I think if you have to resort to such language, you've lost the debate... and you know it.

On the other hand, not everybody is as patient and perfect as me.

 I agree, they have lost the debate, but by going on and on , it appears they do not know it. So is it tolerable. Could it still not cause harm to people when they are feeling  vunerable?

We could and we should.

Why should we want to insult anyone?

How about... After reading your writings on Wondercafe, I believe that you are quite naive. If you are unable to properly discuss the topic at hand, please refrain from doing so. Judging from what I've read on your profile, I do not personally like you.

How 'bout that?

Alex, I take it you were offended by something someone wrote. Have you reported the offending post(s) to the site Administrator?

 I think you give a good example of  how to state things, without being offensive jae.

While I have reported offending posts, but the problem is bigger when the poster is doing it repeatally. I can understand someone loosing it one in a while, but when it is ongoing, and the poster does to this to many people, how does one deal with it? Should it not be done by the community as well?

Should I have to explain each time why such post are offensive. Especially when the real damage is done not just by one individual post, but by many. 

It is one thing to be called a name once or twice in one or two posts, but it has quit a different effect when done constantly to people. Especially when the use of such terms might not harm the person it is directed to, but to others as well.

I did not see that thread.   I think there is a difference between using politicaly correct speech and non politically correct speech.   What bothers me is using terms to hurt people on purpose, instead of dealing with the issues.

Also there is a difference depending on you you are trying to hurt. Call me stupid or a fag today, and I would not be hurt. But if I heard the terms when I was in my teens or twenties I would be.

Today openly Queer people , and other groups like religious groups are more likely to have a supportive community to conteract hate speech, while those with mental illness and developmental disabilites, are less likely too. So words can hurt them more than others. Plus they have enough to deal with, without having to deal with other peoples prejudice and hate.

Nope.

Amongst the words that I really hate is "retard." I think it is a disgusting word and people should be horsewhipped if they use it. It really gets me angry when people use that word (I know you used the word as part of your post with no intention of malice, so your good, Alex )

I agree that it is offensive, ConsumingFire, but I think we need to keep in mind that language is always evolving.  The education system has been using terminology like "learning challenges" and "special needs" for a while now.  I have noticed that "challenged" and "special" are starting to acquire a negative connotation . . . they are sometimes said with a kind of sarcastic edge.

No doubt we will need new language before too long to describe some of these things.

Yes, I agree.

For some reason "crazy" doesn't bother me as much. Perhaps it's because I think of it more in the "wild and crazy guy" kind of sense rather than the "crazy = insane" meaning.

 I agree with Paradox and Jae, It's when such language is used to dismiss peoples opinions and insult them.  Language does change, and sometimes while some might consider certain words to be offensive all by themselves, what bothers me is when they are used in a sense to hurt and make someone feel less than human. 

Queers are a good example of people who have reclaimed  negative words and made them positive. However Queer is now acceptable. however it a father says to his son, you are nothing byt a "f..ing queer, that it is offensive. It is the intent to de-humanise and dismiss people, or make them afraid that is the bigger problem.

Secondly we must be aware of aware of certain language that is offensive, however if the intent is not to offend, than that can be dealt with. Like the "r" word. People used to use it without meaning to offend, and now it is consider by most to be offensive all by it's own.  However one day people might reclaim it as Queers did with the word Queer. However I do not see that happening soon. 

I agree, jae.  Mind you, I tend to use a lot of different expressions to mean someone is a little eccentric or odd, generally in a teasing and friendly way.  I tend to refrain from using them online, though, because my tone can't really come across online.

 I'll admit to using the word retarded every now and then, but I use it about a situation not a person.  Don't hate me for slipping every now and then!

Crazy doesn't bother me so much.  If someone is acting crazy, that probably is the simpliest word to use.  I suppose erratically might work, but for most people that's not going to be the first word that comes to mind.  I'll also use crazy similar to jae - wild and crazy, like that party last night was crazy.  Other words just don't have the same ring to them.

I will admit to using "crazy" or "nuts" which could be construed as derogatory terms by people with mental illness.  I am usually using these to describe a feeling of being out of control...."my life is crazy right now".  It would certainly be more appropriate to say just that..."my life is out of control right now".

As a mother of a child with profound intellectual and physical disabilities I find the use of words like "cripple", "retard" and so on highly offensive.

And to answer Alex's original question.  An emphatic, resounding NO.  Having an intellectual disability does not make you a bad person or less than human.

Indeed, if you read the work of Jean Vanier interaction with people with disabilities provides able bodied people a remarkable and deeply meaningful opportunity to discover their own humanity.  They are a gift and allow us to see gifts.

We've tried to do the same with the word "Witch", to some effect

Amen specialmom.

Hi Alex,

Absolutely not a bad person.  Regular person with some bad behaviours at times certainly.  In that regard, not a whole lot different from Neurotypical or Developmentally normal people.

Okay?  No.  Permissable?  Questionable.  Any time you have to attack a person's character rather than their argument you have lost whatever the debate is about.

Well, maybe.   I think that the epithets one resorts to tend to reflect something of the individual's psyche.  What exactly it reveals is up for debate.  I think folks who attack the intelligence of their opponent are showing fear of having their own intelligence bested.  Those who attack the sexuality of their opponent may feel their own sexuality threatened.

No I don't.  I'm pretty mindful that hurting somebodies feelings is probably why the language is being used.

I concur with the Senator.  It goes beyond affecting the individuals so afflicted to ensuring that others not afflicted remain ignorant of how to deal with such individuals.

They have that right.

It conflicts with the rights of others to remain ignorant.

Are we suggesting censoring words?  They aren't "good" words.  The are "good" markers of "bad" behaviour.

Indeed, we can.  Unless we are going to legislate how others talk or what others think those words will remain in use among the ignorant. and/or immature.  The good news is that society can self-regulate this use of language.  

The epithets are being employed in a misguided strategy to win a discussion.  Ever try to win one when nobody will discuss with you?

Simply because we don't think highly of those individuals to begin with.  Rarely, when we call someone a dog, are we pointing to the canine virtue of loyalty.

Should it be tolerated?  I'm not sure what you are asking Alex.  

WonderCafe Admin could delete the post.  WonderCafe Admin could warn the poster.  That isn't going to solve the problem in the individual using it.  What are we to do it?  I think that ignoring such posters bursts their balloon and does not give them the attention that they crave.

Grace and peace to you.

John

One of the most unrewarding tasks for Christians is housing, mentoring, and defending the rights of the mentally ill.

I've noticed that any word can be used to demean a person if one so chooses. It's high time people stopped taking life and language so seriously. Noone makes it out alive anyways.

I agree, that the best response is a community response. Other responses are valid but I believe.

So Rev John, how could we as members on WC act when we see such behaviour and use of language?

Sometimes just pointing it out helps the other person see things from another prespective, and they learn from it, as there intentions is to be a better person. However others do not. 

I feel angry especially when I see certain tactics use to degrade others, or when it is used to divide and distract others from usefully discussions.  I would rather be made uncomfortable and angry about things that I need to look at, and not the bully. Bullies also leads to people being driven away. But most of all I am concerned about it`s  disportionally affect it has on those who vunerable. People who have been taught that it is bad to be ill, or disabled. especially those who have been abused as a result.  It is they that such bully and dehumaisation tactics have the greatest affect.

Should people step in and say something, should people flag such mesages as being against the Guidelines of Conduct. Should we ignore them. Should we warn others(new comers) of  such people   What are we to do?

You should quit whining, mind your own business, and move on.  Who died and made you the WC police?  You're as much an abusive bully as those you decry.  Instead of worrying about other people, and playing the 'wounded animal-suffering servant' routine, you should quit boohooing your life, set some goals and direction, and move ahead.  Frankly, this is getting quite boring. 

BTW, I've worked with and have coordinated fundraising for developmentally disabled people (Community Living) and worked with people with physical disabilities. My son is a social worker with Community Living and my daughter in law is a social worker with autistic individuals, so don't try any of your name calling/mud slinging B.S. on me.

Maybe it's a good thing you retired.... rev

Hi Alex,

Step one would be to engage the post and attempt to correct the language used.  It is quite possible that the individual has never been sensitized to the way language changes.  In that instance it would be a gentle educational conversation that would be of benefit to everyone.

Step two, if the other is not really interested in doing anything but stubbornly insisting that they can say whatever they please is a choice.  A) flag the post as offensive and let Admin decide whether it belongs on the WonderCafe.  B) ignore it.

B) option feels difficult because for some reason we think that folk not saying such a comment is out of bounds is the same as folk condoning such comments.  Turning such comments into a flame war simply allows the offender to continue offending at will.

Agreed.  We will never be rid of people like that though Alex.  Ignorance, though uncomfortable, is still legal.  If you want to stop such voices from continuing you have to take the conversation away from them.

Warning others simply serves to increase the exclusion that is happening.  Ignoring the other may result in modifying the behaviour we wish to see no more of.  If something should be said it should be as little as possible and be free of character attacks.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I agree!  IT gives me more time to do important things like keep you and others in line.  Now, Ten-hut!

Is there more than one answer you could give to this question without being lambasted and call all sorts of names?  IT's a hook question.

Hi retiredrev

Well, the simple options are yes, or no.

So, to be fair, only one answer raises the possibility of being lambasted and called all sorts of names.

Unless those who answer "no" are also going to be lambasted and called all sorts of names.

One could possibly try to qualify their simple yes or no answer.

Grace and peace to you.

John

C'mon boys - enough of your silly nonsense.

Shake hands, or I'll send you to bed without any supper.

Yeah, you all need to chill out.  Everybody now, cross arms, join hands, in a circle:  "Good morning, starshine. The earth says hello..."  I guess I'm dating myself - but not in the relationship sense of the word.

So why do you call people mentally ill when you disagree with them instead of addressing the issue at hand? Why do you say others don`t have a brain, and are stupid when you disagree with them?  

To do so makes you out to be a bully. It says you believe that people with neurological differences are unable to think or have opinions, and that they do not deserve the same respect as others. You are saying that people living with illness and other differences are bad.

Why not just state your opinion,  rather than attack individuals, can you attack the idea? You are capable of being civil? So why do you choose not to be?

RR  has a point.  The question doesn't invite discussion but rather manipulates a 'correct' answer or face the consequences.  Accusations, without substantiation or collaberating evidence, are pointless. Hell, I''ve been called names before, so what?  RR, or anyone else, isn't answerable to me, you, or anybody.  Flush it, and move on.  You're not going to change RR or anyone else.    Information you don't like is like oats that have been processed through the horses' digestive system.  Leave it, shovel it, or move ahead.