BuyerBeware wrote:
No. Well, maybe on a university campus, but-- not on the street. My IRL is the gas station, the grocery store, the playground, the doctor's office, the therapist's office, the laundromat-- the street. People who want to **be seen as considerate** adjust their language accordingly. "Be seen as" isn't the same thing as actually being considerate.
Well, not where I'm from - and you are really pushing this false dichotomy with the "be seen as". If you don't give a s**t how what you say comes off, you aren't considerate, by definition.
Quote:
Which brings up a pet peeve-- the fact that there are certain demographics that it's actually PC to denigrate-- but that's another post.
Sure. In my first post, I don't know if it came through, but my point was that some people use PC as a vehicle for their classism.
Quote:
I'm not arguing that everyone who uses offensive speech is OK and everyone who uses PC language is bad. I'm arguing that you cannot safely and accurately judge someone's attitude or open-mindedness simply by the words they choose. Thinking that you can is in itself a form of bigotry and may be dangerous to your safety. Thinking that attitudes can be changed simply by temporarily masking them behind "neutral language" that won't stay neutral for long-- is just plain silly. It might raise the comfort level of certain demographics for a period of time, but it's a false sense of security. That's foolish. Dangerous. Impedimentary to progress.
I like to think I can tell the difference between ignorance and people who use a term knowing full well what it implies. Actually, I always assume it is used innocently unless I know for a fact that person is aware of the implications.
As for changing the terminology being dangerous, that's not where the danger comes from. Dehumanizing social-Darwinist talk about us, couched in medical terminology, is still clear enough in its meaning that the response from the public is along the lines of "yeah! Those psychos should be exterminated! They're all a bunch of ret*ds anyway!" Yes, it's scary how mainstream and accepted it is, but this isn't because it snuck in under the guise of politically correct terminology but because it really hasn't been challenged yet. We are only just becoming defined as a group (or an "epidemic") and the reaction is typical. Attempting to promote the idea that we are capable, not dangerous, etc. is itself an attempt at creating our own "politically correct" cause. Most people aren't autistic and aren't close to someone who is. If they are going to reject dehumanizing statements like the one you mentioned and give us the benefit of the doubt, it will usually be because they heard it was the decent thing to do, not because they personally care about us.
Last edited by Nonperson on 20 Mar 2013, 6:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
20 Mar 2013, 6:09 pm
