Advocacy & Safety - "Politically correct" words

Well. My recent poll to removed and I received the private message, in which I was criticized fot the usage of the noun "invalid".

I looked up in my Oxford Encyclopedical Dictionary of English Language and noted that there is no derogatory meaning for this word in English language. If there were one then there would be derog. mark against it. It is just: invalid n - person weakened through illness or injury

It is not the first time when I am critcized for the word usage. For example, one person was visibly offended when I used the words black people and colored people.

Internet is the international system. How should I know that the words wheelchair bound are insulting for someone on the other side of the Earth?

For a person, who is not the native English speaker, it is very frustrating experince being ostracized for the "political incorrectness" of a used word.

What else should I know to avoid offending people? Are there other words?

As far as I know, any language has its own extremely complicated mechanisms of accepting and rejecting words. I do not think an opinionated people shall interfere in this matter.

Besides, I think there is nothing shameful for a person to move in a wheelchair and be an invalid. Anyone of us can become such a person in a fraction of a second.

If a persons spinal cord is damaged there is no other way to move or live. Mao Tse Doun said once: "Wisdom begins with accepting of the reality."

In my poll I just wanted to see the raw data of how many people, whom we know personally(!), were injured heavily or killed while riding a car, a bicycle, train, etc.

I do not trust much the official statistics. But such a poll would give the rough, but reallistic picture regarding the dangers & safety of different modes of transportation.

I agree that there are words, which shall not be used in a public forum. It is not difficult to program a filter in the forum, which would warn people against a derogatory word being used.

However I do not accept that a political correctness of a word in a particular country or region is being established as an international standard on the international computer network. It is not fair.

Usually when reading a post, I try to look to the intent of the poster rather than just the words themselves.

You choice of the words "colored" and "invalid" are unfortunate, but if they represent an honest attempt at communication and not a deliberate attempt to offend, I would not make too much of them.

"Colored" is simply archaic and the word "invalid" conotes helplessness. These are subleties of language that can easily escape a non-native speaker.

No harm, no foul as far as I can tell.

Dan

Oh, please! This **** here is so sick of the oversensitivity and of speech police. No, I'm not a right-winger, just bloody tired of speech narks.

I think that political correctness of words goes a little to far. For example, I mentioned in a post about my wife that she is a draftsman, not a draftsperson. This does not offend her. In fact she will tell you as such and she does get a little upset if you use draftsperson rather then draftsman.

Another good example is when the words to music are changed from men, to all or people, this is especially apparent in church hymns. To me that screws up the context of the music.

Now I have heard that the meaning behind the words have been changed. So rather then men or man being gender specific to the male, it has a general meaning of all people. I think our own govt. has come up with this bright idea in some cases. I'm willing to accept this versus having the words changed just because it pisses off or offends someon who is way to sensative to it.

Give it a rest folks. There are way more important issues to be sensative about rather then certain words.

Originally posted by oscaregg
speech police

Exactly. In my native lingo, there is the word invalid. And it does not have any negative meaning. Since this word is present in several languages it means that its etymology comes from Latin or Greek. I would respect at least this.

I am becoming immediately suspicious when someone tries to shove on me what I shall read, or what computer program I shall use, what work I shall have, etc.

Because I know what happens next.

Originally posted by N_C
For example, I mentioned in a post about my wife that she is a draftsman, not a draftsperson. This does not offend her. In fact she will tell you as such and she does get a little upset if you use draftsperson rather then draftsman.

Yes. I agree draftsman sounds much better.

As for the wheelchair - I am to deal with wheelchairs from time to time in my professional activity.

I do not see anything wrong with the word wheelchair, or wheelchair bound, for that matter. There are many other similar tools, which people use: pace makers, tooth cups, glasses, etc.

Besides, there are wheelchairs, which are closer to art or a technological miracle, than to a chair on wheels.

I do not see why the word wheelchair should be stigmatized or avoided by all means. It is the reality to many people.

The whole PC movement is fairly rediculous. Sure, there were good intentions with the movement but as you all know, the road to hell was paved with good intentions.

Is the word "Hell" P.C.?

For a person, who is not the native English speaker, it is very frustrating experince being ostracized for the "political incorrectness" of a used word.

Since you list your location as "solar system" it is a bit hard for someone to know just where you are from, or whether or not you are an English speaker.

Stop giving such vague information and perhaps others will be more understanding.

And, please explain what in the world seeing folks in wheelchairs has to do with a bike forum??? Or are you just trolling? And if you keep getting criticized for your language usage, perhaps you might want to change your language usage?? You think??

And what in the world does THIS thread have to do with biking and "Advocacy and Safety"?

You might at least post this in the lounge, if it belongs anywhere on the BF net. Try and stay on the topic, please.

I find that for some reason I fall very left of center on most issues, but the politically correct thing has gone way too far even for me. "Speech police" is an accurate description of what is going on. There seems to be police for every aspect of our lives. Political correctness has lost its reasoning, and is becoming yet another form of senseless censorship.

If a word is not intended to be offensive, and does not have an offensive definition or connotation, what is the problem?

Originally posted by DnvrFox
Since you list your location as "solar system" it is a bit hard for someone to know just where you are from, or whether or not you are an English speaker.


Maybe he is from "Uranus"!:eek: ;) :D

:beer:

As I said, the idea was to get the raw data.

People on the BF discuss dangers of cycling on roads.

Some people in my environment think that cycling on roads is dangerous. I heard the urban legend that one man in my city lost 2 legs last summer, while cycling.

But the only person, whom I personally(!), not from TV, and not from newspapers, know and who moves on the wheelchair, injured his spinal cord, while driving with the speed 120 km/h and tried to avoid a woman, who suddenly walked out on the road. He is 33 now, and when it happened he was 27. He is the brother of my office colleague.

I commute on bike to my office on roads with traffic almost every day.

I wanted to know roughly how many heavily injured persons we know personally(!), who were injured (or killed) while driving, cycling, riding a train, etc.

When I say injured heavily, I mean not getting a scratch, but losing mobility.

As I said, I do not believe official statistics. We know how it is compiled. An official looks at the ceiling and after some time begins to see figures on it.

But such a poll would give me roughly an idea. Are there among us people, who were injured while cycling? While driving? While riding a train? Flying an airplane? Walking on the crossroads?

Not famous TV cases, but people among us. Whom we know personally.

OK. Wording of my poll was not good. But after hanging around on the Avocacy and Safety forum, can we tell what is more dangerous driving or cycling? How to calculate it?

Such a poll would give me an idea at least. For example, if the results were like this: participants know personally, say, 55 cyclists, who are to use wheelchairs now, 10 drivers in the same situation, 20 people injured in the train. I would say myself. Hmm. Cycling is indeed dangerous. There are so many injured cyclists among us.

Maybe I would take some additional safety measures after getting such data.

Or if there were only, say, 3 incapacitated cyclists, and 90 drivers, I would think - cycling is not so dangerous after all.

I would trust such data, because it would be real, from real people. I would trust it 100 times more than any figures of transport ministry. Having data one can start to think about it and maybe adjust actions.

Originally posted by KevinG
Maybe he is from "Uranus"!:eek: ;) :D

:beer:

Maybe in 30 - 40 years there will be no irony in such words.

I admit that I'm picking nits, but I doubt the issue would have been raised had you used a more precise and neutral term like "paralyzed" (for our hypersensitive Brit.Eng. speakers, "paralysed") or "paraplegic."

Screw the politically correct crap. I'm a rabid feminist and I don't give two hoots about being called missy, Mrs. vs. Ms vs. young lady and all the other superficial stuff that seems to offend my counterparts. In the end I am in charge of my life and profession and small stuff like that just isn't worth getting upset over. English is not my first language so I know about the nuances that can be lost and I can come off as stupid or clueless. But who cares. I'm sorry you got $hit from some people.

Is it me or did lots of sydromes and victims arise with the PC movement?

I can't wait until we are all required by law to talk like this....


Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best
politically-correct wishes for an environmentally-conscious,
socially-responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral
celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most
enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion or secular practices of
your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or
traditions of others or their choice not to practice religious or
secular traditions at all . . . and a fiscally-successful,
personally-fulfilling, and medically-uncomplicated recognition of the
onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2003, but not without due
respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose
contributions to society have helped make America great, (not to imply
that America is necessarily greater than any other country or is the
only "AMERICA" in the western hemisphere), and without regard to the
race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, choice of
computer platform, or sexual preference of the wishee. (By accepting
this greeting, you agree to the following terms. This greeting is
subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with
no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the
wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or
others, is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole
discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected
within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year,
or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes
first, and the warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or
issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.

Did you hurt yourself writing that? :roflmao: Good stuff ... but it would not surprise me :rolleyes: .

I think it was more that people wanted to know your intention on posting such a poll than your politically incorrect usage of the language.

The first several replies to your thread made no comment on your use of the language, they were asking you to explain why you wanted to know and why such a poll was in Advocacy and Safety.

If you had explained yourself a little better in the first place (as you have now done in this thread) I don't think you would have got such a reaction.

I personally think that running a poll on the issue was in bad taste. Maybe you could have just asked the question and invited comment. For those who do know someone in a wheelchair, ticking a poll is a little insensitive. (Just my thoughts.)


For a person, who is not the native English speaker, it is very frustrating experince being ostracized for the "political incorrectness" of a used word.

As for your use of the language, I'm with Denver on this one. You don't even give us a hint of where you are from so we can't know that your understanding of the language is different from anyone else.

I hate the excessive politically correct movement but let's not discount the original intention which is to try to cause the least offense to others. Yes, some people will take offence at anything, they are constantly looking for ways to become a victim, but we should still do our best to keep others in mind when we speak or post to a forum such as this one.

It may be that you were just misunderstood. Why not rephrase the question, giving your reasons for wanting to know, and post it in the lounge.

Let's put it all behind us and start again on this one.

Originally posted by Stor Mand
Did you hurt yourself writing that? :roflmao: Good stuff ... but it would not surprise me :rolleyes: .

It is an old joke that has been around a while. Just seemed like a good time to bring it up. :D

Originally posted by SamDaBikinMan
It is an old joke that has been around a while. Just seemed like a good time to bring it up. :D

Oh great .. I was all impressed by what I thought you, SamDaBikinMan, wrote ... thanks for popping my little bubble. :D

Originally posted by Stor Mand
Oh great .. I was all impressed by what I thought you, SamDaBikinMan, wrote ... thanks for popping my little bubble. :D

An ignant ole country boy like me ain't got the smarts to write all that stuff.

I always figured politically correct was a lie that passed for the truth.

Words convey meaning far beyond their dictionary definitions.

In the American society, for example, "invalid" has come to generally mean someone who is helpless in a wheelchair or in a bed unable to fend for themselves, and a general drag on society.

For someone who is in a wheelchair (as my son is and my other son was), the equating of "wheelchair" and "invalid" IS an insult.

My son, for example, was paralyzed from the neck down in 1986 on his 21st birthday, and is an honors graduate and double major in math and economics, a Stanford Law School graduate, worked at the number one law firm in Washington, DC, met his wife there (a Yale Law School graduate) now have their own firm in Denver and nationally recognized in the fields of civil rights law and disability rights law, with cases in CA. TX, IL and CO,

and Andy, born profoundly mentally handicapped, who suffered a spinal cord injury in 1998, requiring the use of a wheelchair but through his diligent and very hard effort through intensive physical therapy was able to recover 95% of his walking.

Neither one of my sons is an "invalid." Yet, they both use or have used wheelchairs. Neither is "wheelchair bound" - that is a ludicrous statement. No one is "wheelchair bound". Wheelchairs ARE my son's legs - they are FREEDOM to him, not something to which he is bound.

This is NOT political correctness. This is the proper usage of vocabulary and all the meanings accrued to vocabulary beyond the dictionary.

I could forgive Max the use of the words in the way he did if he would be so kind as to give us just a little clue as to where he is from and his background. But, for some reason, he denies us this knowledge. Why the secrets, Max?

Also, his methodology of investigating injuries is absolutely off the wall. Totally unscientific, and no valid conclusions could be drawn from this supposed "research." What a waste of time.


OK. Wording of my poll was not good. But after hanging around on the Avocacy and Safety forum, can we tell what is more dangerous driving or cycling? How to calculate it?

Well, you don't calculate it by asking a non-representative population in a non-random-sampling manner "How many of the invalids have you seen in the wheelchair." Goodness, Max. Perhaps you should avail yourself of a course in basic statistics, including valid techniques of population sampling?

.

Yet another pointless thread.

Who is it that makes up the word police on this forum? Other than that it is a nice place - I don't see insults very often. But then msybe I just don't notice because I'm not looking for them.
Joe

Originally posted by DnvrFox
Goodness, Max. Perhaps you should avail yourself of a course in basic statistics, including valid techniques of population sampling?


Statistics. I can do a very good statistics and prove anything with it.

It depends on what and how one counts. For example, if we take the number of accidents on the 1 000 000 man/km we will get one result.

If we take the number of accidents on the number of departures we will get another.

Do we count a car crash in which 5 people were hurt, as one accident? Or as 5?

I disagree with you. Such a poll would give a rather reliable picture. For example, I know personally (meaning I saw this person) only one heavily injured car driver and 2 killed pedestrians for my life.

I heard of many more accidents. But these 3 I witnessed personally. Like I can swear that they happened.

Look at the forum today. There is the new post about the cyclist who just died in a traffic accident.

But what is the general picture? A forum like this gives us a unique possibility to have a look on the slice of the reality.

However, I agree with you the this theme is not a pleasant one. But as you see the accidents do happen regularly.

What is wrong that one wants to understand what is going on? To see the dynamics. And do this not via police or state statistics, but via the real data.

As for my location - I am in Europe. No secrecy. In the largest by territory country of Europe (do not jump to conclusions though).

Originally posted by Max


As for my location - I am in Europe. No secrecy. In the largest by territory country of Europe (do not jump to conclusions though).

The largest country entirely in Europe or the largest country with part of its territory in Europe?

Originally posted by DnvrFox
Words convey meaning far beyond their dictionary definitions.

In the American society, for example, "invalid" has come to generally mean someone who is helpless in a wheelchair or in a bed unable to fend for themselves, and a general drag on society.

For someone who is in a wheelchair (as my son is and my other son was), the equating of "wheelchair" and "invalid" IS an insult.

... snipping

I never thought of an invalid as someone who is a general drag on society, (as you put it) but more as someone who has been physically/mentally handicapped in some fashion and cannot care of fend/care for themselves. There may be people that think of that word as you do but I know none personally. Some are offended by handicapped .. why? It's not a denegrating word. One could go on about words all day.

Originally posted by Max
snipping ...

As for my location - I am in Europe. No secrecy. In the largest by territory country of Europe (do not jump to conclusions though).

My guess ... Denmark.

Originally posted by Stor Mand
I never thought of an invalid as someone who is a general drag on society, (as you put it) but more as someone who has been physically/mentally handicapped in some fashion and cannot care of fend/care for themselves. There may be people that think of that word as you do but I know none personally. Some are offended by handicapped .. why? It's not a denegrating word. One could go on about words all day.

Pronounce it "inVALid" as in "this credit card is invalid," and you'll see why some paraplegics don't like the word applied to them.

If someone says "hey, I'm offended by that term," rather than taking offense yourself and complaining about how the Word Police are enforcing political correctness, I'd think the respectful thing would be to say "Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize."

For example, if a person whose ancestors came from Africa prefers "African-American" to "black" or "colored," then that's fine with me. Who am I to tell someone else how they ought to be referenced?

[semi-related rant] What really peeves me, though, is preemptive hypersensitivity as in a news anchor who says something like "The 27 year old African American gentleman was convicted of kicking his dog, evading his taxes, and swindling retirees." (Not a gentleman, is he?) [/semi-related rant]

ps: My guess is that Max is from the Russian Federation.

Originally posted by caloso
The largest country entirely in Europe or the largest country with part of its territory in Europe?

Yes, as I said in Europe. Entirely in Europe.


Originally posted by caloso
For example, if a person whose ancestors came from Africa prefers "African-American" to "black" or "colored," then that's fine with me. Who am I to tell someone else how they ought to be referenced?


If you care to know my opinion, then my impression is that only those living in Africa can call themselves Africans. They share hopes, burdens, problems, and also beauty and uniqueness of that continent. Which, by the way, is the motherland for all the humans.

People of Africa live in Africa. Work hard, risk their lives there, get born and die there.

I may also call myself African-European, but I will never do this. Call me as your lingo suggests, taken you mean it well.

On the other hand, if someone living in North America wants to call himself African-American. OK. Let it be.

Again it is the matter of the internal US politics. The Internet, however, is the international network. The linguistic peculiarities of one country should not be shoved on all the Internauts. And by no means, should be established as a standard on any open forum.

OK. We may follow some hints, which are shown in major dictionaries. But if the word is shown in a dictionary as a normal benign word, I reserve the right to use it in accordance with its actual meaning. And I reserve the right to express my displeasure if the usage of such a word is shown to me as the reason of my post removal.

I do not want to sound confrontational, but this is indeed too much.

Max:

I can't argue with you that it is a symptom of American society. Perhaps we should just leave it at that.

Originally posted by caloso
Max:

I can't argue with you that it is a symptom of American society. Perhaps we should just leave it at that.

Amen!

I vote this thread the..........

OK. Thanks.

Huh?

Dude, let it go.

I know what I shall do myself.

The language barrier is a void that must be crossed.

Come to think of it, I do no like personally the expression African-Americans. If one considers it politically correct in the USA and uses it - OK with me.

But as I see it one has to deserve that I would call him an African.

As if real Africans are so "poor" and "humble", that they would be happy that their rich American friends call themselves Africans too.

For me Hannibal is African, Cleopatra was African. Pharaos were Africans. Patris Lumumba was African. The Roman Emperor Gordianus II Africanus (AD 238) was proud of this name. It was a reward, a honor.

You may "flame" me, but for me the expression African-American is not useable.

I may say it if I must, but I would feel the internal protest, when I pronounce it.

Originally posted by Max
The Roman Emperor Gordianus II Africanus (AD 238) was proud of this name. It was a reward, a honor.


That's the whole point.

I was with my daughter at the playground the other day. She came crying to me because a little boy said of her, "She white!" I told her it made no difference at all. But it hurt her feelings, especially since she was the only "white" girl there and almost the only "white" girl in her school. When you're different from the majority and you are excluded on that basis, it hurts.

But African-Americans have been excluded beyond mere hurt feelings. They have been purposely kept down for hundreds of years.

It's no wonder they want to restore their cultural heritage and be identified as something other than just, "black."

Originally posted by Pete Clark
snipping ...

It's no wonder they want to restore their cultural heritage and be identified as something other than just, "black."

Just as your daughter or any caucasian should be identified as something other that just "white". "Whites" have cultural heritage also, no less interesting than any other yet it cannot be talked about proudly or your considered a racist. Maybe "white" Americans should all call themselves European (or insert country/continent of choice) Americans.

Originally posted by Stor Mand
"Whites" have cultural heritage also, no less interesting than any other...
I can't be entirely certain, but for the most part, I am an Anglo-Irish-Scotttish-German-American.

;)

even if max put that he was from russia, how would you know that he was born there or spent alot of time there?

my location says seattle or pnw but can you guess were i'm really from?

blaa. who cares.
if you don't like the topic, don't respond....

Originally posted by pnj
even if max put that he was from russia, how would you know that he was born there or spent alot of time there?

my location says seattle or pnw but can you guess were i'm really from?

blaa. who cares.
if you don't like the topic, don't respond....

A native speaker of a country can always recognize an imposter.

During WW2 the US police had special linguistic test to recognize German agents in the USA. For example, if the agent was claiming that he is from Baltimore, he could be asked to pronounce this city name.

People who do live in Baltimore pronounce it like [Ballmore].

By the way, I am not from Russia.

Originally posted by Max
During WW2 the US police had special linguistic test to recognize German agents in the USA. For example, if the agent was claiming that he is from Baltimore, he could be asked to pronounce this city name.

Alright, mister, who won the World Series in 1942? :D

Originally posted by Max
Maybe in 30 - 40 years there will be no irony in such words.

:) Science fiction...

No one could call me conservative either, but I had enough of the PC thing years ago. I thought it was over with anyways. All that, 'you shouldn't say things like that' crap. And it turned most colleges into no-think zones. This **** is also sick of being gypped. Let's call a spade a spade and stop being intellectual cripples!

Originally posted by Inoplanetyanin
:) Science fiction...

About 70 years ago the airplane first time crossed Atlantic ocean.

Nowadays the scientific development goes much faster, due to the big bang of the Internet.

Yes. I agree draftsman sounds much better.

Man. How far has English come?!? Back when I raced, we didn't say "draftsman" or "draftsperson" we said "wheel-sucker".

*sigh* :p

hee hee hee
Tom

Originally posted by Max
About 70 years ago the airplane first time crossed Atlantic ocean.

Nowadays the scientific development goes much faster, due to the big bang of the Internet.

It's u nappropriate to compare...
We are at the limits of our insighs about laws of nature.
90 years later, we were advancing technology and manufacturing, while now we are in front of the "developed, known, scientific wall of fundamentals".
We can i mprove existing, but hardly create something intirely new.

So, nothing "AMAZINGLY NEW" can be descovered anymore, at least to change the world in similar way as creation of aviation did...