Jon Kelland wrote: > In the disability community there is raging debate concerning > language use, and the question of whether to use "person with > disabilities" or "disabled person" is center-stage. The argument > for the former is along the lines of Jennifer's "people first" > philosophy, the latter comes from proponents of the social model > of disability and claims that disability should be foreground so > that the action of discrimination is clear.
I think this process is ridiculous. A particular group decides the proper language to be used when referring to themselves, then the attitudes of those outside of the group (insiders are normally exempt) are evaluated based how "sensitive" they are to the newly defined terms. Sometimes it's not just the words, but the contexts. In some contexts you can use "Jew" and others are deemed insulting. Are there still "Red Skin" sports teams? Is "Indian" now out of fashion? This focus on terminology is as irrational as esoteric table manners and severs the same basic function: to differentiate between those in the in-group and those in the out-group. I believe that a certain amount of tolerance is necessary to protect the right of individuals to express themselves freely. The bright spot is that the Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down speech codes. Michael Atherton Prospect Park REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
