You must be mad!

[Catherineanne]

In my opinion there is way too much sensitivity and it is amounting to censorship. It seems everyone has some sort of issue these days, and it better not be mentioned for fear of upsetting someone.

Thank you for your compassion. It is truly underwhelming.

 

[Catherineanne]

Yes we must encourage strength, however mental issues can cause people to take remarks extremely poorly and lead them to perform unspeakable acts.

Anyone can perform unspeakable acts, and it is very much more likely that those acts will be inflicted upon mentally ill people, rather than by them.

Your comment reflects a considerable degree of prejudice, and is without foundation.

 

[Catherineanne]

This.

A thousand times, this.

Otherwise, what's next? Making things like "satire" illegal?

Nope. Ten thousand times nope.

What is wrong with simple respect? When did bad manners become the norm against which we measure our behaviour and our language?

 

[Catherineanne]

Jesus says it all comes down to treating others the way we want to be treated.

Yes, that would be sufficient. That is all that it would take.

 

[Catherineanne]

Then if i do not mind being called crazy I have no reason to refrain from calling someone else crazy. Call me crazy but I find this whole over sensitivity stuff to be wearing thin.

Good for you.

Try being on the receiving end of actually hurtful language and then tell me it would not hurt you.

 

[Catherineanne]

Wouldn't it be better to help people become more self assured than to enable them to stay so unnecessarily emotionally vulnerable by pandering to their oversensitivity?

Would that work with the 'N' word as well, and our black brothers and sisters? Are they just being oversensitive?

Thought not.

Meanwhile, suggesting that I and others in a similar situation are oversensitive is a variant of blaming the victim for the crime. When others use such language it is not about my sensitivity; it is about consideration for those who happen already to be disadvantaged by life; not just me, but thousands and thousands who may not be able to speak for themselves.

Respect is a simple enough concept and we all expect it. This is just about raising awareness of the casual use of language that has a very real power to cause very real distress to people who are already carrying a very heavy cross.

It is beyond me to understand why anyone would want to defend such language, to be honest, and least of all Christians.

 

[Catherineanne]

I understand your point, however people can be offended more easily than you.
It all about how a person sees things.

Is the 'N' word about perception, or is it unacceptable in general use, regardless of perception?

'Mental', 'insane' and 'psycho' need to go the same way, imo.

 

[Gadarene]

The point is it is entirely possible to use any of those words and still be supportive of the real issues people are facing.

And as at least one of the replies here has shown, it's also possible for one to have completely unproblematic word choice and yet engage in rank stereotyping.

Trying to control word choice is a band-aid on a axe-wound or whatever that Americanism is.

 

[MehGuy]

Let's make this topic all about women somehow.

 

[Catherineanne]

The point is it is entirely possible to use any of those words and still be supportive of the real issues people are facing.

And as at least one of the replies here has shown, it's also possible for one to have completely unproblematic word choice and yet engage in rank stereotyping.

Trying to control word choice is a band-aid on a axe-wound or whatever that Americanism is.

I am not trying to control word choice. I am trying to raise awareness of a very important issue that others may not be aware of. It is the heart that needs to change before the vocabulary.

After that people are still free to choose the words they use, but they are not free to say they did not realise that such words could hurt. If they did not realise then of course there can be no sin in using such language.

Now they know that these words can hurt then the sin becomes real.

Anyone at all can then choose to use such language intentionally, and thereby knowingly sin; that is up to them.

I do not, however, think you are correct in saying that those who are aware of mental health issues would use such language in a casual way, any more than those who campaign against racism would use racist language. It is a matter of awareness.

 

[Gadarene]

I am not trying to control word choice. I am trying to raise awareness of a very important issue that others may not be aware of. It is the heart that needs to change before the vocabulary.

After that people are still free to choose the words they use, but they are not free to say they did not realise that such words could hurt. If they did not realise then of course there can be no sin in using such language.

Now they know that these words can hurt then the sin becomes real.

Anyone at all can then choose to use such language intentionally, and thereby knowingly sin; that is up to them.

Why is it a "sin" if someone gets offended over something I said when there is no intent to offend? That is not my problem, that is the issue of the person with those sensibilities.

I do not, however, think you are correct in saying that those who are aware of mental health issues would use such language in a casual way, any more than those who campaign against racism would use racist language. It is a matter of awareness.

It's not about campaigning explicitly - simply that you can use these words and not be against solving these issues, while those with perfect vocabulary can still reinforce stereotypes. One can observe people using the N-word affectionately, or ironically, or as a self-identifier, or humourously. There's more than one context in which these things might arise, and simply leaping to the conclusion that it's being done to hurt isn't necessarily going to be correct.

 

[Jesus' Follower]

Why is it a "sin" if someone gets offended over something I said when there is no intent to offend? That is not my problem, that is the issue of the person with those sensibilities.



It's not about campaigning explicitly - simply that you can use these words and not be against solving these issues, while those with perfect vocabulary can still reinforce stereotypes. One can observe people using the N-word affectionately, or ironically, or as a self-identifier, or humourously. There's more than one context in which these things might arise, and simply leaping to the conclusion that it's being done to hurt isn't necessarily going to be correct.

I actually agree with you on that - good point.

 

[Catherineanne]

Why is it a "sin" if someone gets offended over something I said when there is no intent to offend? That is not my problem, that is the issue of the person with those sensibilities.

Yeah, that is not how it works.

It's not about campaigning explicitly - simply that you can use these words and not be against solving these issues, while those with perfect vocabulary can still reinforce stereotypes. One can observe people using the N-word affectionately, or ironically, or as a self-identifier, or humourously. There's more than one context in which these things might arise, and simply leaping to the conclusion that it's being done to hurt isn't necessarily going to be correct.

I am not the one who is leaping to conclusions.

 

[Dave-W]

Is the 'N' word about perception, or is it unacceptable in general use, regardless of perception?

You judge:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/williams/williams020499.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_"niggardly"

 

[Catherineanne]

I actually agree with you on that - good point.

I refer you to the reading for last Sunday.

James 3 1-12

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+2:1-12

 

[Gadarene]

Yeah, that is not how it works.

Why not?

I am not the one who is leaping to conclusions.

How so? Detail would be great.

Are you denying that there is more than one way to use these particular words?

 

[Catherineanne]

You judge:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/williams/williams020499.htm

'Niggardly' is nothing to do with the n word; anyone who thinks it is needs to check a dictionary. The etymology is completely different.

 

[Catherineanne]

Why not?



How so? Detail would be great.

Are you denying that there is more than one way to use these particular words?

http://biblehub.com/matthew/15-11.htm

 

[Gadarene]

I refer you to the reading for last Sunday.

James 3 1-12

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+2:1-12

The passage is about the sentiment that is being communicated, and focusing on solitary incidences of words will not give you a complete picture of what is being said any way. Note that the passage isn't about "thou shalt not use these words because verily, by the book of Tumblr, they art problematic", but rather about how you shouldn't be unwelcoming to the poor.

Attitudes and intent, again - not this word shouldn't be used.

 

[Gadarene]

http://biblehub.com/matthew/15-11.htm

Again, is this about sentiment or vocabulary?