Jump to content

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, AylinVali said:

So we should really not be encouraging a stranger to try and take away an adult's agency.

Because that is what some people are suggesting.

Indeed, and I'm trying to encourage AnnaBelle to talk to him gently and encourage him to take care of himself the best way possible, as we should do with any friend who might be self-destructive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

No one here in the forums writes better than I do.

Congratulations! I like your self-confidence.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was corrected very early on when I started in my job. I used the term "suffering from X" with reference to someone. My colleague explained to me that it was better to say "person with X". It was immediately obvious to me why this was a better term, and I've made sure always to use it since then.

It's really not that hard.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:
1 hour ago, Alyona Su said:

Handicap also would be a very appropriate word by definition, yet many handicapped people take offense to that word.

You've just declared that you know many people with disabilities are offended by that word. So why have you chosen to use it??? 

I'm only going to quote this section, though you are splitting hairs like a mad barber through your entire comment. I'm going to have to presume, rightly or wrongly, that English is not your first language or you are simply not understanding the context I try to describe.

I believe that I make it clear that there is a specific difference of when a word is used for informational or discussion purposes and when it is used in a malicious way. Knee-jerk reaction of the former is where I roll my eyes at people. Please try to understand the difference. My position of the general subject should be pretty well-known by now, just as yours is, we aren't going to change each others' minds about it, so the dead horse is now beginning to fall apart from so much beating. Feel free to give it a few more whacks, I'm done now.

Edited by Alyona Su
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

What about us non-humans? Ohhhh, you mean the human behind the keyboard.

There's an old saying that I have found to be true. Wolves are more human than humans are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

I'm only going to quote this section, though you are splitting hairs like a mad barber through your entire comment.

Am I? I thought I was making fair, reasoned and lucid points throughout.

21 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

 I'm going to have to presume, rightly or wrongly, that English is not your first language

Do I sound as though it's not?

21 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

I believe that I make it clear that there is a specific difference of when a word is used for informational or discussion purposes and when it is used in a malicious way

Why? Why is there this difference?

What non-malicious reason could anyone have for using or defending an offensive term in any context, when they know full well that it is offensive and that an accurate and respectful alternative is available? Why would anyone become irritated by the introduction of said alternative? 

Why would a person with disabilities not have the right to be offended by the R word just because it's being used for "informational or discussion purposes", when the aforementioned alternative is available?

Why would anyone not use the preferred terms, once they know what they are?

21 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

Knee-jerk reaction of the former is where I roll my eyes at people. 

Knee-jerk reaction at the correction of an offensive and ugly term is where I...roll my eyes too.

21 minutes ago, Alyona Su said:

My position of the general subject should be pretty well-known by now

It is.

Edited by Amina Sopwith
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

Why would anyone not use the preferred terms, once they know what they are?

Some habits are not easy to break for old(er) people. Words and (re)actions become deeply ingrained. It takes time and not everyone is going to be successful. I still call a lot of things by the names they were called 40 years ago yet are called something different today. 

When the word "disability" is no longer acceptable (PC) what will we call it then? There is a such thing as carrying PC too far.

Some prefer terms that others don't, so I deal with it on an individual basis. I abide by the wishes of the individual and if I happen to be with two people who are of different minds over it, I let them work it out. So far, not even they have been able to agree on an acceptable, common term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Selene Gregoire said:

Some habits are not easy to break for old(er) people. Words and (re)actions become deeply ingrained. It takes time and not everyone is going to be successful. I still call a lot of things by the names they were called 40 years ago yet are called something different today. 

Ok, but the important thing is that people try.
 

2 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

When the word "disability" is no longer acceptable (PC) what will we call it then?

Whatever the disabled community wishes us to call it. Language evolves.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

Some prefer terms that others don't, so I deal with it on an individual basis. I abide by the wishes of the individual and if I happen to be with two people who are of different minds over it, I let them work it out. So far, not even they have been able to agree on an acceptable, common term.

I'm interested to know what this particular disability/condition is that has such a lack of consensus around it.

You may not ever please every single last person, but stay abreast of what the representative bodies are saying (Google their websites if you need to) and people will generally understand that you are well-intentioned.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work with children who have all sorts of mental and physical illnesses and disabilities. I would venture a well-educated guess that many of these kids with extreme physical limitations and disabilities have higher IQs than anyone in these forums, yet they frequently and maliciously hear the r-word or are called the r-word in school, on the bus, on outings, even in the halls where I work (and they live). 

How lacking in empathy does a person have to be to argue the hateful point that these children, or any children, or any adult, should not be offended by a word that is almost always used in an incredibly derogatory manner in today's society? How dare anyone think they have any right to tell another person what is offensive and what isn't? 

The r-word is an offensive word. Period. It causes pain to a great many people. It matters not one single iota that anyone believes it isn't offensive because it is. The individual human beings that this word is used to describe say it is an offensive word. 

Why is this so hard for anyone to understand?

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Useful source here, though it's UK-specific. Right at the top: "Not everyone will agree on everything but there is general agreement on some basic guidelines."

I've personally got no problems with being called a depressive; I use the term for myself quite frequently. But I can understand why someone would rather be called a "person with depression/depressive tendencies" and why it might be a better term overall. Nothing objectionable in it that I can see.

Edited by Amina Sopwith
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Beth Macbain said:

I work with children who have all sorts of mental and physical illnesses and disabilities. I would venture a well-educated guess that many of these kids with extreme physical limitations and disabilities have higher IQs than anyone in these forums, yet they frequently and maliciously hear the r-word or are called the r-word in school, on the bus, on outings, even in the halls where I work (and they live). 

And even if they hadn't, even if they had IQs that were very far below the average...what is the objection to referring to them in respectful terms that prioritise their humanity and personhood?
 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

And even if they hadn't, even if they had IQs that were very far below the average...what is the objection to referring to them in respectful terms that prioritise their humanity and personhood?
 

Oh, I completely agree. My point there was that to see these children one would never know that their brains were completely cognizant and that they are able to hear and understand what is being said around them. 

It's just a nasty word and shouldn't be used. There doesn't need to be conditions put on it. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

I'm interested to know what this particular disability/condition is that has such a lack of consensus around it.

You may not ever please every single last person, but stay abreast of what the representative bodies are saying (Google their websites if you need to) and people will generally understand that you are well-intentioned.

I think you missed the fact that I was talking about dealing with individuals, on an individual basis. I use whatever term the individual prefers. Full stop.

if I were to stay abreast of everything all of the representative bodies are saying, I'd never have time to do anything else. There are more organizations in the US than I can keep up with, much less adding the ones in other countries. 

People are too focused on what terms everyone else uses if they fail to see that most people, regardless of what terms they use, are well-intentioned. On the other hand, intentions are rather useless when they aren't acted on.

There is one thing that hasn't changed in the past 60 years. Actions speak louder than words.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

I think you missed the fact that I was talking about dealing with individuals, on an individual basis. I use whatever term the individual prefers. Full stop.

I didn't miss it, I just didn't really have a response to it. It's quite obviously the right thing to do.

8 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

if I were to stay abreast of everything all of the representative bodies are saying, I'd never have time to do anything else.

That's why it's important that people are gently corrected if they use the wrong term. As I was during my first week in my job.

8 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

People are too focused on what terms everyone else uses if they fail to see that most people, regardless of what terms they use, are well-intentioned.

But some people aren't. As Beth says, the R word is very frequently used as a hostile insult. As Scylla says, it's so well-known to be an offensive word that it's hard to imagine that offence isn't deliberate when someone uses it. Which is why this conversation is important. And as I've said numerous times: if one knows that a term is offensive, and that there's an acceptable alternative, then what good intentions can one possibly have in using or defending the offensive term?

And if someone is offended by having their words corrected, what good intentions can they possibly have?

I get that some people will struggle to remember the new term, but the important thing is that people try, and accept gentle correction.

Edited by Amina Sopwith
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Amina Sopwith said:

I didn't miss it, I just didn't really have a response to it. It's quite obviously the right thing to do.

That's why it's important that people are gently corrected if they use the wrong term. As I was during my first week in my job.

But some people aren't. As Beth says, the R word is very frequently used as a hostile insult. As Scylla says, it's so well-known to be an offensive word that it's hard to imagine that offence isn't deliberate when someone uses it. Which is why this conversation is important. And as I've said numerous time: if one knows that a term is offensive, and that there's an acceptable alternative, then what good intentions can one possibly have in using or defending the offensive term?

And if someone is offended by having their words corrected, what good intentions can they possibly have?

I get that some people will struggle to remember the new term, but the important thing is that people try, and accept gentle correction.

So are the words squaw, redskin, timber n-word, prairie n-word, etc. The only good injun is a dead injun and so on and so forth. Growing up in an all white family in the deep south, being the only First Nations in school.

Why do people still use those words? When you can answer that question, you'll have your answer. You don't need me to give you what you already know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

It can be difficult knowing when to help and when to step back when dealing with a special needs person.

We only have her "thought" that he is special-needs. He has not stated to her that he was. She ASSUMES he is from how he types to her. 

3 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

t's a constant dynamic that must be explored so that we don't limit their self-determination or freedom, yet we must keep their well-being and safety in mind as well. When working with autistic adults some years ago I saw how difficult this process can be to sort out. Likewise, my daughter teaches high-school aged kids with special needs and speaks to the difficulties of balancing freedom vs safety in meeting their needs.

Wrong. We, the general public of SL, do not have to keep a damn thing in mind. It is NOT our place to police anyones spending in SL. Nor is it our place to report such spending to LL. They wont do anything about it. Legally they can't. 

3 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

But going back to SL or the world in general (outside a therapeutic relationship), the best friend you can have is one that recognizes your shortcomings and either makes allowances for these or tries to help you overcome them. And likewise, one would hope you could be such a friend to them.

I am at a loss as to how spending money is a shortcoming. She has no idea what his income is, how much is a too much or even how much he is actually spending. 

3 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

I don't like how special needs people are thrown onto the streets now, without help, and suffering. I have friends working with these people (the homeless) and there's simply not enough funds to adequately provide what they need. I think you are in the UK, and I don't know how it is there, but here in the U.S. the services are pretty pathetic. What I'm concerned about is that this special needs person AnnaBelle is interacting with could lose the house he inherited and end up "free" on the streets -- free to starve and freeze without a warm place to sleep.

That all depends on the state they live in. In a lot of states they are given medical and housing allowances, job placement, food stamps, therapy and many other services. 

Again, he didnt inherit a house... That was a guy i grew up with.. 

No, i am not in the UK, i am in the US. I have many family members who have various "special needs" (hate that term btw it makes them seem abnormal) who have perfectly normal lives. They have jobs, relationships and yes, even spend money on entertainment. 

The bottom line is, No one here has the right to curtail anyone elses spending. To report this person breaks the TOS as you are assuming they are mentally challenged. Even if they are, you have NO RIGHT to mother them. Every single person i have met in my life who was challenged just wanted to be treated as if they were just like everyone else. 

@Annabell Wandsworth Leave this poor guy alone. Who died and made you SLs fun police? You dont know him in RL, you arent related to him, you arent dating him, so PISS OFF. Gods, people need to mind their own damn business. 

Edited by Drake1 Nightfire
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 minutes ago, Selene Gregoire said:

So are the words squaw, redskin, timber n-word, prairie n-word, etc. The only good injun is a dead injun and so on and so forth. Growing up in an all white family in the deep south, being the only First Nations in school.

Why do people still use those words? When you can answer that question, you'll have your answer. You don't need me to give you what you already know.


I'm sorry, Selene, but I'm a bit confused now. That's precisely what I've been saying, over quite a few posts now. Those are hateful words, so hateful that it's hard to imagine anyone who used them wasn't trying to be offensive. So if someone doesn't wish to cause offence, why would they use or defend terms that they know are offensive, and when they know the alternative? And why would they themselves be offended to be gently corrected and guided towards a respectful alternative? What intentions could they have?

I'm not sure what we're arguing over at this point. That some cultures are tolerant of and even encouraging of racism? I wouldn't argue with that either, but it doesn't make it right. Or are you making the case that these people don't "mean" those words offensively? Why does that matter when they quite understandably cause hurt and offence to you and other First Nations people?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

To report this person breaks the TOS as you are assuming they are mentally challenged.

Does it break TOS? Surely LL will just ignore it if there's no reason to intervene, which there probably isn't from their perspective.

I suggested OP contact LL with her concerns, simply because LL should know who he really is and how to reach him. In the unlikely event that they're in some sort of special arrangement with him and/or a carer, or know him to be in some sort of RL danger, they'll be able to reach him. If not (far more likely), they'll just ignore it and he can continue exercising his own agency.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

......................

I think you need to go back and actually read what Annabelle wrote. You even seemed to miss that it's Annabelle who first mentioned the inheritance bit (the house from his parents) and instead attribute that to your contribution, so I don't quite trust that you've really read her words. Also,  It's hard to debate someone that frames the whole debate about what they prize most for themselves, which in your case is "freedom".   

Basically, if a person is vulnerable, be it friend or relative, and coming to their assistance doesn't clash too much with what we truly need, we should try to help them. Full Stop.

Edited by Luna Bliss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

 

@Annabell Wandsworth Leave this poor guy alone. Who died and made you SLs fun police? You dont know him in RL, you arent related to him, you arent dating him, so PISS OFF. Gods, people need to mind their own damn business. 

bit hostile?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was at the dentist office and an adolescent boy proclaimed "oh that's so gay" when his game on a hand-held device didn't have the desired outcome. I almost corrected him but his mother was sitting beside him and I feel an aversion to correcting another mother's child unless something terribly extreme happens.  Unfortunately, because of where I live, there's a good chance his mother thought it was fine to equate 'gay' with 'bad'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Luna Bliss said:

I think you need to go back and actually read what Annabelle wrote. You even seemed to miss that it's Annabelle who first mentioned the inheritance bit (the house from his parents) and instead attribute that to your contribution, so I don't quite trust that you've really read her words. Also,  It's hard to debate someone that frames the whole debate about what they prize most for yourself, which in your case is "freedom".   

Basically, if a person is vulnerable, be it friend or relative, and it doesn't take too much away from what we truly need, we should try to help them. Full Stop.

You are right, she did say that.. i missed it in the 60+ replies that came in overnight. 

We still only have her assumption that he is "vulnerable" as you put it. Y'all are really putting down the abilities of mentally challenged people here. 

We have no idea how much he is spending. @Annabell Wandsworth hasn't told us, probably because she doesn't know. Again, we have no idea what his income is or how much free money he has to spend. HE may very well have a handler who gives him a stipend to spend on fun. Either way, its not her or anyone heres place to report him. 

8 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

Does it break TOS? Surely LL will just ignore it if there's no reason to intervene, which there probably isn't from their perspective.

I suggested OP contact LL with her concerns, simply because LL should know who he really is and how to reach him. In the unlikely event that they're in some sort of special arrangement with him and/or a carer, or know him to be in some sort of RL danger, they'll be able to reach him. If not (far more likely), they'll just ignore it and he can continue exercising his own agency.

Yes it does. she is giving out personal information about a user of SL. Without their permission and without any proof. that is called a libelous statement and is illegal in the US. 

 

Just now, Luna Bliss said:

I was at the dentist office and an adolescent boy proclaimed "oh that's so gay" when his game on a hand-held device didn't have the desired outcome. I almost corrected him but his mother was sitting beside him and I feel an aversion to correcting another mother's child unless something terribly extreme happens.  Unfortunately, because of where I live, there's a good chance his mother thought it was fine to equate 'gay' with 'bad'. 

You have no right to correct anyones child other than your own. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Drake1 Nightfire said:

We still only have her assumption that he is "vulnerable" as you put it. Y'all are really putting down the abilities of mentally challenged people here. 

Nobody is putting down the abilities of mentally challenged people here. My advice is always to determine to the best of one's ability what another actually needs before offering help -- to give someone what they don't truly need is insulting and encourages dependence. But if we're fairly sure we can help in some way then why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Amina Sopwith said:

 


I'm sorry, Selene, but I'm a bit confused now. That's precisely what I've been saying, over quite a few posts now. Those are hateful words, so hateful that it's hard to imagine anyone who used them wasn't trying to be offensive. So if someone doesn't wish to cause offence, why would they use or defend terms that they know are offensive, and when they know the alternative? And why would they themselves be offended to be gently corrected and guided towards a respectful alternative? What intentions could they have?

I'm not sure what we're arguing over at this point. That some cultures are tolerant of and even encouraging of racism? I wouldn't argue with that either, but it doesn't make it right. Or are you making the case that these people don't "mean" those words offensively? Why does that matter when they quite understandably cause hurt and offence to you and other First Nations people?

I didn't know we were arguing. All I've done is try to answer your question to the best of my knowledge. I never claimed I know what makes every person tick. I can only tell you that sometimes what is offensive to one isn't offensive to another, even if they both have the same disability. This is why I honor the individuals preference over the majority's. I'm not dealing with the majority. I'm dealing with the individual.

People fear what they don't understand.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...