posted
In Beanny's cool occurence thread we were discussing the difference between "retarded person" and "retaard" (my spelling). I recall mack posting a story months ago about sufferers of bipolar disease being called "bipolars". How far do we go with this? Is it right to call people belonging to the democratic party "democrats"... "republicans"... "independants"? (Do you use the -ant or the -ent to describe someone who is independent politically?)
In 12 step I see a variety of ways people refer to themselves. I have not heard of a person in AA call themselves "a person with alcoholism". It seems to be a 12 step principle of acceptance to say "I am a codependant. I am an overeater." To say "I am a person strugglin with codependence." distances me from the problem. I suppose that it is important in such a program's view to not distance the disease from the person.
What about other qualities? Am I straight or a person exeriencing heterosexuality? Am I a woman or a female person? Then there is the other meaning of straight- I am a law abiding person. Am I an American or merely a person who lives in America? If we say we can use good or useful labels and not bad ones, who is the judge of what is good and useful versus bad?
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just don't understand the flac that the "PC movement" gets. To me, it is simply a way of showing respect to another person. Why is that out of style?
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The words we use really do affect how we think of people and things.
That opens up a whole other can of worms. I do think thought exists apart from words, but the words give shape to the thoughts or perhaps demonstrate the thoughts.
I don't think we can change ourselves just through repeating affirmations, unless there is something already inside us that the affirmation can take root in.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Elizabeth- the issue about PC is that people can talk a certain way but continue to think in the same old way. People often negate PC as Politically incorrect when the true negation of it is unpolitically correct. That is to say, are you doing the right thing because it is the right thing or because it is what others think is right?
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just don't understand the flac that the "PC movement" gets. To me, it is simply a way of showing respect to another person. Why is that out of style?
I don't think there's any one reason. There are several motivations. Some valid and some not so pretty.
Not so pretty: People (mostly white) who don't like having to relearn terminology that groups want themselves to be called. After all, the white majority came up with perfectly fine names for people in minority groups a long time ago.
(It's not just limited to "white" or "race," though, the "language wars" extend to other areas as well, to be fair)
Valid critique: Some of the terminology - especially that coming out of academia instead of the group of people themselves - seems to change with increasing frequency and has little descriptive value.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, it's like someone changing their login all the time and getting mad if you call them by an old login Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think because it takes away the rest of my personality. When you say, "Jamie is bipolar." Then...I am bipolar. That's everything I'm associated with, any everything else is a result of the bipolar disorder.
When you say "Jamie has bipolar disorder." It's like there's a bit of room open.
Or even someone with diabetes. If they're diabetic, that's what you associate with them, and everything attributed to that person is related to the diabetes. If said person just HAS diabetes, then other attributes can take precedence.
I dunno. It's complicated and frustrating. Maybe it's just me being sick of having the bipolar disorder accounted for every single decision and action I make and take. If it's just the bipolar disorder, then who am I?
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand that, but the big question that, err, MT asked was where do you draw the line? Can we at least agree that calling people male or female people instead of males or females is overkill? How do we know?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think because it takes away the rest of my personality. When you say, "Jamie is bipolar." Then...I am bipolar. That's everything I'm associated with, any everything else is a result of the bipolar disorder.
This is common in people with different psych-related labels. It's one of the rationales behind "people first" terminology with retardation. Describing someone as a "retarded person" pretty much erases everything else about the individual in the ears of the hearer.
(I don't do a lot of "language policing" myself unless it's around a term like "retard." Rather deal with concepts.)
However...
On occasion, I've had the perverse privilege of addressing an audience of professionals and - with malice aforethought - refer to myself as a "high-functioning hydrocephalic." The startle from professionals is noticeable.
That label in not something that fits comfortably with someone they regard as a peer.
Cognitive dissonance can be a neat thing, done right. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm. I would draw the line at whether you are describing an attribute or a choice. I am a Liberal Green Lutheran etc etc...things I ahve chosen. But, for example, I don't say "I am arthritic" , I say, "I have arthritis", because I have not chosen that.
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, but different groups tend to have different slants.
Members of Alcoholics Anonymous refer to themselves as "alcoholics" as opposed to "persons with alcoholism," the message being it is central to who they are and the choices they have to make.
Sndrake High-functioning hydrocephalic Person with maleness Person with heterosexuality
posted
I think dpr is onto something there, that the intrinsic label can be used where someone chooses, embraces or accepts a quality about themselves. But if the attribute is not something you accept then the extrinsic "person with..." is a better idea.
sndrake, what is the reasoning behind not using "suffers from"? I mainly think of it as "suffers from heartburn" or something like that. I think I may have used it in the bipolar thread.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beanny, Raia thinks it would be cool if you'd email her (your's isn't in your profile). She lives in Jerusalem this year, just thought you might be interested. She's away from hatrack for a while. Her email is pigs_are_me at yahoo . com (take out spaces and make it an @).
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:sndrake, what is the reasoning behind not using "suffers from"? I mainly think of it as "suffers from heartburn" or something like that. I think I may have used it in the bipolar thread.
mothertree,
that's a very good question and a complicated issue. To use a personal example, I absolutely describe myself as someone who "suffers from migraines." They make me suffer plenty.
Here's the thing, though. That "suffers from" gets used for a lot of conditions and disabilities. To use a particularly stark example, there was a case here in Chicago last year involving a kid with cerebral palsy who was apparently starved to death - and neglected in plenty of other ways before that - by his mother.
The press described the kid as "suffering from cerebral palsy." Just think how absurd that is in context. The kid was kept dirty and starving - and the word "suffering" is reserved to describe his disability.
Let's get real - the kid "suffered" from neglect and starvation - and a parent who, for whatever reasons, gave less care to him than most people do to their pets.
posted
But now I want to know what "high functioning hydrocephalic" means. *does search on Google* *doesn't find a whole lot of useful information beyond what I already thought I knew*
Um, sndrake, care to expand?
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would draw the line at whether you are describing an attribute or a choice. I am a Liberal Green Lutheran etc etc...things I ahve chosen. But, for example, I don't say "I am arthritic" , I say, "I have arthritis", because I have not chosen that.
This doesn't seem to work as an absolute rule. I see nothing wrong with calling people male and female, even though that wasn't chosen.
I also think that there are more than two levels. Level 1: I have arthritis. This is the softest and least offensive of the labels. Level 2: I am arthritic. In am at odds with DPR on this one. To me, it is merely descriptive, and not really a label at all. Level 3 : I am an arthritic. This is the strong form of labeling, and I can see how people could get upset with this type of labeling.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did anyone here read "The Politically Correct Book of Fairytales?" (I've unfortunately read the translation in Hebrew because I couldn't find an English copy, so the name might not be correct.)
posted
mt, we're reading Porter's first post differently. I don't think that he's saying repeating a label/affirmation is an attempt to change himself so much as that his view of another person is influenced by the labels that are applied to them.
I hate binary state labels. Which is to say, any label made by adding non to another label or the equivalent. Like non-Christian. Dammit, I'm not a Christian. See the difference?
Ones like "childless" fall into this catagory as well. "I'm childless" vs. "I don't have children" have different contexts.
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was addressing another view I've run into that no one here has ever espoused with the affirmations. But it is something I encounter a lot and I think can be true in some circumstances. But a lot of people who believe in affirmations go overboard with them. Porter's post reminded me of it was all.
The binary label thing is interesting. On the purpose of life thread dkw said that there is no evil, only non-good. I didn't agree.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having not read the thread, I have to ask, did she say that or that the opposite of good isn't evil, but non-good?
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Members of Alcoholics Anonymous refer to themselves as "alcoholics" as opposed to "persons with alcoholism," the message being it is central to who they are and the choices they have to make.
Well, actually, sndrake, it is just because we're all lazy and it is a lot easier to say alcoholic
posted
celia, IIRC, dkw used the analogy of heat and light. Just as there is no cold or dark (only absence of heat and absence of light); evil is merely the complete absence of good.
I think I agree with that, but I'm still pondering it.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not sure, but perhaps it's because the binary labels imply that not being a Christian, or not having children are in some way less real, less valid? Only shadows and absences, in the way that dark and cold are?
Which is probably part of why you object to the labels, neh? Because of the implied judgment?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps I'm reading pooka wrong, but I think she is implying that the states good and evil are not binary. That while giving change to a homeless guy might be good, not giving it to him isn't evil. Kicking him is. Is the label 'evil' aptly applied to everything not of the subset 'good' or does it have a specific subset of it's own which while being exclusive to good is not inclusive of all non-good?
G+G'=all of existance all elements in E are in G' not all elements in G' are in E being one possible set
vs. G+G'=all of existance G'=E which I think is what you're saying the statement was.
In terms of set theory, anyone who isn't a Christian is a non-Christian, just as anything not good is non-good, but the connotation is different. Especially in terms of how an individual self-identifies. Do you self identify as non-Christian or as Jewish?
posted
*nod* I think that is what she's saying, yes. But I'm not sure that I agree with it -- in the case of evil, at least.
quote: Do you self identify as non-Christian or as Jewish?
Primarily the latter, but it depends on the context. I don't disagree with you; I think defining someone as "non-" just about anything is very limiting, and not particularly useful. And the connotations are very different, certainly.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:mt, we're reading Porter's first post differently. I don't think that he's saying repeating a label/affirmation is an attempt to change himself so much as that his view of another person is influenced by the labels that are applied to them.
What I mean is that the words or lables we use influence our thoughts. If we consistently use a respectful label to describe someone, we are more likely to feel for and treat them with respect. Likewise if the label is derogatory, loving, mocking, etc..
Of course, this is partially a chicken/egg question. Do you treat and feel towards them X because you use an X label, or do you choose an X label because that's how you feel and treat them? What I'm saying is that it's some of both.
quote:I hate binary state labels. Which is to say, any label made by adding non to another label or the equivalent. Like non-Christian. Dammit, I'm not a Christian. See the difference?
Ones like "childless" fall into this catagory as well. "I'm childless" vs. "I don't have children" have different contexts.
I believe you that this bothers you, but I have yet to really grasp why. Heck, our own church leaders have pretty much told us to stop being jerks and stop using words like "non-Mormon".
But still, I really can't grasp why this bothers people. Even when I try to, I don't see even a subtle connotational difference between "childless person" and "person who does not have children". The only real difference that I see is that the second one is awkward to compose.
I'm not saying that you're wrong and I'm right. I think you are probably right. I'm just saying that even though I try, I don't see it. As a result, it's going to be very hard for me to change. Not because I'm stubborn, but for the same reason that it's hard for a blind man so solve a Rubick's Cube -- I can't really tell when I have it right and when I have it wrong.
quote:Not sure, but perhaps it's because the binary labels imply that not being a Christian, or not having children are in some way less real, less valid? Only shadows and absences, in the way that dark and cold are?
Which is probably part of why you object to the labels, neh? Because of the implied judgment?
If you tell me that there's an inferred judgment inherent in words like non-Christian and childless, I'll believe you, but I don't believe that it is implied. At least not when I use them.
quote: On the purpose of life thread dkw said that there is no evil, only non-good.
No I didn’t. Sausageman made a light-shadow analogy about God and Satan and you asked why light needed an embodiment more than dark. I pointed out (in my long-lost physics major mode) that dark doesn’t actually exist – it’s only the absence of light. In response to another post I added (in my not-so-long-lost historical theology mode) that Augustine and the neo-Platonists promoted the view of evil as the complete absence of good.
posted
rivka, which is to say that one of us is saying that she doesn't like the term applied to her subset we agree exists and wonders if elements of that subset who also belong to a smaller subset wouldn't prefer to be identified by that subset's term while the other is saying the definitions of a totally different system's subsets are not agreed upon.
i feel like i've just combined that awful EE class i took with with awful fun philosophy course i took.
porter, i think you just need to put the thoughts in the first part of your post together with the thoughts in the second part. and remeber the, um, discussion(?) that beverly and i had on sakeriver about the label "childless."
Posts: 3956 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:porter, i think you just need to put the thoughts in the first part of your post together with the thoughts in the second part. and remeber the, um, discussion(?) that beverly and i had on sakeriver about the label "childless."
I just can't make the connection, because I parse "childless person" and "person without children" exactly the same: person.mb_hasChildren = false;
I vaguely remember that discussion. It made no more sense to me then than it does now.
I swear I'm not trying to be difficult.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Try this – because the word “childless” exists, but no equivalent word for “childed” does, it implies that having children is the default state. “Child-less” indicates something missing.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had an interesting experience with labels after my daughter had her first few seizures. After a hospital stay that affirmed that her seizures were not due to fever, the dr. informed me that she had a "seizure disorder." I said, "What's a seizure disorder? Is it epilepsy?" The dr. got uncomfortable and eventually replied that yes, a seizure disorder was the same thing as epilepsy.
After doing some research, I realized that not only did they change the name of the disorder, but also all the names of the seizure types. No more grand mal - now it's a tonic-clonic. No more petit mal - it's an absence or partial complex seizure. After lots more research and speaking to many people, I'm convinced that a large part of why the labels were changed is due to the negative connotations of the word "epilepsy."
That's always struck me as strange. Wouldn't it be better to just work at changing the connotations? I honestly don't know. But for my part I always told people that my daughter had epilepsy; to me it opened a gateway to changing the impact of the label by educating the people around me.
space opera
edit: changing the names of the seizures has actually helped them be a bit more literally descriptive, in all fairness
[ January 18, 2005, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Space Opera ]
Posts: 2578 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Try this – because the word “childless” exists, but no equivalent word for “childed” does, it implies that having children is the default state. “Child-less” indicates something missing.
Yes, there is an equivalent word for "childed" ones -- it is "parent".
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not an equilant word. It would be normal to say of someone "she's not a parent." It wouldn't be normal to say "she's not childless."
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me, that's just because there's no need for the added clunkiness that the double negative in that sentence creates.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. But it's only a double negative because the word "childless" is itself a negative term. Which is exactly why it is also a negative (in the emotional sense) term to some people.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I see what you are saying. You are saying that there is no equivalent word that means "parent" that is not a negation of another word.
Of course, that's just another way of saying that there is no non-negation form of the word childless, which is why the word childless is used at all.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It’s the difference between implying that the default is a person, and having children adds something (including the title “parent”) and implying that the default state is having children, and everyone who doesn’t is “less-child.”
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, often times it doesn’t. But I tend to think that knowing something could (reasonably) be inferred by a certain phrasing and choosing to use that phrasing anyway is pretty much the same as implying it.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
