"It's the Thing that counts..."

With you POGS.

Context and intention are what matter.

Treading on eggshells to catch the latest nuances of what is and what is not acceptable inhibits conversation and communication around someone of a different ethnicity or with a disability and that is not good.

No. Calling someone a Jew is nothing like calling someone a diabetic. Saying someone is Jewish is much better. It's all in the connotations.

As I said before, you either get it or you don't. Depending on you really.

Ironic

I am clearly not entirely up to date on all this. Does that make my inclusive and kind intention invalid I wonder? Or does it simply demonstrate my point that knowing all the latest argot does not make someone free of bigotry.

I worked for many years with people with disabilities and in the main they were united in their dislike of PC langauge - mainly I think because it assumed that they were too stupid to see the intention of the person speaking, and that they were so darned touchy about who they were that they needed to be tiptoed around. I took my lead from them.

this is what I am trying to say Jingl

From the article. " “the word ‘Jew’ is often used in an anti-Semitic context”

Isn't it just!

I personally cannot accept it. But I'm never going to change the feelings of others on here.

The rest of that article is bullshit rubbish.

It is like, you are "in" a group, for knowing the latest, most up to date terms.
Or you are "out".

I agree that people should be mindful and careful, but not to be "punished" if they slip up if they make a genuine mistake.
They should just be able to say "sorry, I didnt mean to offend. I will be mindful of the correct word in future", and be able to move on without recriminations.

The word that is appropriate however is 'context'.

In your opinion jingl but I think you've missed the point it is making.

Because it is saying that language matters and I agree that Cumberwhatsit should have known better.

Language does need to be inclusive.
I worked in academia as a lowly lecturer.
After a PC language related piece in the Times Higher trade paper we had a memo came round a few years ago telling us not to say 'Brainstorm' and suggesting 'Thought Shower' as an acceptable substitute.
Brainstorm being deemed unacceptable and possibly upsetting to hear for students who had or knew someone who suffered a stroke or similar.
Not long afterwards someone from a major head injuries charity wrote to the Times Higher saying that they had no objection to ' Brainstorm' at all.
It wasn't a term I ever used anyhoo.
" Think about it..." followed by " Any ideas?" generally did he job.

www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jan/29/david-oyelowo-benedict-cumberbatch-coloured-gate-silly-and-ridiculous

Oh yes. I've read the whole of the article now. I see. Yes. That's where I'm coming from. I think.

(the bit about "a dwarf" put me off. Who would, on hearing that word, think of the mythical beings? Surely not! Especially after Game of Thrones )

Good article.

Why do some white people in general insist on defending people who need no defence.
People who can actually stand up and talk for themselves.

It is patronising and demeaning.

I quite like "brainstorming". Very descriptive.

Err! Because of the poslsibility that the time might come - again - when they can't stand up for themselves.

soon no one was defending anyone - merely commenting on Cumberbatch's outdated phrase.

Or perhaps it's like Dilbert....

"Everything you say is right. But I have a reflective urge to disagree with you"

"If you don't mind I'm going to make a ridiculous counterpoint just to get it out of my system"

?

That's not fair.

Sorry.

This bit - from Anya's article

"Well, consider this: If someone were to use the word “dwarf”, many would be more likely to think of the mythical being rather than a person with dwarfism, because that noun dehumanizes them. By referring to a group of people with a collective noun, we separate them as “others” rather than considering them as people who happen to have a particular trait.

But if we set that trait apart by making it an adjective, we put emphasis on the person’s humanity: She’s not a Jew, she’s a Jewish person. He’s not a dwarf, he’s a person with dwarfism.

This fine distinction may be pedantic and overly sensitive to some, but it is interesting how such a simple case of grammar can affect our perception of others."

Calling someone a Jew is not the same as labelling someone a dwarf because they suffer from dwarfism. The name "Jew" has many more connotations. And that's why I think the article is rubbishy.

Using the words "coloured" and "Jew" is not just a grammer thing.

Snow White and the Seven persons with dwarfism.....
I give up,

grammer/grammar sp?