Phrases/words that set your teeth on edge.

[ahinton]

I agree.

There are words and phrases that have been commonly used for some time that could be insensitive to others without us realising it. We quite regularly hear about, for example, colleagues and politicians being 'knifed in the back' and 'axed' from a job or a 'gun held' to his/her head. There are plenty more examples of perceived insensitivities especially in the current climate.

Wilde's famous barb about best friends being those who stab you in the front is, after all, hardly of recent origin...

[Lat-Literal]

However dislikeable it might be, I can't imagine anybody being seriously upset by it. You surely can't condemn (let alone ban) all figurative usage based on subject matter with which some people might have had bad experiences: eg cancer, very commonly used to describe something evil or corrosive which is hard to eradicate. When Shakespeare used "plague" figuratively I assume he was looking for a forceful image and had taken into account that it might have bad associations for some of the audience.

I agree.

There are words and phrases that have been commonly used for some time that could be insensitive to others without us realising it. We quite regularly hear about, for example, colleagues and politicians being 'knifed in the back' and 'axed' from a job or a 'gun held' to his/her head. There are plenty more examples of perceived insensitivities especially in the current climate.

Recently a letter-writer to a newspaper complained of the use of the word 'idiot' on a headline because the correspondent happened to have a child with special needs. I admit to being somewhat staggered by that. I see absolutely no connection. I doubt there are many of us who have gone through life completely escaping the charge of 'idiot' ... even when I was a child, my parents and teachers used to use the word regularly.

Whilst it's entirely right to be as sensitive as possible to the feelings of others it's well-nigh impossible not to inadvertently hurt someone's feelings sometime, somewhere?

I don't like 'knifed in the back' - "Backstabbers" is not my favourite song by the O'Jays - and a 'gun held' to his/her head either. 'Axed' from a job has a slightly different aura to me. It is one which, on paper, should cause me especial sensitivity and the injurious impacts, including in the longer term physical, should not be underestimated. But the axe in that phrase falls between an individual and his/her role rather than being directly physical initially. There are double standards. Which politician or media type will decide to describe what may or may not happen to any party of whatever kind as "a tower block inferno"? I suspect none if he/she doesn't want to be "axed" from a job. As for "idiot", it's different too but no I have never liked it any more than I liked my Deputy Headmaster's daily use of the term "you snivelling little worms". It doesn't place these people in a wonderful light.

(On writing - I would be happy to take Shakespeare, Wilde or The Bible to a desert island but we are supposed to have moved on, not that it was evident in "The Thick of It")

[teamsaint]

I agree.

There are words and phrases that have been commonly used for some time that could be insensitive to others without us realising it. We quite regularly hear about, for example, colleagues and politicians being 'knifed in the back' and 'axed' from a job or a 'gun held' to his/her head. There are plenty more examples of perceived insensitivities especially in the current climate.

Recently a letter-writer to a newspaper complained of the use of the word 'idiot' on a headline because the correspondent happened to have a child with special needs. I admit to being somewhat staggered by that. I see absolutely no connection. I doubt there are many of us who have gone through life completely escaping the charge of 'idiot' ... even when I was a child, my parents and teachers used to use the word regularly.

Whilst it's entirely right to be as sensitive as possible to the feelings of others it's well-nigh impossible not to inadvertently hurt someone's feelings sometime, somewhere?

That's true, but it is no reason not to cut out phrases that have the potential to cause offence or upset.

We all have to in our own work. People in " customer facing roles" for example have to be careful about the language they use. I have to word emails very carefully. I can't see the problem in expecting , for example, BBC journalists to do the same.

[MrGongGong]

Recently a letter-writer to a newspaper complained of the use of the word 'idiot' on a headline because the correspondent happened to have a child with special needs. I admit to being somewhat staggered by that. I see absolutely no connection.

That probably says something about you i'm afraid
Care to give us a reference to where this was ?

Whilst it's entirely right to be as sensitive as possible to the feelings of others it's well-nigh impossible not to inadvertently hurt someone's feelings sometime, somewhere?

Whilst this is true in many ways it is always used as an argument by those demanding the right to be offensive and insensitive from a position of privilege

[Richard Barrett]

it is always used as an argument by those demanding the right to be offensive and insensitive from a position of privilege

"From a position of privilege" being the crux here.

[P. G. Tipps]

That probably says something about you i'm afraid

Now, it could just be that's why I said 'that'. You must have absolutely no fear in telling me so, I can assure you, Mr GG.

Care to give us a reference to where this was ?

Certainly, it is in my latest copy of The New European which I get delivered weekly. I'd have thought you, of all members, would be a truly regular and avid reader ... ?

Whilst this is true in many ways it is always used as an argument by those demanding the right to be offensive and insensitive from a position of privilege

That could well be or not be the case. As for myself in my relatively non-privileged state, I have never demanded the 'right' to be offensive and insensitive towards others. If nothing else such a curious demand would be an extreme act of folly and ultimate self-harm even from a position of privilege, I rather suspect?

[MrGongGong]

Certainly, it is in my latest copy of The New European which I get delivered weekly. I'd have thought you, of all members, would be a truly regular and avid reader ... ?

Thanks for this
I'm rather surprised that you don't see the connection though?

I know several autistic people who strongly object to the use of the word "disorder" in describing their autism as ASD (Autistic Spectrum Disorder)
and I think they are right

[ahinton]

Thanks for this
I'm rather surprised that you don't see the connection though?

I know several autistic people who strongly object to the use of the word "disorder" in describing their autism as ASD (Autistic Spectrum Disorder)
and I think they are right

Whilst it might indeed be argued that they are so in the sense in which "disorder" might be interpreted pejoratively as though the sufferer has somehow contributed thereto, on the grounds that every diease involves some kind of "disorder", I don't think that they are, really. It's a moot point, I suppose.

[jean]

But that's a different point - there, you really are talking about an actual condition but making it sound like a disability.

[jean]

(My last reply was to Mr GG.)

But I think what we're talking about here is the use of words referring to a specific mental - or physical - condition to insult the mental processes of persons who do not have that condition.

Thus words like 'mongol' or 'spastic' are no longer acceptable as general insults.

But I would have thought that it's so long since 'idiot' had that meaning that it was exempt from such strictures.

[vinteuil]

But I would have thought that it's so long since 'idiot' had that meaning that it was exempt from such strictures.

... I agree - and 'idiot!' can be used quite fondly between partners as a term of affection rather than abuse. At least that's how I receive it...

Here's a pome that divides opinion among Wordsworthians -

http://www.bartleby.com/145/ww137.html

.

[MrGongGong]

(My last reply was to Mr GG.)

But I think what we're talking about here is the use of words referring to a specific mental - or physical - condition to insult the mental processes of persons who do not have that condition.

Thus words like 'mongol' or 'spastic' are no longer acceptable as general insults.

But I would have thought that it's so long since 'idiot' had that meaning that it was exempt from such strictures.

I think you are right about 'idiot' BUT what is odd to me is that someone who appears to be educated is completely unaware of where it comes from.

I know someone very well who wears a T-shirt that says "I don't suffer from Autism, I enjoy every minute"

[Lat-Literal]

"Mental health" is fine when it is used in a phrase like "we must do more for mental health" but it is more a treading on eggshells in some other contexts where "mental health" can be used to mean "mental illness". Not a huge problem but what it tends to reveal to me is uncertainty about nuances among the well meaning who seek to shape positive policy.

There are some substantial matters around these areas and frankly I don't have the sophistication. But, there is a rigidity in classification systems, even if many do have elements of truth about them from a societal perspective. In a society where many standard elements are regarded by those who perceive themselves and are perceived as "normal" to be "mad", it is right that the boundaries should often be softened. That is, while somehow enabling medical support to be provided. Clearly, that realistically can't be organised so as to be tailored to every individual but nor should it send people on routes from which they and those who send them on such routes for the best reasons can find no easy way out.

Improvements have occurred in the past twenty years, arguably more by luck than judgement. Consequently, it has been a haphazard affair that should benefit now from additional resources and focussed application. I think we may need to look more at concepts of character and background and especially the concept of difficulties in regard to assimilation which is to be understood very broadly neither to be fundamentally right or wrong in a complex world. In a sense, physical difficulties at any age also place limits on assimilation - that is, in terms of ability and desire. Someone who can't walk very much and someone who can't handle crowds may each wish - and/or have to - spend most time in the garden.

As with any policy development, it is vital that training is given to professionals on generational differences. The legacy of past policy doesn't switch off in all overnight and in many it will never do so. The individual is only responsible in many circumstances to a limited degree. The rest is the responsibility of past administrations. Current ones must bear it.

I have read the comments in favour of "idiot" but am not wholly convinced given that "the village idiot" which on a few occasions was an affectionate label is strictly out of bounds..

[french frank]

I think you are right about 'idiot' BUT what is odd to me is that someone who appears to be educated is completely unaware of where it comes from.

Words do change their meaning. I'm sure jean knows where 'idiot' comes from.

The trouble with modifying the language used to describe something is that you can't necessarily alter what's being described, and other words are invented to describe it. They may or may not be better.

jean is surely right in saying that it's the intention to insult that has to change and that needs more than an adjustment in the lnguage we use.

[Lat-Literal]

Words do change their meaning. I'm sure jean knows where 'idiot' comes from.

The trouble with modifying the language used to describe something is that you can't necessarily alter what's being described, and other words are invented to describe it. They may or may not be better.

jean is surely right in saying that it's the intention to insult that has to change and that needs more than an adjustment in the lnguage we use.

This is partially and even mainly true. Because of my interest in comedy, I am conscious that we cannot interfere with the offensive clown. But I would want him or her to be a little more location specific than is the case currently, notwithstanding any instinctive desire that is inevitably in the role to create unexpected impact. As soon as I sense some sort of power agenda - I'd see that as a principally adolescent strand in fully grown money-making adults - then I'm all for a bit of clamping down. If not, I'm turning off and running.

From a personal point of view, I know where my loathing of "idiot" began especially when it is directed at me and it has little to do with misrepresentation although that to some extent is a part. It is from my teaching at age ten of the couple of boys who were defined in the seventies as "mentally sub-normal". That so that my teachers could ensure that something was being done and any bullying of them was kept to a minimum while they themselves tried to get the average members of class up to speed. Those boys had been written off for very low IQs. I never accepted it at the odd age where I received the most respect I ever received in my life - that is unequivocally the case even if it is also bizarre - and I don't accept it now. I know for a fact that one went on to become an accountant while the other in the year or so that I knew him showed some happiness in his face based on a new understanding that he had promise. My assumption is that the latter achieved more in his life of his own accord than I ever did and I don't resent the idea in that thought. Incidentally, it wasn't magic. The achiever was vulnerable in different ways. It wasn't obvious to anyone other than those who he taught. They tapped into common identification.

My parents and I have always disagreed on this matter. They think that it was a pleasant diversion but I was held back and suffered from being two years behind when I went to independent school. I say it provided a very rewarding aspect to my quality of life, I wouldn't have wanted to change it - and I'd have been ok had there been a grammar school! The IQ there would have been slightly lower, the class background slightly more diverse and I would have started in an average position thinking I could help others as well as me.