mental disorder - one that may or may not justify treatment - and if so, for which the individual may already be in treatment for all we know.

So if I said something about the person possibly having mental illness, it would not be a joke or a slur.