03 September, 2012
Apparently I am no longer able-bodied but non-disabled. The logic behind this, it seems, is that many of the disabled are partially able-bodied inasmuch as they might have some fully, er, "normal" function. An individual might, for example, have missing or non-working legs but have normal functionality in their arms. To use the old term, they are differently abled, a phrase which seems to have been too prissy even for the politically hypercorrect to say with a straight face.
D'you know, I'm beginning to feel a certain nostalgia for differently abled.
As we say in the blogosphere: FFS!
Given the propensity of many disabled activists to reclaim the word 'cripple', I rather think we've found the new 'N' word!
[Reposted] Originally posted by JuliaM to Dogwash at 03 September, 2012 05:47
The thing is, this redefining of language will never stop. No sooner do we have an agreed definition for a human condition then someone will say they object or it is not inclusive or excludes someone or is, well, intellectually bollocks. (Except that would not do for the castrated among us)
But of course, it is the definition handed down from certain groups. Lower on the ladder the rest of the population will still use 'dismissive' statements because they haven't got time for word games or fancy committees or little-read newspaper columns.
However the proponents of Newnewspeak do have the ear of the lawmakers, and before long the 'derogatory but sometimes accurate' words will enter into the law books as hate-crimes so our cops, rather than chase the criminals, will be online surfing for misuse of words.
[Reposted] Originally posted by wordsworth to Dogwash at 03 September, 2012 12:23