If you are as concerned with liberal political correctness as you say, then it is not wrong.
You can't have it both ways.
Shed electrics
- Thread starter arb1
- Start date
You can't have it both ways.
Sponsored Links
I'm not having it both ways, and of course it is wrong, and nothing to do with "liberal political correctness".
Primarily grandparents. However, are you not the one who is usually protesting about 'evolution of language'. If a word was acceptable in the past, why should it subsequently become unacceptable?
Nor do I, now. Nor, probably, have I ever used it to refer to or describe a person. However (and I suspect the same may be true of you) in my youth I certainly used the "... in the woodpile expression" - and I'm sure without to giving any thought at all to how the expression had come about.
I don't know how much, if any, truth there is/was in it, but it used to be said that most of the "four letter words" that came to be 'unacceptable' (although I'm not sure about that, any more!) started life as legitimate words with their literal meanings, but that the Victorians (or maybe earlier) outlawed them because, being short and monosyllabic, they made it too easy to talk about subjects which they did not want to be talked about! If that is/was true, would you regard that as an acceptable 'evolution of language'?
Ironically, of course, those words presumably came to be used as 'swear words', totally divorced from their actual 'meanings', simply because they had been 'banned' and had been deemed to be unacceptable!
Kind Regards, John
I find it amazing that you think PC is about protecting certain groups.
The politicians of this world care about one thing, that is control of the people. And PC is part of that process, the ultimate aim being to scare people into not saying anything. North Korea is a good example, I'm sure other politicians secretly admire and envy his total control.
The politicians of this world care about one thing, that is control of the people. And PC is part of that process, the ultimate aim being to scare people into not saying anything. North Korea is a good example, I'm sure other politicians secretly admire and envy his total control.
Sponsored Links
I feel we are confusing several issues in this thread.
It has not evolved, as such. It is just that it is used to demean. As was 'boy' but that can hardly be banned but you wouldn't say it to a black man.
It is odd if one thinks one should be able to do it.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the N word. It is just a corruption, in a Southern States accent, of the French word 'nigre' which means a black person from an area of Africa. It has, though, become an insult to black people, much the same as the first two syllables of a country's name has become an insult because of racists; so if you call somebody by those words then you are deemed to be using racist terms.
You may think black people and other groups are too fussy and there is an excessive number of 'banned' words but once a genuine cause is dealt with, the band wagon (pun intended) keeps going.
Because it (the N word) became used only as a derogatory term by racists - slave owners and subsequent generations.
It has not evolved, as such. It is just that it is used to demean. As was 'boy' but that can hardly be banned but you wouldn't say it to a black man.
It is odd if one thinks one should be able to do it.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the N word. It is just a corruption, in a Southern States accent, of the French word 'nigre' which means a black person from an area of Africa. It has, though, become an insult to black people, much the same as the first two syllables of a country's name has become an insult because of racists; so if you call somebody by those words then you are deemed to be using racist terms.
I have never used that one but, when small, did use 'eeny meeny' without realising or even probably knowing.
Prudish ideology hardly equates to slavery.
You may think black people and other groups are too fussy and there is an excessive number of 'banned' words but once a genuine cause is dealt with, the band wagon (pun intended) keeps going.
Yes, I understand all that. However, I do not think it necessarily sensible (or effective) to try to effect sociological change, or changes in behaviour/attitudes, by deeming certain words to be 'unacceptable' - attempts to effect such changes requires education, perhaps supplemented by legislation.
Even if he/she takes notice of the 'ban', one cannot turn a racist into a non-racist by denying them use of a certain word - they will simply move to a different word and/or find other ways of expressing their racist views.
We've seen this with homosexuality. We've been through a whole series of words. Each time the word comes to be used in an undesirable/derogatory way, we deem it to be 'unacceptable', whereupon another word takes over and, in the fullness of time, also comes to be used in an undesirable/derogatory way, and so itself is deemed to be 'unacceptable' ... and so on. The word "Mongol" came to be used in a derogatory way, so we deemed it 'unnaceptable' and reverted to the medical term, Downs' Syndrome. However, I gather from members of younger generations that I come in contact with that the word "Downey" is now coming to be used as a term of abuse.
It doesn't. However, it's another example of trying to affect sociological behaviour (even if in questionable directions) by changing what words one is 'allowed' to use - which, as above, I do not think is necessary a sensible or effective way of trying to bring about such changes (even if one wants to).
Kind Regards, John
Edit: Malfunction of my brain corrected!
Last edited:
Yes, I agree but what else can be done.
Only non-racists allowed to use it?
That was the point I was making when the name of the country (the eqivalent of Scot) has itself been deemed an insult and that the band wagon keeps going - but then we are back to PC being taken to mad lengths.
I do think the N word is exceptional but as you imply, spastic, downey, and also queer, poof or whatever are not really worth 'banning'.
They are not racist. What about whitey or ginger?
I dare say some idiots could greet you with chants of 'Buckingham'.
I made a right mess of that. I had two things in my mind at once, but decided to quote just one, but my typing fingers muddle them all up.
It was, of course, "Mongol" that became unacceptable, so replaced with Downs' Syndrome, only apparently for "Downey" to come to be used as a term of abuse. "Spastic" became unacceptable and was replaced by "Cerebral Palsy", but I haven't yet heard of that being used as the basis for a term of abuse (given it time!). I could have mentioned "Cretin" as well.
Sorry about that, I have corrected the original, to avoid any confusion.
Kind Regards, John
Ah Ok.
I am not sure how using the term 'Mongol' is considered an insult.
Perhaps this is a case of PC being taken to mad lengths again.
I am not sure how using the term 'Mongol' is considered an insult.
Perhaps this is a case of PC being taken to mad lengths again.
As I said, changing our views about what words are acceptable really is absolutely no answer to racism or any other form of prejudice, discrimination, bigotry or whatever. As I said, only education (maybe helped by laws) can even hope to address such issues. Changing what words we deem to be 'acceptable' at any point in time is, at best, only a very temporary "papering over the cracks'.
Indeed. I think there is a strong tendency for 'us' to be most sensitive about 'unacceptable' words being used in relation to 'others', and far less concerned when people use words in a derogatory fashion against ourselves.
Kind Regards, John
When used correctly to describe a person from Mongolia, it obviously is not an insult. As I'm sure you know, it was the 'oriental' appearance of the eyes of people with Downs' Syndrome which led to the word being used, although why they (the medical profession) singled out Mongolia, I'm not too sure - "Chinky" might have been more generic (and more 'insulting'?).
I have absolutely no idea why "cretin" came to be used inappropriately.
Kind Regards, John
I presume they thought they looked like Mongolian people but that is not an insult.
That does sound rude. Had they used 'Chinese', it would not have been.
Mongol and Chinese look slightly different, Down Syndrome people presumably look more like the former.
As with lunatic or imbecile, they are used as insults so I suppose professionals found it had become unacceptable to use them.
I think this one was the other way around - i.e. that it was felt to be insulting to Mongolian people, but implying (to some people) that all Mongolian people had Downs' Syndrome.
Yes, I presume that was the belief, although I'm not sure I necessarily agree!
Indeed. You missed out "Idiot" (only quantitatively different from Imbecile) - but there are, of course countless other examples.
Kind Regards, John
Oh right, never thought of that.
Were there protests from Ulan Bator (now Ulaanbaatar
) ?
You will never stop the inadequate and the insecure from finding ways to abuse others to give themselves a false sense of worth.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
