Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Kermit, Florida on June 21, 2011:

"Making words like 'retarded' and 'queer' taboo just give them more power to hurt. Embracing them takes that hurtful power away."

George Fox, centuries ago, knew this. George had persuaded a few folks to worship according to their own feelings. Some of these folks "quaked" during their enthusiastic worship.

Other people started calling them Quakers.

When asked, what should they do about being so called,
George said that they should accept the name. Let others call you what they will. Use their name for you if it helps you to talk with them.

Posted by Phil, New Hampshire on June 21, 2011:

I hear you 100% there. I was in an accident in 1999 -- I was T-boned on my motorcycle by a woman driving a full size Mercury station wagon, who was attempting to make an illegal left turn across a divided expressway -- and 12 years later, I still can't walk without my left foot breaking open and bleeding. (I'm due for another attempt to at least partially fix it very soon now.) Between that and PTSD, according to the Social Security Administration I am 100% disabled. It was very hard to learn to accept that.

There is a difference between "disabled" and "crippled". I can do most things as well as anyone else. I can still do many of them better than most. There's just ... some things I can't do at all. Run, for example, or jump or squat. My injuries are disabling. They are not crippling.

But I am not "physically challenged" or "differently abled" or any of that whining, bed-wetting crap.

I think where I'm going with this is that political correctness, in its ceaseless quest to sanitize anything, anywhere that might somehow, for any reason, possibly offend someone, somewhere, ends up flattening all distinctions and degrees, and rendering EVERYTHING trite and trivial. Actually acknowledging that some people have difficulties to overcome or that some people are treated unfairly becomes lost in the headlong rush to find the most inoffensive, bloodless, colorless, neutral, mealy-mouthed words to talk about them in.

Do you know what I think the real goal of political correctness is? I think it's to make it impossible to speak meaningfully AT ALL about any subject that bothers, offends, alarms or frightens the mavens of political correctness. It is thought control through censorship. They are trying to excise concepts with which they are not comfortable from the language, and replace them with meaningless mouth noises that can be nodded at with deep, deep concern and then dismissed from their thoughts.

Political correctness and zero tolerance are two sides of the same coin. They are just different kinds of moral and intellectual cowardice.

---

I'm with you, brother. And who is it that can't stand the word "crippled" or "disabled"? People who aren't. How nice for them, but I don't need their patronizing attitudes. If you see someone needs help carrying something, help them! (or at least offer). It doesn't matter if they're "disabled" or perfectly fine: if they need help, help them. Is that too difficult? But spare me their pity, and I'll spare them mine -- for having to live with their tiny little brains and hearts. Maybe. -rc

Posted by Harmon, Texas on June 21, 2011:

One hurtful phrase and its demise that I have always treasured is the insult "Yankee Doodle," which the British used to insult the revolutionaries, as someone who was less than intelligent, less than cultured, less than human. And then the revolutionaries turned it around and beat them with it.

Posted by Robert, Alabama on June 21, 2011:

Regarding the evolution of descriptive labels, the one I find most frustrating, aggravating, and mind boggling is how being on the public dole, i.e. "welfare," evolved into programs that are referred to collectively as "entitlement." Not only is welfare no longer stigmatized, it's fully embraced by one of the political parties, both political parties are afraid to touch them, and we've created a population that for many years hasn't even thought about providing for their own retirement, instead letting the government take care of that for them.

Posted by Joe- Wisconsin on June 21, 2011:

Would the "N" word (I think they are Afro-Americans now...but I can't keep up) fall into this category. After all isn't negro just a reference to the color brown? Or am I mis-informed?

Posted by Mike from Dallas on June 21, 2011:

Ah, geez, if we refuse to show any film that has any word in it that might offend someone, then that will include every single film ever made, including the most G-rated Disney films you could find. What a bunch of retards!

A person CHOOSES to be offended. One cannot control the actions or words of another, but one CAN choose a reaction to it. To claim otherwise is to acknowledge no human intelligence; just brainless response to stimuli. And to stupidly follow others in what we "should" find offensive reinforces that lack of intelligence. You know, like retards.

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." ~ Eleanore Roosevelt

Posted by Lucy, Texas on June 21, 2011:

"any of that whining, bed-wetting crap." Hold on, pal. Self-definition is important. It is far from "whiny, bed-wetting crap."

I know why the terms keep changing. Because well-meaning people do not seem to understand that changing the name of something won't change the negative attitude of those who use the name as a pejorative. Some people can walk up to me and call me a dyke and I'll laugh. Others might do that and get a good slap in the mouth. It's all in tone of voice.

So what do I think of censoring "Napoleon Dynamite"? :: eye roll :: The Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech, not freedom from being offended. If you don't like the book/movie/play/song, turn it off or put it down but don't go around telling me I shouldn't listen, read or watch. If I do and I'm offended, that is my problem.

Posted by Angi, Texas on June 21, 2011:

It seems to me pc terminology is the worst kind of dishonesty. You're having to tapdance around terminology to say something that can be said with one word, and in that dance you lose a lot of the meaning. When a word is invented for no other reason than to be rude and hurtful I could see wanting to eliminate it (I wouldn't do it, it's like burning books, but I could understand it). But these terms are all replacements for useful terminology that is deemed unacceptable for whatever reason.

The evolution of shell shock is understandable since the phrase refers to something that you can suffer whether you've been "shelled" or in a war. I myself suffer from PTSD and I've never been in a war. The word retard however was initially defined as "slow". That's it. People didn't like the word retard, so it became something that sounded much prettier, less stressful. Unfortunately this bleeding heart generation cannot seem to recognize the fact that sometimes awful things happen and the best thing to do is face them and deal, not try to make them sound prettier. If they would put even half the efforts into DOING something (not just donating money) that they do in bitching about what word is used they'd probably accomplish a lot more.

It doesn't matter if I'm going deaf or have become hearing challenged, because in the end I still have to face the fact that I will not hear anymore and all the pretty words in the world won't change it.

Posted by Graham, Brisbane Australia on June 21, 2011:

Robert of Alabama raises an interesting point about 'welfare' which is (he argues) being softened to 'entitlement'.

Of course, it could be argued that here in Australia the reverse has happened ... what was "Social Security" (that is, security provided by society as a safety-net" has become known by the American term -- "welfare" -- a much more pejorative term.

All of which tends to both reinforce and contradict Randy's initial post.

I would argue that words DO have power. And what some call 'political correctness' others call 'good manners'.

---

It's "good manners" when you decide to keep the words to yourself. It's not when you demand others change their words to suit you. I think Lucy in Texas hit it on the head: "people do not seem to understand that changing the name of something won't change the negative attitude of those who use the name as a pejorative" -- to which I'll simply add "and vice versa". -rc

Posted by David, Canada on June 21, 2011:

When I first met my wife, I proudly identified myself as a geek (still do) and she expressed shock at that, and doesn't seem to like it when I refer to my tech-obsessing, Star Trek-loving, super-smart friends as "geek"s too (despite us having bandied about the terms amongst ourselves since before I met her).

She looks at it from the perspective that when she was growing up (the 1960s), "geek" was seen as an insult, it's definitely not what you call the "cool" kids in school. I can understand, I grew up in a similar time frame as her, and got "geek" hurled at me (insultingly) more times than I care to count. But I never stopped wearing it as a badge of pride, then or now. "Someone who likes computers" or "someone who is a fan of sci-fi" or even "trivia fan" doesn't quite define me as clearly and fully as "geek" does. And of course now, as opposed to then, being a "geek" is quite desirable and popular (bolstering my belief that I was born too early). My wife, despite not having a geeky bone in her body, is now somewhat warming up to the term, and has started to lovingly introduce me to others with that term.

But the whole situation reminds me of how even innocuous words (like "geek" for example) causes people to take offence. (For the record, I've never met one died-in-the-suspenders true geek who has once taken offence to that term.)

---

Well, "geek" originally (in the 1800s) meant "fool", and later was applied to "A carnival performer whose show consists of bizarre acts, such as biting the head off a live chicken." Language does evolve. -rc