If I speak to someone and happen to say something wrong and it hurts, that is one thing. If I am talking to another person who is not affected by a limp, inability to walk or other deficit of ambulation and I say, that his or her excuse was “lame”, it is the excuse that is being questioned. Yes, I could say the excuse was weak, or inexcusable as well, but no derision of anyone or anything is occasioned by use of the word lame. As to some idea that use of the word lame offends amputees, I find this seemingly ridiculous and a product of the thought police. This is not the same as calling someone in a wheelchair some other word that I can think of that begins with the letter g. That would be meant as an insult, per the dictionary.
Of course there are words that I find inappropriate for polite conversation, and I make an effort not to use them. Over time the list may grow due to education, and sometimes I may choose to educate others as to why I think some chosen word or words are wrong. In general words that demean groups of people based on race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, mental status, other physical deficit and looks are to be avoided, in my opinion. However, a word that means that there is some deficit is not to be avoided just because it means that there is a deficit. I really can not believe that objection to the word lame is more than one outlier.
I find the effort to change pronouns to a neutral also a useless exercise. If I write a paper and use the pronoun he as the nonspecific indicator of an unknown person, I am not demeaning anyone - efforts to change standard english aside. Yes we can change all pronouns to it because it upsets some, and we may even recognize the inherent bias in the use of he as the universal pronoun, but this is in my opinion rubbish. I can’t imagine this change would lead to equality of anything, which I would think is the desired result.
While discussing the efficacy of a hypothetical Speaker Paul Ryan, MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry cautioned guest Alfonso Aguilar against using the phrase “hard worker,” implying that it is somehow offensive to African Americans.
“I just want to pause on one thing because I don’t disagree with you that I actually think Mr. Ryan is a great choice for this role, but I want us to be super careful when we use the language ‘hard worker,'” she told Aguilar.
“I actually keep an image of folks working in cotton fields on my office wall because it is a reminder about what hard work looks like.”
Even “weak” is a problematic word, because it stigmatizes people, especially women and children, whose core interaction with the world is not marked by intense upper body muscularity.
Musicprnt, the reason I stopped using “lame” to describe intangible things like arguments or opinions (as opposed to, say, horses) is that – more than a decade ago; this is certainly nothing new – I heard actual disabled people (not limited to amputees, certainly) say that the implications and assumptions underlying such uses of the word were, in fact, offensive to them. You’re entirely wrong in your own assumption that the objection to the term (or other similar terms) didn’t come from persons directly affected, and came instead from “self-appointed arbiters.”
[sarcasm] But, in the spirit of trying to get along, I am going to stop using the word gay. Because I may, unknowingly, be referring to a depressed non-hetero person and I would not want to offend them. [/sarcasm]
I got a pretty good laugh out of the combination of these sentences. I’m bemused that anybody would think this formulation would persuade people to be nicer.
Is it wrong to call someone who steals a “criminal”?
In a recent thread on NextDoor, a group of neighbors living in the Noe Valley-Glen Park area were engaged in a discussion around the city’s crime and debated whether labeling a person who commits petty theft as a “criminal” is offensive.
In the site’s Crime and Safety area, where residents share strategies for fighting crime, Malkia Cyril of S.F. suggests that her neighbors stop using the label because it shows lack of empathy and understanding.
Cyril pointed out that instead of calling the thief who took the bicycle from your garage a criminal, you could be more respectful and call him or her “the person who stole my bicycle.”
Well how about Melissa Harris-Perry calling out a guest on MSNBC for referring to Paul Ryan as a “hard worker.” The expression on the guest’s face says it all:
I think Alfonso Aguilar, who was the MSNBC guest on the panel with Melissa Harris-Perry, should have responded by calling her out on her use of the world “feel.” She kept saying I “feel” you Alfonso - certainly he would have more standing to object to that than she did with the whole “hard worker” nonsense.