Stealth Car Tax
- Thread starter Biker1959
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Yes, surely neandethals are a minority who deserve respect? Seems a bit hypocritical of him. 
I also understand that Reindeer are similarly offended.
Sponsored Links
Yes, you are right.
Understood - my reply was on reading ' now unacceptable' for the reason you gave. I commented as think it is unacceptable 'now' because of it being offensive to more people than the Mongolians, regardless of any previous objections by them.
Regardless, words are an interesting record of attitudes evolving as well as language.
Mmm. It is the attitudes that change leading to perfectly acceptable words being regarded as insults (or worse) for no reason other than a minority of people have used them as insults.
To call someone with Down's Syndrome by the word 'mongol' has become an insult (or worse) because it has been used by idiots to insult these people.
However, it is only an abbreviation of 'mongoloid' which was used to describe their appearance and therefore not an insult.
It was also accompanied by idiot which, like imbecile, has also become only an insult.
THE Mongols (Mongolian people) have now come to regard it as an insult to them because they do not want to be associated with a medical condition and its other symptoms.
That the Australian insult uses the same word but this time an abbreviation of 'mongrel' is what? Unfortunate?
After all, we are all mongrels so it's probably not an insult until that is the only way it is used.
So, if it were classed as unacceptably insulting then that is the only way it will be used.
What if there were a medical condition which resulted in the sufferers having the appearance of George Clooney?
How long would it be before clooneyoid was considered an insult - or would it?
Therefore it must be concluded that those in charge do indeed think that to look mongoloid is a 'bad' thing which must mean that they do regard the Mongol people as somehow inferior.
There is no logic in the process of deciding (who does that?) which words become unacceptable or even banned.
The classic is the four letter name of a country which shall never again be uttered, except of course when said with the second syllable.
So, in this apparently good system of democracy, we not only are nearly always governed by a minority but also have to suffer the consequences of the behaviour of a few true imbeciles.
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 673
- Reaction score
- 31
- Country
And other imbeciles perpetuate urban myths and circulate inaccuracies.
Mongol or mongolian is no more unacceptable than is negroid or caucasian. They are classifications of ethnicity.
It is the association with Down's Syndrome that caused it to be objectional to Mongols/Mongolians.
John Langdon Haydn Down (in the 1800s) tried to associate mental ill-health with ethnic classifications, which is where the assocaition originated. There were five ethnic classifications that he associated with various forms of mental ill-health. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1082401/pdf/medhist00100-0117.pdf
Sadly the mongolian association with Down's Syndrome continued.
The mongol/mongolian delegation asked the UN (WHO) to remove the term in its association with Down's Syndrome, which they did mid-60's.
Unfortunately, there are still some who try to perpetuate the use of the term in its abusive form, despite now knowing that they do so intentionally.
Mongol/mongolian is not perjorative unless it is intended and used in its abusive context.
Any antipodean term that refers to an abbreviation of another word is completely irrelvant unless used in its antipodean context.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
I am in the early stages of Clooneyoidism- at least I hope that's what the grey hairs mean.
I think we all know the problem is attitude and use, not the word itself.
However , anyone with a modicum of awareness knows generally what current usages are offensive. And for the gaps in this knowledge, when made aware of a new shift in the lexicon, does it really take a lot of effort to use a different one? Or does one stick to a word despite knowing it may be offensive?
I don't see it as PC, just good manners.
And there are nuances - for example a "Child with Down's " v "A Down's Child"
Generation and culture all play their part of course. I am sure that in time my children will cringe at some of my language in the future but I hope I have the wit to adjust as I go.
On my point about words playing a part in mapping attitudes, I wonder if in the future a lot of this will be lost as so much is done by email/text etc?
I think we all know the problem is attitude and use, not the word itself.
However , anyone with a modicum of awareness knows generally what current usages are offensive. And for the gaps in this knowledge, when made aware of a new shift in the lexicon, does it really take a lot of effort to use a different one? Or does one stick to a word despite knowing it may be offensive?
I don't see it as PC, just good manners.
And there are nuances - for example a "Child with Down's " v "A Down's Child"
Generation and culture all play their part of course. I am sure that in time my children will cringe at some of my language in the future but I hope I have the wit to adjust as I go.
On my point about words playing a part in mapping attitudes, I wonder if in the future a lot of this will be lost as so much is done by email/text etc?
Yes, I agree that you are undoubtedly correct but why is it necessary?
The same happens with words which are not abusive.
As of late, according to the OED, for example, literally does not mean literally any more but can be used merely for emphasis.
This is termed evolution of the language and is accepted as inevitable and even good.
Whether you consider this as a good or bad thing I do not know but it results in the fact that we are controlled by the wrong and in the current climate, when it is unacceptable to correct poor little dears who are wrong lest we hurt their feelings, there is no alternative.
The same happens with words which are not abusive.
As of late, according to the OED, for example, literally does not mean literally any more but can be used merely for emphasis.
This is termed evolution of the language and is accepted as inevitable and even good.
Whether you consider this as a good or bad thing I do not know but it results in the fact that we are controlled by the wrong and in the current climate, when it is unacceptable to correct poor little dears who are wrong lest we hurt their feelings, there is no alternative.
- Joined
- 10 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 673
- Reaction score
- 31
- Country
I wasn't, but it's not the first time that you've read something and misunderstood the message.Don't worry about it, you never did before. You just regurgitated what you thought you'd read.
I fully agree with you micilin, but it does sometimes help to know exactly how or why some terms become classed as offensive. Then one can confidently use those terms in their true context without being offensive.
For instance, the word mongol never was perjorative towards Down's Syndrome sufferers. It was the association that caused it to be perjorative towards those of Mongolian ethnicity.
It's only since it's aknowledgement of it being associated with Down's sufferers, that it has also become adopted as perjorative towards those sufferers as well, but for no apparent reason, but still seen as offensive in that context.
Sponsored Links
