You must be mad!

[DogmaHunter]

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?

If we have to take note of literally everyone's sensitivities, we wouldn't be able to talk about anything.

What you call "respect" here, I call an attack on my freedom of speech.

And no, I'm not talking about hate speech.
I'm talking about day-to-day harmless conversation.

And indeed, what's next? Making satire illegal? Because that's where this is going once you embark on that path.

 

[Catherineanne]

My sister has a mental disorder but wears shirts that say "psycho" on them. I think it really depends on the person that has them. I haven't exactly heard an out cry from anyone saying it is upsetting when those terms are used. And I think a lot of times those words aren't used in a context of derogatory towards people with a disability. If I say, "That's a crazy idea" I would think you would take my comment as the idea you are saying is way out there, not feasible. I could be wrong, but that is like saying, "That is a really fat tree" and someone getting upset cause you called it fat if they are overweight. Seems kind of silly to me.

Thank you for your empathy. So slight as to be imperceptible.

 

[Catherineanne]

If we have to take note of literally everyone's sensitivities, we wouldn't be able to talk about anything.

What you call "respect" here, I call an attack on my freedom of speech.

And no, I'm not talking about hate speech.
I'm talking about day-to-day harmless conversation.

And indeed, what's next? Making satire illegal? Because that's where this is going once you embark on that path.

I don't much care for your opinion, or your attitude. Freedom of speech does not include the freedom to oppress other people.

This thread is for reasonable people who are willing to consider the needs of others. Anyone to whom that does not apply can simply pass along.

 

[Catherineanne]

As Christians we are to have God's love in us. This is one of the 9 fruits of the Spirit. If we do not produce fruit we are not a Christian. I told someone today she was crazy but she knows I love her. If I was telling her in a way that did not show love then she may have been hurt or upset. "A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of." Luke 6 45

Perhaps next time love her without calling her crazy, which is verbal abuse no matter how much you pretend it isn't.

Just a thought.

 

[Catherineanne]

I think the intent of the word is what is the most significant, especially since there are variations in the meaning and colloquial usage between different cultures and generations. If someone has deliberately said or written something to be offensive, then it's natural and appropriate to then take proportional offense. In many cases, though, a person has used a word or term lightly and innocently, and the accusations, outrage, and condemnation that are hurled back can be disproportionately hurtful and unkind. As an example, back in 2012 there was a popular "about me" tag on YouTube, and a 14-year-old Texan "beauty guru" friend of mine responding to it answered the question about her personality by describing herself as a spaz. Most American viewers understood that she meant she's very excitable, quirky, and hyper. She was promptly assailed with accusations, primarily from British subs, that she was mocking those with cerebral palsy and should be deeply ashamed of herself. It actually spawned these response videos that called her out and shamed her as being callous and insensitive, or an ignorant idiot. A simple comment or heads up via message explaining without any accusation of wrongdoing or judgement that the word was considered to be offensive would have been far more kind and teachable. "Mad" is also used a bit differently in Britspeak vs. Americanism. The "crazy" connotation is usually one that has more affection to it, such as being "mad" / "crazy" about a person (adoration for him or her) or creatively eccentric in the Mad Hatter way. Girls from my dance studio who go to a local high school did a Mad Hatter themed Homecoming pep rally dance and had shirts about the "madness." None of it was to demean or in any way offend someone with a mental illness. In the spring we have "March Madness" to celebrate basketball playoffs, and there's clearly no intent to disparage anyone with the use of the word. In youth culture there's also words that are used differently, such as using "sick" as an adjective that means awesome. So I think context is imperative.

I'm not stating that we shouldn't be attentive to our words and sensitive and considerate to others because we absolutely should, but I do think we need to be reasonable. When a correction truly is necessary, it needs to be done in an appropriate way and with consideration to the context and the intent. Haranguing someone for a benign-intentioned faux pas is just as unkind if not more so than making the faux pas.

No, intent is not sufficient.

Where there is lack of awareness of the hurtful nature of such words, then intent can be innocent, but the harm caused is just as real as if the words were intended as abuse. If someone punches me by accident their intent may be innocent, but the harm is the same.

To focus on intent means that the target is ignored and any effect on them is minimised or ignored completely. This is not sufficient.

What matters is not whether harm is intended, but whether harm is possible. If we recognise that harm is possible we can take steps to change our attitude and our language. By doing this we protect other innocent people from the harm we could cause them.

Once again, I am at a loss to understand why any Christians would argue against this one.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

Ow please.... black people use that word more then anyone.

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.

What if I, as an atheist, decide that it is "disrespectfull" to hear about gods and about how I am going to hell and how I even deserve to go to hell?

Will you support my "sensitivity" and tell theists to shut up out of "respect" for me?

Incidently, I AM greatly insulted by theists who believe I will go to hell and, by worshipping the one who will supposedly send me there, they even SUPPORT it.
This means that these people SUPPORT the idea of me being TORTURED for eternity.

You are in here complaining about people using the word "crazy" or "spastic" in rather harmless ways.

Think about it for a second.

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.

When theists tell me and believe that I deserve to be tortured for eternity, it's not just "casual use" of language. They actually mean it.

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

Least of all christians?
Perhaps you should do a little experiment.

Pretend to be an atheist for a month. Out yourself as an atheist in the community you live in. Make sure all your church going friends and family hear about it.

See what happens.

EDIT: just noticed you are from the UK and not some bible belt state in the US. The impact might not be as big there I suppose. Still though, I reckon you'll here quite a few "not so respectfull" things.

 

[Catherineanne]

heh, we are all insane at one time or another in our lives.
each and every one of us.

mental lapses, we all experience them.
the thought of "i just can't live without them", happens to a large part of humanity.
doing ridiculous, crazy stunts afflicts a great number of youth.

so, what exactly is "crazy"?

Imo it is a word we can do without, so we can do without attempting a definition as well.

 

[Catherineanne]

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.

Yeah, no.

Thanks for playing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't much care for your opinion, or your attitude. Freedom of speech does not include the freedom to oppress other people.

People aren't oppressed by words. Unless they choose to be.

This thread is for reasonable people who are willing to consider the needs of others. Anyone to whom that does not apply can simply pass along.

So now I don't consider the needs of others? Why, because I disagree with you?

 

[Catherineanne]

To recap; this thread recommends people to consider before using words of verbal abuse to anyone at all, particularly where the abuse equates to calling those people mentally ill. It is not a joke, and it is not funny. It is verbal abuse.

I am truly amazed that anyone wants to defend their right to go around casually calling others insane, mental, psycho, maniacal, crazy, OCD, psychotic, narcissistic, paranoid, etc etc. I would ask such people to step back for a moment, think seriously about this and reconsider whether they really want to defend that position. If they are believers consider whether that kind of language is compatible with our faith, and if they are humanist whether it is compatible with any definition of humanity whatever.

And remember, I am the one with the actual mental condition. I am not ashamed of that, but I would be ashamed if I were defending the use of verbal abuse to already stigmatised and oppressed people.

 

[Catherineanne]

Again, is this about sentiment or vocabulary?

It is 'about' verbal abuse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_abuse

 

[Gadarene]

Yeah, no.

Thanks for playing.

Any counter-argument to my point, or just snark?

Is this a discussion/debate or preaching?

 

[Gadarene]

And remember, I am the one with the actual mental condition. I am not ashamed of that, but I would be ashamed if I were defending the use of verbal abuse to already stigmatised and oppressed people.

Also recall that I have challenged your stance, and I also have an actual mental condition. This kind of sensitivity not only makes us look ridiculous, it is not even challenging the actual stigmas.

 

[Gadarene]

What if I, as an atheist, decide that it is "disrespectfull" to hear about gods and about how I am going to hell and how I even deserve to go to hell?

Will you support my "sensitivity" and tell theists to shut up out of "respect" for me?

Incidently, I AM greatly insulted by theists who believe I will go to hell and, by worshipping the one who will supposedly send me there, they even SUPPORT it.
This means that these people SUPPORT the idea of me being TORTURED for eternity.

You are in here complaining about people using the word "crazy" or "spastic" in rather harmless ways.

Think about it for a second.

This is precisely why the appeal to hurt feels is invariably hypocritical. It is only ever considered right to protect against offence of positions that happen to be relatively fashionable at that point.

 

[Gadarene]

But hey, let's just treat sensitivity like it's this huge sign of weakness.

Sensitivity itself isn't weakness. Placing the solution to it on other people, however.....

 

[Gadarene]

Using any words that are for mental illness stigmatizes those of us who actually deal with them. This means that depression is nothing more than.... "they totally act depressed" "after watching that sad movie, i feel depressed". And OCD is nothing more than...."I like to clean, I'm really OCD" "they're OCD about matching their clothes". All the people who are psychotic are nothing more than.... "they went psycho on the guy who broke into their apartment" "my ex-girlfriend was psychotic after finding out I lied". These words are either belittled and misunderstood (like the shy kid being called "antisocial"; lets hope you never meet an actual anti-social person) or used by neurotypical people to make fun of themselves. I really don't appreciate when someone tries to insult others by calling them "depressed" or make fun of themselves by saying how "OCD" they are when I'm standing two feet away from them, actually dealing with these things, and trying not to feel like a complete joke.

You just said that people use them to make fun of themselves, so how are they "trying to insult" people while doing so? The only people they would be trying to insult is themselves. Again, you are presuming intent that just isn't there, from you own description.

And like it or not, the general concepts of depressed, being antisocial etc are not just clinical ones. They exist in the common vernacular too, and this has been the case long since people started getting bees in their bonnets over it.

Good for you if words are just words and meanings are only as important as you want them to be, but don't throw that shtick on the rest of us. Good for you if it's easy to make the same annoying "comebacks" to generalized sayings meant to keep people safe, but actual people benefit from those sayings being taken and understood seriously. I can't recall all the times a man has said how if he "was a girl" he'd "like if people..." as excuse for making light of dangerous situations or make excuse for acting in a reprehensible manner in response to "treat others the way you would like to be treated". Switch the variables, it's all the same. And it's fowl.

Why is it up to people not to "throw that schtick on you"? Why instead stop throwing your schtick on us of demanding society cater to your minor offences?

I have an anxiety disorder too - and I've also experienced what it feels like to have an opinion that so-called right-thinking people want to curtail. The opinion is not insulting, but the people who disagree with me believe it is - and use the hurt feelings spiel you see all over this thread to try and shut down opinions like mine.

I would much rather a few generally well-meaning people use a bit of vocab that is at worst slightly impolitic if that, than have a bunch of people curtail expression for their own self-centred reasons.

 

[Gadarene]

I don't much care for your opinion, or your attitude. Freedom of speech does not include the freedom to oppress other people.

Kinda does, in that it extends to words that aren't clear and presently threatening people. Which means offensive language is included.

Offending people isn't oppression.

This thread is for reasonable people who are willing to consider the needs of others. Anyone to whom that does not apply can simply pass along.

Only select others, of course. Anyone who considers the universal human need to have the ability to freely express themselves, well you can just run along, you bigot.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Is this really a big problem in our society? As kids we used those terms but seldom intended to hurt someone's feelings. Those who do do so deliberately and won't be swayed by this appeal.

I also think that terms like 'crazy', 'nuts', 'goofy, 'screwy', are mostly directed at otherwise sane people that sometimes do nutty things. I deal with this almost every day and will attest that there is something seriously wrong with their thinking processes.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I am truly amazed that anyone wants to defend their right to go around casually calling others insane, mental, psycho, maniacal, crazy, OCD, psychotic, narcissistic, paranoid, etc etc. I would ask such people to step back for a moment, think seriously about this and reconsider whether they really want to defend that position.

Yes, I would very much like to defend my freedom of speech.
And that's coming from a guy of whom a very close friend suffers from severe schizofrenia.

 

[lupusFati]

I never chose to be hurt by words. Happened anyway.

And even then it wasn't about the words, so much as the intent and feeling behind them. I have a heightened sense of empathy, so when I can feel all that negativity just pouring directly into my soul, you can bet I'm going to be messed up about it.

Those who think words have no power are part of the problem, and should just stop trying to "help".