Hee... Is it a bad time to mention that I find 'differently-abled' rather patronising? (I know you were kidding!)

That's why I was using quotes around it. Not my phrase, definitely.

The bigger issue is that you cannot uproot words from their cultural history.

The cultural history of certain words (see: the "n" word) is a big part of WHY they are no longer acceptable.

Trying to control the language is a way to try and control thinking (cf., Orwell) and people do resist and resent that attempt.

Once again, I think you are overgeneralizing. There is ongoing debate about "lame" and such but we have acknowledged that in this discussion. I have yet to hear anything that remotely convinces me of a necessity to use "gypped," "niggardly," "rag head," etc.

No one (in this country) can actually control the language you use, Hec. Furthermore, no one is arguing for that.

That's why I was using quotes around it. Not my phrase, definitely.

Indeed. We have similar views on language, it seems.

Uhf, now that response looks overly contentious. Sorry.

Actually I don't generally call individuals retarded but I will call an idea or a plan retarded.

Please explain to me how racial/ethnic slurs are a benefit to language and communication. Seriously, I can't wait.

I'm not advocating for racial or ethnic slurs. Though I will note that if people want to find a way to express their xenophobia or racism they'll find it.

However, I don't have an issue with exerting social pressure to say certain words are tabboo and not used in polite society or discourse because of their history.

I do have an issue with using that idea as a general principle and following that logic to exclude "crazy" as a perjorative. I think that's a false and damaging consistency. Too damaging to language in relation to whatever presumed damage is done to the mentally ill by that word.

Because the whole world watches Deadwood, right?

As erika notes, I only use it to other Deadwood fans.

I'd argue they have their place...it's not a proud, well-lighted place, and it smells like old beer, but I can't imagine a slur-free world. People just aren't built for this...

And here I am, considering it, but honestly, I'm not gonna stop referring to Glen Beck or myself the day before my period as crazy, and I'm more concerned with removing certain other words from my language.

Fair enough! *g*

Hee... Is it a bad time to mention that I find 'differently-abled' rather patronising? (I know you were kidding!)

Is there a term you prefer, Seska? Just curious.

It's not a binary, with options being Bold Yet Described As Some As Offensive vs. Weak Ineffectual Mealy-Mouthed Pap. Implying that there are only 2 choices in writing is, again, WEAK.

What Teppy Said.

Too damaging to language in relation to whatever presumed damage is done to the mentally ill by that word.

I'm sorry, but you, as a non-mentally-ill person, don't get to make that call.

Because the whole world watches Deadwood, right?

As erika notes, I only use it to other Deadwood fans.

You didn't say that originally, so I wasn't aware of that.

Is there a term you prefer, Seska?

Disabled.

It's easy to say.

I can link to the social model of disability, for why I prefer that to euphemisms that avoid the issue, but I'd get boring REALLY fast. If I haven't already...

the social model of disability

Seska, is that the idea that (and I know I'm VASTLY simplifying here), rather than the disabled person trying adapt to the environment -- or, in the case of some mental illnesses, "get better" -- that the environment should adapt to *their* needs?