Steph: Basically, yeah. It's the concept that society disables people, rather than conditions/impairments disabling us. Which is why I prefer 'disabled' to 'person with a disability' - the passive verb puts the onus on society, rather than on me, to change. NB: Many disabled people, especially in the US, prefer 'person-first' language. I mostly just try to respect what other people want to be called. That said, 'differently-abled' emphasises diversity, which is fine to a certain point, without challenging society on its oppression.

Example. My confirmation classes are being held in a room which is up six stone steps. This is oppression (especially as my knee has been partially dislocated, and very painful, all day today as a result). It's about being disabled by society. To my mind, the 'differently-abled' idea reinforces the view that my difference can be dealt with through an acceptance of diversity alone. It's nice that my priest respects my differences. It's less nice that he won't move the sodding confirmation class.

*Seska is dealing with the confirmation class-related stress. Yes, she really is.*

In the tribe, I say "gimp" and "crip" but not usually Out There and I have ripped some House fangirls pretty intensely for this. The irony did not escape me. There are times I wish he didn't do that quite so much.

Yes - 'House' is making 'cripple' a more widespread phenomenon of language than it really needs to be.

I simply don't see why, with the richness of language (not just English), one would choose to use a term like "niggardly" or "gypped". "Miserly" and "cheated" work just fine, thanks.

First of all the sound and rhythms of the words are valuable to me as a writer. They're not the same words. Second the meanings shade differently. Finally, I don't think the exception or line that people want to make between allowances for fiction writers and other speech is a clear bright line.

Language is much more fluid than that, and I certainly don't know a non-fiction writer that doesn't avail themself of elements of fictional rhetoric in their writing.

To Teppy's question, I certainly don't see it as binary at all. In fact, I spent a long time couching my main argument as a subtle weighting and balancing of different values, implying (I think) a spectrum.

To Jilli's question, I did specifically note the importance of context and responsibility of the speaker. I am not asserting my right call somebody names or something they consider objectionable.

I am, however, asserting my right to call rhumba sleeves gay. Even to a straight man from Argentina who is wearing them.

To Seska, I also think "differently abled" is patronizing and used it purposefully as a dodgy phrase. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.

I'm not advocating for racial or ethnic slurs.

You advocated for "gypped."

Though I will note that if people want to find a way to express their xenophobia or racism they'll find it.

Again, no one is arguing that they won't. I am arguing that people who don't want to be presumed racist or xenophobic oughten't use words that they are aware will cause offense.

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

Part of the deal is that you don't get to decide what the "presumed damage" is. I admit that "crazy" is a bit far out, and I explained my personal reasons for that. I'm not calling for a ban on use of the term and admitted that I will probably always use it.

Deciding what words are and are not appropriate is a complex formula involving history, etymology, perception, privilege, precision, etc. It changes over time. How a people or group likes to be referred to or what they find offensive changes. I accept that and honor it.

Yes, it's funny when he does it. But he's Hugh Laurie and he's smarter than you. ktksbai.

Example. My confirmation classes are being held in a room which is up six stone steps. This is oppression (especially as my knee has been partially dislocated, and very painful, all day today as a result) - it's being disabled by society.

I've only read a little about the social model of disability, and that only recently. What I read related to mental illness, and, as someone with major depression that has proven pretty strongly that it will not be "cured," I admit that the social model threw me for a loop. Why? I had always considered that it was my job to take drugs, go to therapy, and then I'd "be cured."

This is not the case for me, which you (Seska) wouldn't know, since you're new-ish here. But a lot of the Buffistas have seen me go through periods of trying to go off antidepressants and the MASSIVE relapse that follows.

Anyway. The idea that I shouldn't be apologizing for my inability to be "cured," but that maybe some areas of my life should accommodate my needs, was a revolutionary idea.

I know, it is. And I don't live up to it all the time and not just because I'm lame about lame.

First of all the sound and rhythms of the words are valuable to me as a writer.

They are valuable to me as a polyglot and a language geek. See above re: "lesbian" vs. "dyke."*

They're not the same words. Second the meanings shade differently.

Honestly curious - explain the nuances between niggardly and miserly. Because I parse them the same and I haven't been able to find a distinction in the online dictionaries and thesaureses I consulted.

* but see, I'm a part of those communities, and I know not everyone agrees with me, and I will stop using a term to describe someone if she tells me she finds it offensive.

To Teppy's question, I certainly don't see it as binary at all. In fact, I spent a long time couching my main argument as a subtle weighting and balancing of different values, implying (I think) a spectrum.

You addressed a point I didn't make. When I said initially that it's weak writing that can't express a concept in a different way, you addressed that with descriptions of watered-down evasive political speech. Not with descriptions of a spectrum.

It's not worth arguing about, but you either misunderstood me, or you're dodging my point.

What say the Bitches, was I being inappropriate?

To my ear it was somewhat inappropriate. It reads as being dismissive of the creative work involved in doing the work. I wouldn't say in front of Jackson Pollack "I could recreate that with some leftover paint and a twirl-o-paint." Art is much more than the materials involved, it's about the creative mind to combine them in such a way as to make a statement. Your statement could also have been interpreted to mean you'd have no problem creating a copy of the work, which is to me, stealing from the artist.

Again, no one is arguing that they won't. I am arguing that people who don't want to be presumed racist or xenophobic oughten't use words that they are aware will cause offense.

This. THIS.

To Jilli's question, I did specifically note the importance of context and responsibility of the speaker. I am not asserting my right call somebody names or something they consider objectionable.

You did note that. But you didn't answer my specific question. If someone tells you that you used a word they consider objectionable, would you tell them why you chose that word? Or would you apologize and say it wasn't your intent to offend?

I'm going on the theory that I'm misinterpreting what part of your stance is, because the way it is coming across TO ME is that you're dancing around at least part of the issue and just arguing for contrary argument's sake.

Part of the deal is that you don't get to decide what the "presumed damage" is.

That's the core of the argument, to me. Language is about communicating. How rich and useful are language choices if someone has to repeatedly backtrack and say "What I meant by that was [blah], not to offend anyone"?