Freedom Of Speech.

[Mister M 1,627]

I'll bear it in mind.

 

---------- Post added 24-05-2018 at 20:43 ----------

 

There seems to be some confusion between political correctness and ideas.

 

Ideas should most definitely NOT be suppressed, no matter how distasteful or inconvenient some people may find them. I'd say that the more distasteful or inconvenient an idea is, the more it should be discussed.

 

Maybe that's a point you have....On the occasions I watch Question Time, whenever a panellist says there should be a 2nd referendum on EU membership, the audience seems to have a fit of hissing and booing, and the person who makes the suggestion is shouted down.

[leviathan13 350]

Freedom of speech:

 

I don't like black people (not my thoughts, just a line used for my point)

 

 

Hate speech/harassment:

 

Standing outside someone's door shouting abuse about that person because of their sex/gender/race etc.

[Ms Macbeth 76]

Learning disability. People with learning disabilities and their advocates really dislike the term subnormal - and most people stopped using it around 30 years ago.

 

People who are open to learning are happy to change the words they use. There were words used when I was a kid in the 50s that I'd blush to hear now. People were far more insular and less aware that some terms were offensive and hurtful. We are exposed to far more information nowadays and must take responsibility for what we say and write.

[ENG601PM 10]

People who are open to learning are happy to change the words they use. There were words used when I was a kid in the 50s that I'd blush to hear now. People were far more insular and less aware that some terms were offensive and hurtful. We are exposed to far more information nowadays and must take responsibility for what we say and write.

 

I'm certainly open to learning. That said I used the word in a very strict literal sense, ie mentally sub normal to the wider population, not with reference to any learning issue or with any wider societal insinuation and certainly not in a pejorative way.

 

There are some sensitivities that have a time and place, but I didn't feel that this was one, in the same way that (for example) Halibut might have a spastic hand, but I wouldn't go calling him a spastic.

 

As I said, context is everything.

[Guest]

The time has come I feel for black people to stop using the N word.

[ENG601PM 10]

The time has come I feel for black people to stop using the N word.

 

I feel that the time has come for anyone to be able to use the word in context. All this "N word" nonsense is embarrassing for grown ups. It's like throwing salt over your shoulder in case the devil appears.

[Eater Sundae 12]

I feel that the time has come for anyone to be able to use the word in context. All this "N word" nonsense is embarrassing for grown ups. It's like throwing salt over your shoulder in case the devil appears.

 

Which N word?

 

The six letter one, or the less offensive (but still unacceptable, I believe) five letter one?

 

While ever it is unacceptable to use a word, even if trying to discuss the word itself, then we are setting ourselves back.

 

Using a word in a pejorative way is unacceptable, and should be challenged, in my opinion. But using the same word simply as a means of communication, particularly when discussing the word itself, should be OK.

 

Automatic algorithms to pick up unacceptable words don't help, as they don't (or can't) differentiate.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2018 at 17:26 ----------

 

I remember once being accused by another poster on a forum (possibly Sheffield Forum, I can't remember) of using masked swearing in the form of "****", which was against forum rules.

 

They had assumed I had written **** to represent the well known 4 letter word beginning with F. I had in fact written a four letter word beginning with C, usually used to describe a male bird. I had not in my own mind seen it as swearing and just typed the word in full. Algorithms within the forum software obviously took it as swearing and changed each letter to a *.

 

I would much prefer if people were allowed to post what they want, and then to stand and fall by their actions, including prosecution if appropriate. Forum administrators could retrospectibely remove unacceptable posts.

 

I realise it wont happen as the employment costs would be prohibitive, so we are stuck with crude algorithms. I just think it detracts from fully effective communication.

 

Another pet hate is one letter followed by asterisks. Does <removed> refer to male dangly bits or people whose parentage is open to question? And who are we protecting by using asterisks in the first place?

Edited May 25, 2018 by nikki-red

[Mister M 1,627]

I'm certainly open to learning. That said I used the word in a very strict literal sense, ie mentally sub normal to the wider population, not with reference to any learning issue or with any wider societal insinuation and certainly not in a pejorative way.

 

There are some sensitivities that have a time and place, but I didn't feel that this was one, in the same way that (for example) Halibut might have a spastic hand, but I wouldn't go calling him a spastic.

 

As I said, context is everything.

 

Even if I intended 'mentally sub normal' to be used in a strict literal sense I still wouldn't use it, because the term, whatever the context, has horrible connotations.

It's interesting that you bring up the word spastic. When I was younger, it was seen as a mean name kids would call one another. The charity, the Spastic Society had to change it's name to 'SCOPE', because the name spastic was used as a term of abuse.

 

It's a shame because the English language is rich with lots of words that people could use.

[ENG601PM 10]

Even if I intended 'mentally sub normal' to be used in a strict literal sense I still wouldn't use it, because the term, whatever the context, has horrible connotations.

 

Why?

 

If I said that you are physically sub normal would you be as offended? I expect not if it was a strict literal description of your physical prowess.

 

It's a bit too easy to be offended, especially on someone else's behalf, without thinking it through.

Edited May 25, 2018 by ENG601PM

[Mister M 1,627]

Why?

 

If I said that you are physically sub normal would you be as offended? I expect not if it was a strict literal description of your physical prowess.

 

It's a bit too easy to be offended, especially on someone else's behalf, without thinking it through.

 

It has been thought through. I'm sure you didn't initially mean to cause offence, I'm okay with leaving it at that.

[Eater Sundae 12]

Which N word?

 

The six letter one, or the less offensive (but still unacceptable, I believe) five letter one?

 

While ever it is unacceptable to use a word, even if trying to discuss the word itself, then we are setting ourselves back.

 

Using a word in a pejorative way is unacceptable, and should be challenged, in my opinion. But using the same word simply as a means of communication, particularly when discussing the word itself, should be OK.

 

Automatic algorithms to pick up unacceptable words don't help, as they don't (or can't) differentiate.

 

---------- Post added 25-05-2018 at 17:26 ----------

 

I remember once being accused by another poster on a forum (possibly Sheffield Forum, I can't remember) of using masked swearing in the form of "****", which was against forum rules.

 

They had assumed I had written **** to represent the well known 4 letter word beginning with F. I had in fact written a four letter word beginning with C, usually used to describe a male bird. I had not in my own mind seen it as swearing and just typed the word in full. Algorithms within the forum software obviously took it as swearing and changed each letter to a *.

 

I would much prefer if people were allowed to post what they want, and then to stand and fall by their actions, including prosecution if appropriate. Forum administrators could retrospectibely remove unacceptable posts.

 

I realise it wont happen as the employment costs would be prohibitive, so we are stuck with crude algorithms. I just think it detracts from fully effective communication.

 

Another pet hate is one letter followed by asterisks. Does <removed> refer to male dangly bits or people whose parentage is open to question? And who are we protecting by using asterisks in the first place?

 

Ha ha. I’ve just noticed that something I wrote in the last paragraph above was automatically removed, further supporting my point.

[Annie Bynnol 613]

"Mentally subnormal" is an inadequate term long superseded by more accurate terms.

 

Fifty years ago the term was associated with institutions that relied on a 'tick box' system of assessment.

Those institutions functioned more to separate people from mentally normal and condemned the individual to a life of isolation.

The term became associated in some peoples minds with all the prejudices of the day towards 'different' people.

Thankfully society, medicine and science no longer regard people as being "mentally subnormal" and condemn them to institutions.

 

Parents would not identify their own children as being "mentally subnormal" and would find a person who said that ignorant of their child's situation and needs. It is very hurtful to hear sniggers and whispers of such words and phrases which are thankfully becoming less frequent.