Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Original poster

why is "village idiot" disablist, but "loon" not?

214 replies

porcamiseria · 17/08/2011 09:22

sorry not picking on the poster that used the term "loon" but interesting that mitmoo got fucking CANED, and the other OP did not

smacks to me as an excuse for people to kick the living shit out of a poster that has annoyed them

you bullies! I dont agree with what mitmoo has posted . however I think this is more about bullying annoyance at a certain poster, using the PC excuse of disablist language

nuff said

OP posts:

TheBigJessie · 17/08/2011 11:04

Well, I think that Hamlet merely needs to be played by a good actor. His size isn't important!

The above may be nonsense- I've never seen Hamlet, and don't know what is required to play the part.

LadyBeagleEyes · 17/08/2011 11:04

Also, loon is used a lot on mumsnet.
In threads like AIBU to buy a £500 designer coat for my chiuwaua sp. eg
Not real obviously, but if someone replies UABU and you're also a loon, is that offensive to people?
In that context it doesn't bother me at all.

Whatmeworry · 17/08/2011 11:07

Before I go can I put a fiver on some utter cunt saying something about 'professionally offended' within the hour

And somebody gets professionally offended by the use of the worcd cunt :o

Double or quits for a Flounce?

TandB · 17/08/2011 11:08

Oldlady - I think that is probably why we have moved away from using blanket terms to describe groups of people who happen to share a particular condition or disability.

We say "people with Downs Syndrome" or "people with CP" and we talk about "learning disabilities" and "mental health problems". Because we recognise that people are not defined by a health or intellect issue. The terms that linger in offensive use are old terms from a time when we didn't really accept this and treated people with all sorts of disabilities as though they were all deficient in some way.

I don't think we need to worry about not being able to use any word in case it is hijacked and used as an insult. If we talk about people, not groups of disabilities, we should get on fine.

pointydog · 17/08/2011 11:09

And posie, I think that many people who use words like spaz and retard would also say they are referring to that person's behaviour, not to their actual mental ability.

It's all pretty nuanced when you try to pin it down. It's the very idea that someone would laugh at a behaviour that some people cannot help. A 'laughable' behaviour that is daily life for some people.

So, people are left with having to constantly remind others why some terms are always offensive or painful to them.

DogsBestFriend · 17/08/2011 11:09

Context is everything.

I will continue to refer to a particular man in a nearby community as the village idiot without shame or apology. After all, he is in a village.

And he is an idiot.

I'll continue to use the word loon too. I have several in mind. They may or may not have mental health issues, I have no idea nor do I care. Loon suits them regardless.

People posing as language police score no points with me - they just make me want to tell them where to put their politically correct assertions.

scurryfunge · 17/08/2011 11:10

It is about respect and thinking about the impact your words may have on the receiver.

DogsBestFriend · 17/08/2011 11:10

The above within reason, of course. There is, to me at least, a huge difference between calling a person "spastic" and calling them an idiot, village or otherwise.

Whatmeworry · 17/08/2011 11:11

The problem is that whatever word we use for people with disabilities ("Mongol" used to be used for people with Down's Syndrome, because their eyes are often shaped like those of people from Mongolia) it will be adopted by some deeply unpleasant people as an insult

And professionally offend some other sensitive sorts.

Just use the word as they are commonly understood outside the loonier more particular parts of MN.

pointydog · 17/08/2011 11:11

And to many others, dogs, there is very little difference.

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726 · 17/08/2011 11:13

Pagwatch... I agree with you too but I'm obviously looking at it from a viewpoint of where I've seen posters complain about swearing, they find a particular word offensive and they don't want to hear it. I've seen such posters ridiculed and told to go elsewhere...

I personally don't like swearing, it's offensive to me but not to the extent where I'll get bent out of shape about it.

I don't want to see 'banning' in place, not at all, but whilst I accept that somebody might get upset about a word being used, they don't have the right of veto. Ignoring a poster who says things you don't like is often better for the soul. There are a lot of posters on this board who don't content themselvs with 'putting their opposing views across', they aren't satisfied until they've rounded up a posse, grabbed their pitchforks and run the offending poster out of town. That's pathetic.

On another recent thread, I saw an OP get flamed for being 'racist'. She wasn't racist at all (by any definition) but a couple of posters called her that and some brainless sycophants took up the chant. Unacceptable. I did call them on it, sometimes I don't, but I'm fed up with the chatboard being run by votes.

The point I'm making is that you (general) can roundly criticise/educate/lambbaste/explain about a particular word being used that's offensive to you but, whether or not people choose to listen to you and take your views on board is quite subjective... and probably quite dependent on your userid (popularity as a poster).

I'd more readily accept the 'challenge a viewpoint' concept if it really was based on the view and not the poster, but I really don't think it is.

I agree with Porca's point. It very much does depend on who says what. I don't think I'm aggressive, but I am direct and I say (within bounds), what I think.

DogsBestFriend · 17/08/2011 11:13

Pointy, that's as may be. Those others will just have to live with it AFAIAC.

Pagwatch · 17/08/2011 11:14

Dammit.
Why did I put my fiver on professionally offended?

If I had gone for language police or politically correct I could have been quids in.

pointydog · 17/08/2011 11:14

They don't want to just live with it and they can do whatever they want. So if they want to tell people why it offedns them, they can.

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726 · 17/08/2011 11:15

I wonder if my outlandish views might be the result of having been 'trained' by younger brothers? If I would show any distaste for any language or behaviour, they'd just do it it all the more...

pointydog · 17/08/2011 11:16

Your views aren't outlandish, lying

Pagwatch · 17/08/2011 11:17

I agree with all of that LyingWitch.

I wasn't accusing you of being aggressive. I suspect I phrased that badly. I was just interpreting what you said as a kind of 'put up or shut up' stance when it is more nuanced than that, as you say.

I would object to a ban of any words. I like to know who the cunts are that use retard iyswim

I agree too about the wading in thing.

ExitPursuedByATroll · 17/08/2011 11:18

Exactly Pag - Village has all sorts of bucolic connotations. (Is bucolic safe?)

Pagwatch · 17/08/2011 11:19

organicgardener · 17/08/2011 11:19

Some people want to re-write the dictionary and airbrush all the naughty words out :)

squeakytoy · 17/08/2011 11:26

for gods sakes nope, better not say that..

right.. for heavens sakes (wonders if heaven is going to offend..)

words are words... someone will always be offended by something.. language evolves, the meanings of words and the context in which they are used changes over time, what one person takes offence at, another person wouldnt think twice about using... should we have a mumsnet guide to banned words too now..

DogsBestFriend · 17/08/2011 11:29

Pointy, of course people can tell someone if their words offend. I did that just yesterday over the NM use of "retard" etc. That doesn't mean that they are going to be taken notice of though.

I just get pissed off when the unacceptable word level includes the ones which might offend the more sensitive flowers. Words like "village idiot" and "stupid", for example.

I have my own list of U and non-U words. I don't need anyone elses's. Voice the opinion to all and sundry, sure. Just don't be surprised when most people ignore it.

Pagwatch · 17/08/2011 11:32

Oo-kay...

But no one is suggesting banning words?
That is not the tone of the thread at all. It has been quite interesting and mostly about why banning is a bad idea.

Or was that an auto post

ThePosieParker · 17/08/2011 11:34

pointydog Wed 17-Aug-11 11:09:03
And posie, I think that many people who use words like spaz and retard would also say they are referring to that person's behaviour, not to their actual mental ability.

Completely agree, but I can't remember a time when mad and crazy were commonly used to be offensive toward someone with MH issues. And spaz and retard are very specific words that describe a condition.

I went to a comedy night where the comedian licked his microphone and moved his head to look at cars, also mentioned a 'skins' character he was up for that was 'retarded rapist'. So many levels of wrong, but I was the ONLY person not laughing, I did think one more and I'd walk....but I was a coward and stayed put.

LeninGrad · 17/08/2011 11:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Swipe left for the next trending thread