cultural things we'll be ashamed of in 50 years

[Skypool]

Two words... Justin Bieber.

[Lythiaren]

I'm not angry. I'm saddened, perhaps. Not angry.

 

I am not talking about words with meanings that became negative. I'm talking about the attitude that caused it to be OK to make words that were harmful to begin with and use them widely in a continuing negative sense. Crazy was never a neutral word for an animal nor a positive word for a cigarette that just happens to refer to mental illness in another country. Spaz was never a neutral word that meant an animal. I think you know what words I'm talking about, and you know that the UK version of fag, that did not have a negative meaning, is not one of them. I think you know that badger isn't the kind of word I'm talking about. I think you're smarter than that.

Yeah and I'm using other analogous words to illustrate my point that words are words. I swear like a sailor in real life and unless I say "that guy is an ***' no one takes any offense unless they've got a rod in their rear. If you want a properly analogous example, then at the risk of actually offending people?

 

Jew.

 

It's currently well on its way to becoming an insult thanks to the Internet. Jews will not stop being known as Jews because of it. A Jewish person should not be forced to find a new word when referring to their religion. Some people use it in reference to greedy or stupid people but it is still perfectly fine to call a Jewish person a Jew.

[Princess Artemis]

Yeah and I'm using other analogous words to illustrate my point that words are words.  I swear like a sailor in real life and unless I say "that guy is an ***' no one takes any offense unless they've got a rod in their rear.  If you want a properly analogous example, then at the risk of actually offending people?

 

Jew.

 

It's currently well on its way to becoming an insult thanks to the Internet.  Jews will not stop being known as Jews because of it.  A Jewish person should not be forced to find a new word when referring to their religion.  Some people use it in reference to greedy or stupid people but it is still perfectly fine to call a Jewish person a Jew.

Of course. That doesn't change the fact that I believe you you know exactly what I'm talking about and that Jew, as a word, is not the kind of word I'm discussing. The attitude regarding Jews certainly needs to change and much like the word 'gypped', people ought not say "I was jewed" and expect everyone else to be OK with how they meant it in such a very innocent way.

 

Interesting how you say "at the risk of actually offending people" since Jews, presumably, are real people but disabled persons such as myself are not.

Edited September 4, 2011 by Princess Artemis

[Lythiaren]

Interesting that you infer that out of my using a term that refers to a category of people for the first time (okay second, I forgot I used dumb) in this thread!

 

I said it exactly because you kept insisting that I look at a word that is going the exact same route as spaz/dumb/crazy/rword. And now you go and take offense at it. Calm down. A disability does not make you any less of a person and you just make yourself look like a hypocrite when you imply that Jewish people don't have to live with actual societal problems. Because they do and they have for a couple thousand years. I knew a Jewish family when I was little; they were very nice people. My father is disabled; he is a very nice person. That doesn't stop people from treating all of the above like absolute crap but you're saving the abusers the trouble of making you angry, you just make yourself angry.

Edited September 4, 2011 by Lythiaren

[Princess Artemis]

Interesting that you infer that out of my using a term that refers to a category of people for the first time (okay second, I forgot I used dumb) in this thread!

 

I said it exactly because you kept insisting that I look at a word that is going the exact same route as spaz/dumb/crazy/rword.  And now you go and take offense at it.  Calm down.  A disability does not make you any less of a person and you just make yourself look like a hypocrite when you imply that Jewish people don't have to live with actual societal problems.  Because they do and they have for a couple thousand years.  I knew a Jewish family when I was little; they were very nice people.  My father is disabled; he is a very nice person.  That doesn't stop people from treating all of the above like absolute crap but you're saving the abusers the trouble of making you angry, you just make yourself angry.

Where have I implied that Jewish people don't have to deal with societal problems? It is quite obvious that they do. Their society issues are not, however, the society issues that I am addressing. No one can fight every battle.

 

'Jew' is not taking the exact same route as spaz/crazy/dumb/lame, but is taking the same route as the r-word. So yes, of course, the attitude must change, but again, I believe you are intelligent enough to see that there is a difference between something that started its existence as an insult and never deviated from its negative connotation though the meaning has shifted and others that started as neutral words that took on negative connotations from repeated poor use. Spaz is more analogous to the derogatory for Jew than Jew is, it starts with a k. The fact that others use it in other ways without knowing why just shows that race/ethnic issues are taken more seriously than disability issues are.

 

I know that disability does not make me less of a person. Society does not know that. I wish that to change. One way of changing it is to address this issue, not in order to shame people into not using words any more, but to get them to think about why the words are allegedly OK to use in the first place. When they think about it, maybe in a few years, it will sink in and their attitudes will shift. It's subtle. Maybe when the attitudes shift, then more will fall into place. This is just one point of affecting a natural change in people, based on hoping and believing the best of others.

 

If you find these words, in fact, the vast majority of words I've spilled on this subject in this thread, to be something other than calm, I suggest you alter how you read them.

 

ETA: If you're curious as to how I inferred 'that', which I think is that "Jews, presumably, are real people but disabled persons such as myself are not", I will step you through it: "At the risk of actually offending people"--I read this and see that it meant something along the lines that the words offered and discussed so far are not actually offensive to people. That the slang that you have decried as being less important than the environment is not actually offensive to "people". So therefor, "at the risk of actually offending people" means none of the words under discussion so far, even though they have been offending, have not been offending people. No idea what they were offending if not people. Or perhaps they haven't actually been causing real offense, but rather false pretense of offense, as if people just want to be upset when they are insulted. As it was called, "butthurt".

 

Is this an incorrect interpretation of what you meant?

Edited September 4, 2011 by Princess Artemis

[prairiecrow]

ETA:  If you're curious as to how I inferred 'that', which I think is that "Jews, presumably, are real people but disabled persons such as myself are not", I will step you through it: "At the risk of actually offending people"--I read this and see that it meant something along the lines that the words offered and discussed so far are not actually offensive to people.  That the slang that you have decried as being less important than the environment is not actually offensive to "people".  So therefor, "at the risk of actually offending people" means none of the words under discussion so far, even though they have been offending, have not been offending people.  No idea what they were offending if not people.  Or perhaps they haven't actually been causing real offense, but rather false pretense of offense, as if people just want to be upset when they are insulted.  As it was called, "butthurt".

 

Is this an incorrect interpretation of what you meant?

*nods* That's exactly how I interpreted Lythiaren's response as well. The implication was certainly there that all the other flak she's been receiving is either (1) from people who don't count and therefore cannot "actually" be offended, or (2) from people who are just faking being offended.

 

I'll bet that in 50 years' time, when neural nets are embedded in everybody's central nervous system and emotional nuances come through one's Internet connection, they'll look back on such confusions of meaning and roll their eyes at how primitive we all were.

Edited September 4, 2011 by prairiecrow

[Lythiaren]

If you have an issue with how I interpret your words then I suggest you take your own advice and rearrange how you interpret mine. No one was offended by any of my previous examples and I'd carefully chosen them to that effect, but you insist that I'm using the "wrong" examples so I had to go to a place where I knew someone would be offended. Seriously. Hands? Who was offended that I used the word "fag"?

 

Very few people are offended by the use of decades-old slang now. If you believe offense is persistent and eternal you're wrong; as I said initially, Shakespeare was vulgar and yet now we hold him on a literary pedestal. I'm Chinese and I don't get offended when people turn the phrase "chink in my armor". Dyslexics are known to laugh at the phrase "Dyslexics of the world untie!" and they're afflicted by a disorder just as crazy people are. If anything the evolution of a word into common language usually used in a benign context is itself a sign of progress toward acceptance because it's reached a point where it's no longer a taboo subject to be spoken in whispers.

 

In other words, the way I see it, people who are offended are the very people who want it to stay hushed. If it's not in the open then no change can be affected. By calling people ignorant and getting your hackles up over the use of a word, you're only trying to push it back into the shadows. If you're offended by people making reference to your disorder, positive or negative, then maybe you're ashamed of it yourself. Humans are stubborn and change is slow. In today's instant-gratification society you're used to getting everything you want right now, but change is slower than that and believe it or not it's faster now than ever before. Centuries ago you'd be chained in a cellar being the "mad" family member. Some decades ago you'd just be kept in a facility in worse conditions than criminals. Nowadays you can walk the streets and lead a relatively normal life. Don't look your gift horse in the mouth.

Edited September 4, 2011 by Lythiaren

[Princess Artemis]

Again, I do believe you know what I am getting at, I believe you are intelligent enough to see what I mean, and casting personal aspersions at me is not going to change the fact that I believe this about you.

 

Humans are stubborn and change is slow. In today's instant-gratification society you're used to getting everything you want right now, but change is slower than that and believe it or not it's faster now than ever before. Centuries ago you'd be chained in a cellar being the "mad" family member. Some decades ago you'd just be kept in a facility in worse conditions than criminals. Nowadays you can walk the streets and lead a relatively normal life. Don't look your gift horse in the mouth.

 

Oh my. Your edit made it quite a delight to read. Why yes, I'll be very pleased and sit quietly in the corner and count my blessings that I don't have to endure what others have. Lucky me.

 

No, I think I want more than sitting quietly in the corner and considering it a blessing that the powerful people don't hurt me. Yeah, I'm pretty certain I want more than that. I'm pretty certain, like any human being, I have a right to more than that.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Princess Artemis

[SuroPenguin]

imagine in 20 what we will think of the 80's haha...anyway in 50, things we'll be ashamed of....Xbox 360, Nintendo Wii, Myspace, Facebook, Runescape, Obesity, War on Terrorism, Justin Beiber, Lady Gaga, Reality TV, Thinking No other Life form out there in the universe, 4G, Flat Screen TV's, things like that

[prairiecrow]

Centuries ago you'd be chained in a cellar being the "mad" family member.  Some decades ago you'd just be kept in a facility in worse conditions than criminals.  Nowadays you can walk the streets and lead a relatively normal life.  Don't look your gift horse in the mouth.

That struck me as being an incredibly offensive thing to say, and I don't even have a dog in this race. It came across as "Don't disagree with me because nowadays people like you are allowed to walk the streets." I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant, right...?

Edited September 5, 2011 by prairiecrow

[LadyNightshade]

Yes, I don't think living a normal life for someone with a disease, physical or mental, should be treated as a privilege for having a "normal" life.

 

Isn't happiness a right? (or at least in the United States)

 

 

When I have seizures it causes quite a scene. I can put quite a few things to a total halt. But people still treat me as human, I'm still allowed to go to school and live life and all that.

(The only thing I do not have the privilege to do is drive and that's for the safety of everyone on the road).

 

 

I really have to think, if someone started calling me "twitch", I think I'd be pretty offended. It's not like I'm having these on purpose. I never asked to be not "normal".

 

 

 

 

Still, sometimes people don't actually know if a word is offensive. In my case, I didn't know "spaz" was an offensive term until it was mentioned on here.

 

Again, I think it takes some education on the part of the offended party to do... go out there and correct people. Tell them what the word means and why it is offensive.

 

Now that I know, I got upset with someone the other day for using that term. Beforehand, I wouldn't have known any different.

[RheaZen]

But doesn't taking offense just make everyone's life more miserable? No, I'm not saying we should let everything slide, but for something like this - a word that a lot of people use without thinking of or knowing of any negative connotations - I just tend to shrug and go "whatever". Call me insensitive, but it's only one word, and I'm fairly certain everyone who's posted on this subject has used up their yearly allowance of it. It's not even that common.

[diannethegeek]

But doesn't taking offense just make everyone's life more miserable? No, I'm not saying we should let everything slide, but for something like this - a word that a lot of people use without thinking of or knowing of any negative connotations - I just tend to shrug and go "whatever". Call me insensitive, but it's only one word, and I'm fairly certain everyone who's posted on this subject has used up their yearly allowance of it. It's not even that common.

The people who are affected by this word are already having their lives made miserable by it. Rather, see this as an attempt to make someone else's life a little less miserable. Personally, I think that if your life is made miserable by being asked to take one, apparently seldom used, word out of your vocabulary you might want to take a look at your life. If it's not that big a deal why not just stop using the word rather than fighting for your right to offend people?

[Princess Artemis]

Again, it's more about the attitude than the word itself. Suggesting that I ought be grateful that I'm at least allowed to roam the streets rather than be locked up, so sit down, shut up, and count my blessing, is just another example of the attitude behind the words.

 

I want that attitude to change and hope in 50 years it has. Imagine that. I'm making a small effort here to plant a seed for this change I desire. Shutting up and being grateful that I don't have to endure what others have isn't going to ensure future generations have it even better.

 

Lady_Nightfox, we do have the right to pursue happiness in the US. No right to be happy, as no one can guarantee something like that.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Princess Artemis

[RheaZen]

The people who are affected by this word are already having their lives made miserable by it. Rather, see this as an attempt to make someone else's life a little less miserable. Personally, I think that if your life is made miserable by being asked to take one, apparently seldom used, word out of your vocabulary you might want to take a look at your life. If it's not that big a deal why not just stop using the word rather than fighting for your right to offend people?

True, but I'd rather not get jumped on for using the word on occasion/accident.

[~Kat~]

I know not everyone has great parents, but it starts at home.

 

I have sons who are now 23 and 25 yrs old. They say yes sir and will shake your hand firmly and look you in the eye. One is about to deploy his second tour and the other is in law enforcement. Yes, I had my ups and downs with them to,

 

I am a cool mom. My sons know I am their best friend. I taught them to be understanding and sensitive to people who are have problems of all sorts. They will stick up for the underdog.

 

You may not have control of your life as teenagers or young adults still living at home, but once you get out on your own, you make the choices good or bad. You can not blame someone else for the choices you make. The world does not owe you ... you owe the world as a good productive citizen. Yes, sometimes the choices are taken out of your hands.

 

I was very fortunate having great parents, and I have tried to be a great parent to. I feel so sorry for kids that do not. I feel some of your pain as I read the posts.

 

Ignore the hurtful and shallow people who make fun of you and keep them out of your life. You can not buy wonderful friends. My life is not always hunky dory either, but I know there are people in this world worse off than me, so I count my blessing everyday to god that I do wake up to see another wonderful morning.

 

At my age, it is easier to be nice than it is to be mean and hurtful. I try and treat others like I would want to be treated. I try and respect others, as I want to be respected to. Yes, some people get offended very easily. First I have to respect and like myself, which I do. Saying sorry to me comes easy if I hurt someone, which I never intentionally do it.

 

My one wish is, the people of the world could all get along.

Edited September 5, 2011 by ~Kat~

[Obscure_Trash]

About 50 years ago, people didn't think segregation was a big deal, and now we're ashamed of it.

 

What do we do now we'll be ashamed of in 50 years? Scary thing is, we very well may not have any idea of what it is.

 

Anyways, generally discuss.

Alright, as it was relating to the topic of this thread, I was allowing the discussion. However, it's become too heated and is hurting feelings and there are warns I am still debating giving out. Let's go back to what we'll be ashamed of in 50 years and away from offensive words.

 

Thanks. ^^

[Icepelt]

+20000

This.

 

Why would we even do that?

Because you want people to see your veins through you tight pants. =/ I never even see people that have nice legs wearing them.

 

I might as well say that we'll regret the way we behave and dress. I mean, my mother was ashamed of what she wore in the 80s and it hasn't even been 50 yeas.

[Xocowolf]

I think we'll be ashamed of letting people die in their 50s and 60s because they can't access healthcare. It's a serious indictment as it is now.

 

I personally hope that those who own houses, will be ashamed that their predecessors used their houses as cash machines. Seriously, it's your shelter! If you're on the street, you're in trouble five feet over your head! The best you can hope for is the bank allowing you to occupy your shelter as a legal squatter.

[Kamak]

I think we'll be ashamed of letting people die in their 50s and 60s because they can't access healthcare. It's a serious indictment as it is now.

Piggybacking on this, I think we'll be ashamed that we focused all of our attention of giving healthcare to kids and the elderly but not to adults, which need it just as much as the other two groups.

 

I mean, the way the system works now, we give kids everything they need to grow up to be healthy and well off into adulthood (straighten teeth, take care of vision, make sure they're in shape, etc.) but when they're adults, they're at the mercy of what their job gives them. Even if they get good healthcare (which usually doesn't carry dental because it's not "necessary"), many times they can't get the time off to go see the doctors (it usually requires taking a day off because doctors work similar shifts and usually aren't available weekends), and sometimes the co-pays or the medicines are too much for people to afford (especially with the bad economy and random bad luck things (like blown tires, broken windows, etc.). So people can often try going without which makes the problem worse, they ignore that pain in their side, they don't get regular physicals to make sure everything's working, or maybe they don't have anyone able to take them to a doctor and are scared to go by themselves (like me). Then when they're elderly and get better healthcare and more attention again, it's revealed that they've been ignoring things, their health has been bad, their teeth have basically rotted out, they haven't been taking care of their joints well, and all of these problems usually cost a lot more money.

 

Why do we set people up to have the best life they can, and then make them depend entirely on themselves, making them walk a tightrope until they get to near the end of their life and pick up the pieces that could have been avoided or fixed a long time ago?

 

Also, I really hope people are ashamed that healthcare costs have gotten so bad, especially in hospitals.

 

-K-

[RheaZen]

Ah, reminds me of something I found recently: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/insurance-24-...ory?id=14438171

[Princess Artemis]

Why do we set people up to have the best life they can, and then make them depend entirely on themselves, making them walk a tightrope until they get to near the end of their life and pick up the pieces that could have been avoided or fixed a long time ago?

 

Also, I really hope people are ashamed that healthcare costs have gotten so bad, especially in hospitals.

That makes self-reliance sound so bad, like being a competent adult capable of taking care of and being responsible for oneself is a huge hardship.

 

Addressing the outrageous cost of healthcare would do a lot to solve the issue without making it anyone else's business to take care of competent adults perfectly capable of taking care of themselves.

 

For what it's worth, stand-alone dental insurance isn't that expensive. Something like $8 a month. Even at minimum wage in a lot of places, that's slightly more than an hour's work a month. I know money is tight for everyone, but for most people, it's not so tight that they can't squeeze $8 out.

[Kamak]

That makes self-reliance sound so bad, like being a competent adult capable of taking care of and being responsible for oneself is a huge hardship.

That's not the point at all. The point is that we bend over backwards to help kids and the elderly get the care they need, but who is the most likely group to get denied help because "Insurance won't cover that" or "we don't accept your insurance" or "insurance will cost this much, but you're footing the rest of the bill" (that you don't have the money to pay). People are AFRAID to go to the doctor or to go to the hospital to find out that they're going to be sent into debt or that nothing is going to be done to help them because their insurance refuses to pay.

 

My uncle has been dealing with a degenerative hand condition for over 25 years, and only in the past 6 months when he found a place that accepted his crappy insurance has he been able to get the surgery he needs on both, and even so, at this point he's looking at having maybe 50% of the normal range of motion that people have with their hands. This shouldn't happen.

 

For heathcare, people CAN'T rely on themselves. They're usually forced to rely on insurance and are at the mercy of the system (How many hospitals will turn you away just because you don't have insurance? The ones around here are adamant about that and have gotten a very bad rap for it). Sure they can try paying for the entire medical bill without insurance, but how many people have the money to do that? The costs for some things (like my uncle's two surgeries on his hands) are more than some people make in an entire year. There is no such thing as self-reliance when it comes to working in this system.

 

Addressing the outrageous cost of healthcare would do a lot to solve the issue without making it anyone else's business to take care of competent adults perfectly capable of taking care of themselves.

 

I'd still like reform on the entire issue. Even if the costs are curbed, what's an acceptable cost? Enough for a middle class person to easily afford? Enough for someone in poverty to afford? If the costs are curbed too much, will hospitals start running into the red? Will doctors be upset because they're not being paid as much? Will pharmaceuticals begin to stop researching new medicines because the costs they sell them at yield only hemorrhaged sales with no profits. It's a very delicate line, and some of the costs are justifiable (pharm company spent 100M developing new medicine, only 100 people need it, and they take it daily. Pills cost $100, so $3,650,000 is made off of the drug every year, the costs are high and the drug STILL isn't making profits for over 30 years). However, just because the costs can be justified does not mean that people can pay such prices, whether they have a good job with good insurance or not. I want heathcare to be a safety net, always there to catch ANYONE who needs it. If someone loses their job, they shouldn't be screwed out of being able to go see a doctor about their cold, or their chest pains, or that lump on their breast that they're worried about. Having a job/insurance doesn't mean you're worth more to keep alive than the people who don't, and many times, people don't have jobs that desperately WANT them (just look how high unemployment is).

 

The point is, this isn't some system where only the strongest, wealthiest, and in some cases, luckiest individuals should get help, get care, or get to live. Everyone should be able to have the same chances in this system, regardless of some perceived "worth" or some arbitrary level where they "earned it".

 

For what it's worth, stand-alone dental insurance isn't that expensive.  Something like $8 a month.  Even at minimum wage in a lot of places, that's slightly more than an hour's work a month.  I know money is tight for everyone, but for most people, it's not so tight that they can't squeeze $8 out.

 

It's more expensive in other places (especially here, usually about $30 a month for standalone dental, and you have to sign with it for yearly contracts so you can't just get your teeth fixed and ditch). Plus, depending on the kind of dental insurance you get, it may not cover costs as well as hoped (some only cover 50%, and if you're getting braces, teeth pulled, or fillings, the costs can add up, especially among multiple family members).

 

-K-

Edited September 5, 2011 by Kamak

[lightbird]

Waging war over whether evolution is a legitimate scientific theory and whether it should be taught in schools. And other religion-imposed conflicts.

Edited September 5, 2011 by lightbird

[Kamak]

Waging war over whether evolution is a legitimate scientific theory and whether it should be taught in schools. And other religion-imposed conflicts.

Having both sides contribute to breeding ill-will to the issue as well, which isn't in the spirit of neither science nor religion to do so.

 

-K-