Let's go.........RANDOM!
Also, words are merely the children of meaning and meaning goes back to something indescribable. So , to call me insensitive purely based on my choice of words would be a purely rushed conclusion.
If you continue to adopt this policy of yours, you will certainly be mislead by many that will use the art of language to hide there true intentions.
Squabbling about mere words is emptiness, if you want to have a meaningful discussion, then lets discuss our feelings towards disabled people.
I feel that they are more or less useless to society and in almost all cases a burden on society or there family. They sit in there chair all day long, doing not much of anything it seems.
More over, even-though you cannot claim a right or wrong way of nature I feel, we can safely say that there handicap is unusual in the sense that they are at the edges of the spectrum of humankind physical properties. And therefore, would they stand on there own, they would most likely not survive in most uncivilized parts of the world.
Therefore I deem them unfit to live.
If you continue to adopt this policy of yours, you will certainly be mislead by many that will use the art of language to hide there true intentions.
Squabbling about mere words is emptiness, if you want to have a meaningful discussion, then lets discuss our feelings towards disabled people.
I feel that they are more or less useless to society and in almost all cases a burden on society or there family. They sit in there chair all day long, doing not much of anything it seems.
More over, even-though you cannot claim a right or wrong way of nature I feel, we can safely say that there handicap is unusual in the sense that they are at the edges of the spectrum of humankind physical properties. And therefore, would they stand on there own, they would most likely not survive in most uncivilized parts of the world.
Therefore I deem them unfit to live.
Because it is a negative adjective. It has negative connotations.Jordy... wrote:I play the ball back to you sir and will ask you why you consider abnormal to be a negative adjective?
It means "People that don't have ASD". I never hear the word elsewhere.Shwart!! wrote:I'm probably going to regret asking, but what's the context behind this? I'm unfamiliar with the term.
Neurotypical, as far as I know, is a word coined by people with Asperger syndrome and autism, because using the term "normal" to describe non-autistic individuals can be offensive, as xander pointed out. I believe the idea behind it is that there's nothing wrong with autistics, they're not damaged or disabled, just different. I'm an aspie myself.
Some people talk because they have something to say. Others talk because they have to say something.
Where do you get this from? 1. not normal; deviating from the usual or typical; extraordinary. extraordinary, is as you can read a synonym to abnormal, I don't believe extraordinary is something negative parse.
I could and would have used the word extraordinary instead of abnormal, if not for the fact people would most likely think I was trolling and/or using an euphemism, which, in my view, using an euphemism is often more damaging then stating the truth, because it shows an intention to hide something, which implies it's something to be hidden, thus something to be ashamed of or illegal.
We can come up with all kinds of words but basically they are euphemism-isms, which implies something is wrong, imo.
In the Netherlands we invented the term andersvalide, which is a contraction of the two words different and healthy/well. Now why can't we say someone is miss-formed, or ugly, or abnormal?
In my opinion this is very wrong, because it gives the suggestion that it's bad or shameful to be ugly or miss-formed or abnormal. And indeed, it seems most of society nowadays rejects or otherwise negatively views and act upon people that are miss-formed, ugly or abnormal.
However, instead of using euphemisms for those that fall under these categories, we should grab the problem by its balls and work towards a better society in which there is more place and acceptance for the ugly, miss-formed and abnormal people.
And certainly abnormality has played a huge factor in our entire existence, we do not like "normal" art, we want to see the abnormal, evolution spurs because of abnormalities and we like to read and watch about abnormalities, sometimes we even want to be abnormal or extraordinary.
In short, we live in a society that thrives on abnormality, and if we want abnormality so bad, we should know that it goes 2 ways. Simply following one and rejecting the other category would be a colossal mistake, a mistake that will not be sustainable.
I could and would have used the word extraordinary instead of abnormal, if not for the fact people would most likely think I was trolling and/or using an euphemism, which, in my view, using an euphemism is often more damaging then stating the truth, because it shows an intention to hide something, which implies it's something to be hidden, thus something to be ashamed of or illegal.
We can come up with all kinds of words but basically they are euphemism-isms, which implies something is wrong, imo.
In the Netherlands we invented the term andersvalide, which is a contraction of the two words different and healthy/well. Now why can't we say someone is miss-formed, or ugly, or abnormal?
In my opinion this is very wrong, because it gives the suggestion that it's bad or shameful to be ugly or miss-formed or abnormal. And indeed, it seems most of society nowadays rejects or otherwise negatively views and act upon people that are miss-formed, ugly or abnormal.
However, instead of using euphemisms for those that fall under these categories, we should grab the problem by its balls and work towards a better society in which there is more place and acceptance for the ugly, miss-formed and abnormal people.
And certainly abnormality has played a huge factor in our entire existence, we do not like "normal" art, we want to see the abnormal, evolution spurs because of abnormalities and we like to read and watch about abnormalities, sometimes we even want to be abnormal or extraordinary.
In short, we live in a society that thrives on abnormality, and if we want abnormality so bad, we should know that it goes 2 ways. Simply following one and rejecting the other category would be a colossal mistake, a mistake that will not be sustainable.
Dictionaries aren't the best source of information on connotations of words, existing solely to supply definitions. All that they do have to say about connotations is:Jordy... wrote:Where do you get this from? 1. not normal; deviating from the usual or typical; extraordinary. extraordinary, is as you can read a synonym to abnormal, I don't believe extraordinary is something negative parse.
"2. the associated or secondary meaning of a word or expression in addition to its explicit or primary meaning: A possible connotation of “home” is “a place of warmth, comfort, and affection.” Compare denotation"
This is true and I do get that you have to call them something other than "normal people" and it's definitely preferable to each party using "us", "them" and "you" but sometimes I hear the word and it might as well be. I guess the underlying butthurt some people have used it with has had a more profound effect than it should.xyzyxx wrote:I believe the idea behind it is that there's nothing wrong with autistics, they're not damaged or disabled, just different. I'm an aspie myself.
To better place my perspective, I would not be a neurotypical.
xyzyxx wrote:You actively go out of your way to discredit yourself, don't you?Jordy... wrote:Therefore I deem them unfit to live.
This is true, I strife for an absolute misprize of my character by this community, however that may be though, my point still stands.
And if you are an aspie, you are not normal, not in that regard anyway, because most people are not aspie, simple as that. So the norm is derived by looking at most people, if you fall besides this norm you are abnormal, I don't understand how someone can be upset or confused by this.
Unless he's so desperately longs for being within the norm that he's ashamed of falling besides the norm and therefore rather not have people call him abnormal but use an euphemism to describe his state.
This would be the same thing as calling gay people neuro-typical. I think, that guys would be quite offended if you would call them "neuro-typical people". Why? Because it gives the idea that the word "gay" is wrong and should not be spoken of, and thus being gay seems wrong.
xyzyxx you are abnormal in certain aspects, why be ashamed because of it? Being abnormal brings certain challenges and therefore it's deemed wrong, and therefore it's wrong to call people abnormal, but this is the world upside down.
Being abnormal is a blessing, it either revolutionizes things or acts as grounds of poetry. For instance an aspie would revolutionize some parts of society by new insights or he would be a tragic case of a person that is misunderstood by society and who cannot finds it place within society, or who finds an awkward place in society. Or both.
The former is beneficial, the latter is tragic beauty. Trying desperately to be "normal" and living an average live is also tragic beauty because you deny yourself the joys of life, rotting away in mediocrity that is not meant for you.
We can't call someone ugly without offending him most of the time, but he still remains ugly, so we would hurt him more by giving him the idea that he's any less because of his ugliness. Whole industries thrive on this "beauty-syndrome" and "normal-syndrome" and we've actually bought into it, we started to believe we have to be beautiful, or at least not ugly and be normal to have any success in live, or more importantly to be accepted by society.
And wrecking someone's illusion by calling him ugly or abnormal and therefore discrediting his right to be accepted by society is called being offensive. Well, if such is the case, then I'm glad to be offensive, but I don't like to participate in this whole charade.
That being said, I think there are actually studies out there that show that people who look good get jobs and higher positions quicker and other advantages in today's society.
I'm not sure if this is an integral part of our human-being ingrained in our reptile-brain to help with partner selection or an outcome of the superficiality of modern day society.
I like to believe it's the latter and that we can become less superficial and more in touch with each other. I also think that our views of abnormality can be viewed upon in the same way.
jelco wrote:No-one said disabled people are lesser beings, or made any other kind of judgement about a person's worth at all. ll.
I did. And I agree for the most part with you and just add that using euphemisms implies it's wrong to be not-normal. Also you should really read my posts above, I put time and effort in them, it would be rude and offensive not to read them, let alone mentioning you are plainly ignoring them..
Be a little kinder next time and perhaps we can all get along..
But say I go along with the negative connotation of abnormal, what should I have said instead to underline the difference between a handicapped person and non-handicapped persons? Without using an euphemism? That she is different? More explicitly, extraordinary, because that word carries a positive connotation, but then I believe you would have though I was making fun of her, by saying she is an extraordinary woman.
In my opinion, this is partly because extraordinary implies a certain skill, or a concious way of acting, while abnormal is something you are, something which you cannot change.
So in a sense, we want to believe in a society that we can form at our whims, we praise people that reach for our ideals and call them extraordinary, but how can this attitude possibly be without a shadow-side? Some things are not changeable by human practice (at least not yet), and some things go in against our ideals.
A failure to recognize this and discard the abnormal as unwanted is the real crime we are committing here, using euphemisms to attach a sticker which creates the illusion of make-ability is the real offence we are guilty off. Not accepting people for what they are is the REAL evil in this society.
That a word like abnormal might unearth these problems by the negative connotation is carries is not the problem here, on the contrary, it might be the beginning of an solution.
Because once people are free to speak of someone as being abnormal we know we have solved this part of society.
So carry forth and go on a crusade against the rejection of abnormality.
- bert_the_turtle
- level5
- Posts: 4795
- Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 6:11 pm
- Location: Cologne
- Contact:
bert_the_turtle wrote:In case you're wondering why you were briefly banned this (European) morning, that was me! I did it because I hate you all!
(No, sorry, I picked the wrong priority between diligence and speed when banning a bestiality spammer. I got him, though!)
You stupid ass-hole. Hey Bert! If I recall correctly you are a board-gamer? I was wondering if you ever played Dominant Species and whether you play on BSW? Or am I confusing things here and aren't you a board-gamer at all?
The problem with the word "normal" is that it does make explicit what "normal" is relative to. Normal people have jobs, get married, raise children, watch television, play computer games, and so on. When you refer to someone as "abnormal," there is a suggestion that they are incapable of participating in society in the way that a "normal" person would. Moreover, by claiming that someone is abnormal because they use a wheelchair or have autism, you are implicitly suggesting that the person is nothing more than their disability---you deny the entire range of human experience and replace it with a pigeonhole.
xander
xander
xander wrote:The problem with the word "normal" is that it does make explicit what "normal" is relative to. Normal people have jobs, get married, raise children, watch television, play computer games, and so on. When you refer to someone as "abnormal," there is a suggestion that they are incapable of participating in society in the way that a "normal" person would. Moreover, by claiming that someone is abnormal because they use a wheelchair or have autism, you are implicitly suggesting that the person is nothing more than their disability---you deny the entire range of human experience and replace it with a pigeonhole.
xander
I completely agree with the first part, and am even willing to buy into the second part, but I do think it's a little exaggerated.
I did deduct his sisters existence to her being handicapped, because it was relevant to my question. How does her handicap influenced her state of happiness compared to before her being handicapped, in the case she was not handicapped before.
But this does not mean I denied her entire range of human experiences and only focused on here inability to be normal. Rather, I was comparing the entire range of human experiences being handicapped to the entire range of experiences not being handicapped. And referencing to the standard as normal people, and the non-standard experience implicitly as abnormal.
In my opinion I did not spoke of her looking trough a pigeonhole, but much rather had an altered vision of her existence, which I think is entirely justified because she does deviate in an abnormal way from how mainstream people experience there lives.
And let's be honest, putting her on a plateau in front of the stage also stresses she is "different" or abnormal, because other people don't get such a luxury. And the possible extra attention she will get from the performers also stresses her difference. And I believe, in many cases, from what I've heard, handicapped people rather be dealt with normal, and not be treated with pity or euphemisms.
"When you refer to someone as "abnormal," there is a suggestion that they are incapable of participating in society in the way that a "normal" person would."
And I fail to see what is false about this suggestion?
Because someone in a wheelchair probably has a live that deviates quite hefty from normal people, not to least the dependence such a person has on other people. Raising children will be a lot harder, or impossible on your own, at least at certain age phases. And finding jobs will be harder and getting married, I imagine will also be harder.
But so what if someone fails to meet the standard? I hardly see how this can be seen as a offence to someone.
On contrary, I would be inspired and admire her if what I had heard would hold true.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests