to be offended by this tv presenter?

[TwinkleTwinkleNeverwhere]

loose women presenter just described guest as 'a little bit schizophrenic' as he has vastly different personas or facets to his personality. This has really pissed me off as I think it trivialises mental illness and is spreading the wrong information about what illnesses actually are.

This programme was on as waiting for the news...I usually avoid it as think they talk a load of rubbish generally.

AIBU to be pissed off and offended?

People with mental illnesses are often amongst the most vulnerable in society. We should be angry about any comments that make living with these conditions even more hellish. We should challenge them. Not just shrug our shoulders and make comments about people looking to be offended.

We should stop trying to dictate how people respond, full stop. Therein lies the problem.

Trying to impose our own distaste rarely goes down well and is ultimately unnecessary - people catch on in their own good time without having to be bitten on the bum by other's outrage.

So does the same thing apply to racism and homophobia? Or just Mental Health slurs?

people catch on in their own good time without having to be bitten on the bum by other's outrage

Not always. My own Mother is woefully ignorant and believe men are only gay because they have 'mother issues' and are 'narcissistic'.

I am slowly wearing her down...

Sorry Sofa, but that is just daft. Of course we should challenge these things. Often people make comments like these without thinking. People make commets like this because they don't understand, and the only way people will learn is if they are educated.

Words and what people say matters - it is similar to the way that people casually throw around the word retard (especially in America), if people are challenged every time the word is used it will become as unacceptable as using the word nigger.

I take your points, really but I stand by what I said.

When you're hectoring about benign, throwaway comments, people close their ears.

That is NOT the same as saying people shouldn't be challenged - as I said before, it's a case of picking your battles... assuming changing opinions is actually what you're after of course and not just a pat on the back for being ever so worthy.

I think your definition of benign is different from mine.

Here gives a definition which may have been the way she was using the word. Fwiw I find it disgusting too.

Bollock here

assuming changing opinions is actually what you're after of course and not just a pat on the back for being ever so worthy.

yes, thats just what I'm after. Its all about the pats on the back for me. Thanks for that, Sofa.

I'm another worthy person who wants a pat on the back because I too would rather not cause further hurt and difficulty to people who already struggle with illness.

On the whole, I'd prefer to be seen as worthy than insensitive.

falulahthecat (if you are still on the thread) I guess to me it is really a question of semantics as to why I picked up on the work "offended". I feel it is perfectly possible to find something unacceptable, objectionable and wrong but that is not the same, to me anyway, as being offended.

If the man next door was ill-treating his dog I would think that unacceptable and might report him to the relevant body - but I wouldn't be offended by it. OTOH if he made a crude, misogynistic joke then I would consider it my right to be offended.

Somehow, claiming to be offended by something for which you are not the intended target always strikes me as a little presumptuous. A bit like claiming a victimhood that you don't have or telling a bereaved person that you know exactly how they feel because your goldfish died last week.

Also you said:
"I find this: What one word term would you use as an alternative to describe the image they were trying to convey? more irrelevant to the situation."

Well actually, no I think it quite relevant, because I have seen the word schizophrenic used as an adjective before so I was under the impression that it was one of those words that might have originated to describe a particular behaviour and was later appropriated to describe this particular disorder - in which case the presenter's use of it might be acceptable. In fact, Casmama has linked to a definition which describes its use in this way. But I accept this might not be the case, and even if it was, it would appear that it is now becoming one of those words that can only be used in one context.

So it's okay to use 'schizophrenic' as an adjective then? Is 'retard' okay too, and 'autistic'?

Not fine for me, not at all. And I will challenge the use of words like this whenever they are used incorrectly, whether that is to cause hurt or not. It's not even about being offended. It's about having some respect.

5foot5 I don't really understand why you are so hung up on the misuse of the word offended. Ok, you may be right that those of us who object to the use of the word are angry rather than offended, but is that really the important point in this thread?

For me, the important thing is to raise awareness and challenge prejudice wherever we find it. Schizophrenic is a precise, medical term. It has nothing to do with dual personalities and I find it ignorant in the extreme for someone to suggest that it does. People living with schizophrenia have enough challenges without having to deal with this kind of casual ignorance which just spreads misconceptions.

HazeyJane yes context is everything (and actually btw why is blasphemy less hurtful than casual racism, disablism?)
.In this context was the presenter's intention to be hurtful to those withmental health problems .No?

So pixie if I say something racist but I don't mean any harm that's ok is it?

Interesting.

Oh ffs. It's like adding 'no offence' after saying something that is going to cause offence.

Blasphemy is less hurtful, imo, because being religious is a choice not a medical condition. Though I am mindful that my Christian friend does not like people to misuse 'God' and 'Christ' and so I don't when I am around her out of respect .

No the presenter may not have intended to offend, but that doesn't change the fact that the misuse of words like schizophrenic and autistic to describe things inaccurately and perpetuate misconceptions about those conditions, makes the lives of those with these conditions more difficult than they need to be.

I don't think I am particularly "hung up" on the word offended; it is just I clearly have a different usage for it to many people on this thread. When the OP said that the phrase left her feeling "pissed off and offended" that struck me as the sort of reaction you have if you have taken something personally, but there was nothing else in the post to explain why this might be the case. If she had said something like:

"as a sister/mother of someone who suffers from schizophrenia I was offended" or even just:

"I found her comment crass and inappropriate"

I don't suppose I would have thought to comment on it. However, to me, the claim to be offended struck a jarring note which is why I did. Since then I have posted to explain the viewpoint that just because I don't feel it right to claim to be offended by something that does not necessarily mean I find it OK.

As to challenging the ignorant use of precise medical terms for other things - fair play to that I can see why that is a good idea. However, I do genuinely think that for a long time the term schizophrenic probably has been (mis-)used in this way without any intention to cause hurt. That doesn't mean that it should be left un-challenged but I think the vehemence of the reaction should maybe be tempered by whether there is a clear intention to be insulting.

The presenter on the programme yesterday was almost certainly not intending to be derogatory. So while it would be appropriate to point out to her that her use of this term was ill-advised I don't think it is quite in the same league as someone deliberately using a hateful word in order to shock - e.g. when Ricky Gervais used the word "mong".