# So I complained to the BBC



## susie12 (Jan 11, 2014)

My complaint below:

"I was not aware that Nigel and Adam's Farm Kitchen was a platform for the Conservative party but last week David Cameron appeared buying sausages. I hope that in the next episode we will see Ed Milliband purchasing from a farmers' market. One of the BBC's most vaunted principles is its supposed lack of bias. Not everyone watching this programme will be voting for David Cameron."

And their response:


"Thanks for your contact regarding ‘Nigel and Adam's Farm Kitchen’ on 11 December.
I understand you were unhappy that David Cameron featured in the programme and I note your comments about political bias and Ed Milliband featuring in the next episode.
David Cameron regularly visits his local farmer's food market, and it happened to be the market that we took our farm produce to, to sell in aid of Children In Need.

He was aware of the cameras and the programme and came over to buy some products.

His contribution was entirely as a person doing some food shopping and no political issues were discussed.

However, your complaint has been registered on our audience log. This log is made available to all members of the BBC, including the ‘Nigel and Adam's Farm Kitchen’ production team and senior BBC management.

This ensures your comments and others we receive are considered across the BBC.
Thanks again for taking the time to contact us."

Which I think is really lame!


----------



## Athos (Jan 11, 2014)

The response was lame. In which respect, it was commensurate with the complaint.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Jan 11, 2014)

Hardly the biggest deal in the world.  I like Nige, but saw that programme; achingly middle class.


----------



## susie12 (Jan 11, 2014)

Well yes, grow your own pasta wheat ffs, I agree, but I still don't want to see Cameron popping up in the middle of it.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Jan 11, 2014)

The sight of Ed Milliband at his local farmers market would be just as likely to stick in many a viewers' craw.


----------



## susie12 (Jan 11, 2014)

But at least it would be balanced vomiting


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 11, 2014)

susie12 said:


> But at least it would be balanced vomiting


most vomiting done when people finding it very difficult to balance


----------



## geminisnake (Jan 11, 2014)

susie12 said:


> One of the BBC's most vaunted principles is its supposed lack of bias.



Have you seen their coverage of the referendum up here?? Unbiased?? Ha frigging ha!! BBC - Govt mouthpiece! Bunch of bias cnuts.


----------



## Cid (Jan 11, 2014)

Should have suggested Ian Bone at his local farmer's market.


----------



## neonwilderness (Jan 11, 2014)

Cid said:


> Should have suggested Ian Bone at his local farmer's market.


I wonder if Nick Griffin bought the ingredients for his beef stew from his local farmers market


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 11, 2014)

susie12 said:


> My complaint below:
> 
> "I was not aware that Nigel and Adam's Farm Kitchen was a platform for the Conservative party but last week David Cameron appeared buying sausages. I hope that in the next episode we will see Ed Milliband purchasing from a farmers' market. One of the BBC's most vaunted principles is its supposed lack of bias. Not everyone watching this programme will be voting for David Cameron."
> 
> ...


I think you mean it's pathetic. Please don't use the word lame in a perjorative context as it is anti-disabled.


----------



## thriller (Jan 11, 2014)

there she pops up again with it.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Jan 11, 2014)

If the BBC need to address any bias these days they could start by slashing the amount of appearances by Nigel Farage, his ratio of appearances vs actual polling for UKIP is well off the scale.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 11, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> I think you mean it's pathetic. Please don't use the word lame in a perjorative context as it is anti-disabled.



Hardly anybody who uses or hears it is aware of that context though, less still intends it in that way. Like the word 'idiot'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 11, 2014)

thriller said:


> there she pops up again with it.



Go stick your head in an industrial mincer, you shitpipe.


----------



## Wilson (Jan 11, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Go stick your head in an industrial mincer, you shitpipe.



Shitpipes are useful


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 11, 2014)

Wilson said:


> Shitpipes are useful



You have a point.

(((((shitpipes)))))


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 11, 2014)

thriller said:


> there she pops up again with it.


And you feel the need to comment because? 

Typical thriller, driving-by posting to shitstir.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 11, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Hardly anybody who uses or hears it is aware of that context though, less still intends it in that way. Like the word 'idiot'.


I'm fully aware it's come over from America where 'lame' is used than over here in the UK, but that doesn't make it ok.


----------



## Supine (Jan 11, 2014)

*1*.
(of a person or animal) unable to walk without difficulty as the result of an injury or illness affecting the leg or foot.
"his horse *went lame*"



*2*.
(of an explanation or excuse) unconvincingly feeble.
"the TV licensing teams hear a lot of lame excuses"
synonyms:feeble, weak, thin, flimsy, transparent, poor, puny; More


I can't see any problem with the word when used in the second context, as it was here.


----------



## marty21 (Jan 11, 2014)

thriller said:


> there she pops up again with it.


you are obsessed and a bit stalkery


----------



## existentialist (Jan 11, 2014)

johnwisehammer said:


> Colin: thanks for that insight into the wonderful equal opportunity world of deaths in custody. In your bonkers mind, apparantly if it's not racially motivated, it's okay. Hmmm.
> 
> Moby: what's wrong with The Voice?
> 
> ...


A *bit*? I usually don't notice that kind of pattern, but even I've started wondering, when equationgirl posts, how long it'll be before thriller pops up from his hole in the ground.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 11, 2014)

skyscraper101 said:


> If the BBC need to address any bias these days they could start by slashing the amount of appearances by Nigel Farage, his ratio of appearances vs actual polling for UKIP is well off the scale.



Think the problem they have is that UKIP don't have anyone else who they can field on TV, and their polling does demand a certain level of representation.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 12, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Hardly anybody who uses or hears it is aware of that context though, less still intends it in that way. Like the word 'idiot'.



Apparently "handicapped" is now out of order as well because it was said to be a reference to 'cap in hand' and begging. This is bollocks and the term actually refers to the name of an 18th century game. 

As you say context is everything and you've got to be really seeking to take offence at "lame" or "idiot", or indeed David Cameron appearing on a BBC program.

But this is U75!


----------



## ATOMIC SUPLEX (Jan 12, 2014)

I was filming for a food show back in the late 90s. I was shooting in a heath food shop and bloody Roland Gift was in shot buying stuff. 
Worried about being bias, I quickly tried to call up Ali Campbell, but he couldn't make it on time.


----------



## Dr. Furface (Jan 12, 2014)

susie12 said:


> I hope that in the next episode we will see Ed Milliband purchasing from a farmers' market.


Which could easily be arranged as there's one at Hampstead Heath on Saturday mornings that's about 3 mins walk from his house - I know because he lives over the road from us and we go to it most weeks. Never seen him there. In fact I can only remember seeing him twice since he moved in about 3 years ago.


----------



## bouncer_the_dog (Jan 12, 2014)

I would have thought at least two or three people would be sacked if the BBC had given DC any kind of positive representation..


----------



## Onket (Jan 12, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Apparently "handicapped" is now out of order as well because it was said to be a reference to 'cap in hand' and begging. This is bollocks and the term actually refers to the name of an 18th century game.
> 
> As you say context is everything and you've got to be really seeking to take offence at "lame" or "idiot" or indeed, David Cameron appearing on a BBC program.
> 
> But this is U75!


This^

And yet thriller gets it in the neck again. Flavour of the month, I spose.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 12, 2014)

IF you've ever seen the ghastly 'Newswatch' on BBC news channel, or read BBC responses to the letters at the back of the Radio Times, you'll know that their customary response to any criticism is along the lines of




			
				Faceless BBC Overlords said:
			
		

> Shut it, you pathetic little prole. What do you know about making telly programmes? If you don't like it, fuck off to Venezuela, and enjoy the product placement in your telenovelas while you're at it



There's something comforting about that though.  It makes a nice change from everyone's obsession with 'choice' these days.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 12, 2014)

Plus, have you _seen _the kind of letters in RT? No wonder the Beeb thinks we're idiots.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 12, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Apparently "handicapped" is now out of order as well because it was said to be a reference to 'cap in hand' and begging. This is bollocks and the term actually refers to the name of an 18th century game.
> 
> As you say context is everything and you've got to be really seeking to take offence at "lame" or "idiot", or indeed David Cameron appearing on a BBC program.
> 
> But this is U75!



You can't even smear poorly spelled racist abuse on someone's car in excrement these days without the Politically Correct Brigade jumping down your throat etc


----------



## existentialist (Jan 12, 2014)

Onket said:


> This^
> 
> And yet thriller gets it in the neck again. Flavour of the month, I spose.


Thriller is a twat, so he probably gets cut less slack than someone who doesn't irritate the fuck out of the world every time he puts finger to keyboard. Life's unfair.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 12, 2014)

Onket said:


> This^
> 
> And yet thriller gets it in the neck again. Flavour of the month, I spose.


Thriller is behaving like a stalkery twat.


----------



## toggle (Jan 13, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Thriller is behaving like a stalkery twat.




awwww eg, you got a new pet?


----------



## Onket (Jan 13, 2014)

existentialist said:


> Thriller is a twat, so he probably gets cut less slack than someone who doesn't irritate the fuck out of the world every time he puts finger to keyboard. Life's unfair.


There are lots of twats on the Internet. It's a shame people on here seem to get so worked up about them. You'd think they took it personally or something.


----------



## Onket (Jan 13, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Thriller is behaving like a stalkery twat.


Poor you.


----------



## sim667 (Jan 13, 2014)

To be fair Cameron was probably at farmers market prospecting it as a new supermarket site for one of his mates.

They're going to get unemployed builders to make it on workfare.


----------



## emanymton (Jan 13, 2014)

Supine said:


> *1*.
> (of a person or animal) unable to walk without difficulty as the result of an injury or illness affecting the leg or foot.
> "his horse *went lame*"
> 
> ...


The problem with the second context is that it derives it's meaning from the first. Having said that while it is not a word I use, I think the original meaning has fallen by the wayside so I don't see it as much of a problem.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 13, 2014)

equationgirl said:
			
		

> I think you mean it's pathetic. Please don't use the word lame in a perjorative context as it is anti-disabled.



The word has more than one meaning. Stop being ridiculous.


----------



## mauvais (Jan 13, 2014)

The moan in the OP is lacklustre, yet chances upon the fact that Nigel and Adam's Farm Kitchen is a beautiful vehicle for all kinds of complaints.




			
				complaint said:
			
		

> I was not aware that Nigel and Adam's Farm Kitchen was a platform for the Conservative party middle class but last week David Cameron appeared buying sausages. I hope that in the next episode we will see Ed Milliband purchasing from a farmers' market Ross Kemp punching a tramp until heroin falls out of his eyes. One of the BBC's most vaunted principles is its supposed lack of bias. Not everyone watching this programme will be voting for David Cameron comfortably affluent like me.






			
				complaint said:
			
		

> I was not aware that Nigel and Adam's Farm Kitchen was a platform for the Conservative party Countryside Alliance but last week David Cameron appeared buying sausages it took place in a kitchen on a farm. I hope that in the next episode we will see Ed Milliband purchasing from a farmers' market Dappy from N-Dubz shooting Iceland ready meals with a handgun outside Yates. One of the BBC's most vaunted principles is its supposed lack of bias. Not everyone watching this programme will be voting for David Cameron watching.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 13, 2014)

emanymton said:


> The problem with the second context is that it derives it's meaning from the first.



Many words derive popularly used meanings from others or have dual/multiple meanings.

Is a country "crippled" by debt now a no-no too? Should we no longer refer to being placed at a disadvantage as being "hamstrung"? What about "hobble"? Will I get told off for being "paralyzed" with fear?

This obsessive insistence with finding "isms" under the bed and completely out of context does nobody any favours.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 13, 2014)

billy_bob said:


> You can't even smear poorly spelled racist abuse on someone's car in excrement these days without the Politically Correct Brigade jumping down your throat etc



What a truly bizarre post.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 13, 2014)

I don't think I've ever heard someone who is disabled referred to as being 'lame'. Probably because its other meaning is more prominent. I've only heard it used in terms of injuries referring to horses.


----------



## mauvais (Jan 13, 2014)

Has anyone asked this duck?


----------



## tombowler (Jan 13, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> What a truly bizarre post.


it is a line form a comedy show, Mr S lee iirc, in context it was quite funny and I feel it is still within that context on this thread, or at least with the derail regarding the use of the word lame.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 13, 2014)

tombowler said:


> it is a line form a comedy show, Mr S lee iirc, in context it was quite funny and I feel it is still within that context on this thread, or at least with the derail regarding the use of the word lame.



Ah, I see.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 13, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I don't think I've ever heard someone who is disabled referred to as being 'lame'.



You used to hear it a bit more but that context certainly now seems archaic if not obsolete. 



> I've only heard it used in terms of injuries referring to horses



It's horse-ist.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 13, 2014)

mauvais said:


> Has anyone asked this duck?



That''d be quackers. 

(Whoops )


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 13, 2014)

Spymaster said:
			
		

> You used to hear it a bit more



Yeah. In The Bible.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 13, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> What a truly bizarre post.



But much more amusing than yours.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 13, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> But much more amusing than yours.



I'm not here to amuse. You lot are here for _my_ amusement. You should know that by now!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 13, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> I'm not here to amuse. You lot are here for _my_ amusement. You should know that by now!



That's what we want you to think!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 13, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> That's what we want you to think!


corrected for you


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> corrected for you



Ooh, catty!


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 13, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> corrected for you



Wahay!


----------



## Onslow (Jan 13, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> I think you mean it's pathetic. Please don't use the word lame in a perjorative context as it is anti-disabled.



What a lame view. In fact what a lame thread.

I'm dragging my lame ass to another one in the hope ill be suitably stiumlated.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 13, 2014)

Onslow said:


> What a lame view. In fact what a lame thread.
> 
> I'm dragging my lame ass to another one in the hope ill be suitably stiumlated.


Bought any degrees lately?


----------



## Corax (Jan 13, 2014)

Athos said:


> The response was lame. In which respect, it was commensurate with the complaint.


Harsh lol.  Can't help but agree in this isolated instance though.

Far greater harm is caused by what the BBC choose _*not*_ to cover - such as the privatisation of the NHS.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 13, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> The word has more than one meaning. Stop being ridiculous.


I'm not being ridiculous.


----------



## Onket (Jan 13, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Bought any degrees lately?


Bit stalkery.


----------



## Corax (Jan 13, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> I'm not being ridiculous.


No, you're not.

Objecting to 'idiot' (as someone mentioned upthread) is totally different, and a bit daft IMO.  The meaning has enough distance from the original diagnostic one.  'Lame', on the other hand, is still very clearly associated with physical disability.  So although a relatively minor complaint (in comparison to a lot of other linguistic horrors) it's a very legitimate one IMO.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 13, 2014)

Corax said:


> No, you're not.
> 
> Objecting to 'idiot' (as someone mentioned upthread) is totally different, and a bit daft IMO.  The meaning has enough distance from the original diagnostic one.  'Lame', on the other hand, is still very clearly associated with physical disability.  So although a relatively minor complaint (in comparison to a lot of other linguistic horrors) and very legitimate one IMO.


Thank you, I appreciate that


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 13, 2014)

Onket said:


> Bit stalkery.



Said Onket, being a bit stalkery.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 13, 2014)

Corax said:


> No, you're not.
> 
> Objecting to 'idiot' (as someone mentioned upthread) is totally different, and a bit daft IMO.  The meaning has enough distance from the original diagnostic one.  'Lame', on the other hand, is still very clearly associated with physical disability.  So although a relatively minor complaint (in comparison to a lot of other linguistic horrors) it's a very legitimate one IMO.



Orly. What about saying something is weak, or poor?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 13, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> I think you mean it's pathetic.



A synonym of both poor and feeble. Two human conditions that shouldn't be sneered at.


----------



## Corax (Jan 13, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Orly. What about saying something is weak, or poor?


Neither of those are connected to disability, or race, or creed, or etc.

I can see the point you're making, but it's just nowhere near as strong an association IMO.  And "IMO" is all I can go on, as this kind of thing is inherently subjective.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 13, 2014)

Corax said:


> Neither of those are connected to disability, or race, or creed, or etc.



The latter is connected to social class.


----------



## Corax (Jan 13, 2014)

Semantics won't get us anywhere on this by the way.  "Nigger" just means black after all, and "Paki" is no different to "Brit".

Neither of which hold water despite being technically correct.  It's about the potential reception.  Empathy, innit.


----------



## Corax (Jan 13, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> The latter is connected to social class.


Not necessarily no.  It's not (and never has been IMU) been only to do with wealth.  "This work is poor" etc.

ETA: I was mistaken on the bit in brackets (googled).  But as with 'idiot' its meaning is  far enough removed as to make that irrelevant now.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 13, 2014)

Corax said:


> Not necessarily no.  It's not (and never has been IMU) been only to do with wealth.  "This work is poor" etc.



Yes. And lame has more than one meaning too. Which was my point that you're now agreeing with.


----------



## Corax (Jan 13, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Yes. And lame has more than one meaning too. Which was my point that you're now agreeing with.


Try reading my posts again.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 13, 2014)

Do you think lack of wealth being called 'poor' and something being inadequate being called 'poor' aren't linked in any way? I think they are. But I wouldn't claim someone saying 'this alcohol is of poor quality' was denigrating poor people which is what you and EG are doing with people using 'lame'.


----------



## Onket (Jan 13, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Said Onket, being a bit stalkery.


Said ViolentPanda, from his own little world.


----------



## Corax (Jan 13, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Do you think lack of wealth being called 'poor' and something being inadequate being called 'poor' aren't linked in any way? I think they are. But I wouldn't claim someone saying 'this alcohol is of poor quality' was denigrating poor people which is what you and EG are doing with people using 'lame'.


Has 'lame' been objected to when used against inanimate objects?

As I said this is a subjective one, and not black & white.  For me though, it's past the line.  If I put myself in the place of someone with a relevant disability, I can imagine that I may be upset by its use.  That's the only test I need tbh.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 13, 2014)

Corax said:


> I was mistaken on the bit in brackets (googled).  But as with 'idiot' its meaning is  far enough removed as to make that irrelevant now.



But that's the same as lame. I don't know ANYONE who uses it in connection with disability. Maybe in medieval times, like.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 13, 2014)

Corax said:


> Has 'lame' been objected to when used against inanimate objects?



In this very thread. Or do you think the response from the BBC was a living and breathing organism?


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 13, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> But that's the same as lame. I don't know ANYONE who uses it in connection with disability. Maybe in medieval times, like.


That's like saying racism doesn't happen because you don't know anyone who doesn't use the words 'paki' or 'nigger'.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 13, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> That's like saying racism doesn't happen because you don't know anyone who doesn't use the words 'paki' or 'nigger'.



It's not, really. I agree with Corax about lame - it just sounds off - but that's a poor analogy.

I suppose it's more like defending the use of the word "coloured" in the context of cartoons, on the grounds that it's an entirely outmoded racial epithet.


----------



## JTG (Jan 13, 2014)

Onket said:


> Said ViolentPanda, from his own little world.


Said Onket, from a desk somewhere


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 13, 2014)

Silas Loom said:


> It's not, really. I agree with Corax about lame - it just sounds off - but that's a poor analogy.


Why? We're talking about disablism. C66 claims he doesn't know anyone who uses the term in reference to disability therefore it's not a disablist term.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 13, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Why? We're talking about disablism. C66 claims he doesn't know anyone who uses the term in reference to disability therefore it's not a disablist term.



I thought I'd edited in an explanation quickly enough; I forget how quickly you respond.


----------



## Onket (Jan 13, 2014)

JTG said:


> Said Onket, from a desk somewhere


Sofa, you cunt.


----------



## Corax (Jan 13, 2014)

Silas Loom said:


> It's not, really. I agree with Corax about lame - it just sounds off - but that's a poor analogy.


Yeah, it probably is.  I've got a lot bubbling round my tiny little brain atm - lots going on.  But I do feel there's a significant difference between 'lame' and (for eg) 'idiot' - right now I'm struggling to break that down enough to properly communicate it though, so will hand the discussion over to others.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 13, 2014)

Corax said:


> Yeah, it probably is.  I've got a lot bubbling round my tiny little brain atm - lots going on.  But I do feel there's a significant difference between 'lame' and (for eg) 'idiot' - right now I'm struggling to break that down enough to properly communicate it though, so will hand the discussion over to others.


God you're lame you idiot


----------



## Corax (Jan 13, 2014)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> God you're lame you idiot


Raaar, let's beat our chests.  

Cretin.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 13, 2014)

Silas Loom said:


> I thought I'd edited in an explanation quickly enough; I forget how quickly you respond.


Vertebrae are falling apart, brain isn't


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Jan 13, 2014)

So about David Cameron and BBC bias...


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 13, 2014)

Corax said:


> Semantics won't get us anywhere on this by the way.  "Nigger" just means black after all, and "Paki" is no different to "Brit".
> 
> Neither of which hold water despite being technically correct.  It's about the potential reception.  Empathy, innit.



The n word has colonial and slave holding origins though, and its certainly a very serious racial slur today. However, even a word like that that carries such heavy historical baggage is still very context specific in terms of its meaning. Many black people refer to each other as 'niggaz' just like as many gay people call themselves queers (and some Pakistanis probably jokingly refer to themselves as 'pakis' just like Jewish spurs fans call themselves 'yids'). There may be objections to all of these forms of self-identification of course, but it seems wrong to identify them as racist.

Having said that, I agree with your point about potential reception. I think it would be the case that if a significant amount of people understood that the word lame has some connection with disability or that some disabled people found offensive, it would be wise not to use it. I'm not entirely sure that's the case, but I could be wrong.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 13, 2014)

I think I take exception because I do have a physical disability which on a bad day can really make my mobility suffer.


----------



## xenon (Jan 13, 2014)

You'd obviously be a cunt to call someone with a disability a cripple or lame, obviously excluding some private joke between willing parties. But when used to describe a situation, I don't see what the problem with lame is other than squeemishness. Phrases like crippled with fear, a crippled ship etc. I don't think I should feel insulted or demeaned by phrases like blind panic or that other one I can't now think of... But then I don't subscribe to the social model of disability so much.

Of course a civilised and progressive society should seek to amilurate the difficulties faced by disabled people. To strive for an inclusive situation, making adjustments where possible. God knows there's plenty of work there. This doesn't alter the plain fact, a severe disability is an encomberence. Hence the origin of the annaligy

I'm not arguing for the wholesale acceptence of old pejorative words that have been used to denigrate people. Language is like that, you can pick and choose But in doing so, you have to consider the meanings they hold in popular society. In this case, it's popular meaning seems to me to only really refer to rubbish jokes or less than optimal situations. Disabled people get called far worse when being insulting is the aim.

Other opinions are available.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 13, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> I think I take exception because I do have a physical disability which on a bad day can really make my mobility suffer.



Fair enough, I won't use the term on this message board anymore


----------



## JTG (Jan 13, 2014)

Onket said:


> Sofa, you cunt.


Alright then

'Said sofa, from a desk somewhere'


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 13, 2014)

I think it's just that "lame" is used particularly disparagingly and contempuously. One spits it out. "Oh, that's_ lame_!" It's not like being "crippled with debt", or "paralysed with fear", which are simply metaphors without any implicit value judgement. It's because of the way in which the term is used, while also being referent (even archaically) to a condition from which people suffer, that it's dodgy.


----------



## Corax (Jan 13, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> I think I take exception because I do have a physical disability which on a bad day can really make my mobility suffer.


And that, for me, is the clincher.

This word genuinely upsets some people who find it derogatory towards them, and there are plenty of other words I can use as an alternative.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 13, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Fair enough, I won't use the term on this message board anymore


Thank you, it is appreciated.


----------



## Corax (Jan 13, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Fair enough, I won't use the term on this message board anymore


I want to like the fact that JV liked this post even more than I liked the post.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Jan 13, 2014)

Silas Loom said:


> I think it's just that "lame" is used particularly disparagingly and contempuously. One spits it out. "Oh, that's_ lame_!" It's not like being "crippled with debt", or "paralysed with fear", which are simply metaphors without any implicit value judgement. It's because of the way in which the term is used, while also being referent (even archaically) to a condition from which people suffer, that it's dodgy.



I don't know if that distinction really works. Paralysed and crippled are still negative signifiers. Nobody is crippled with joy or paralysed with ingenuity - at least not in any way that would be thought of as positive. At the risk of sounding insensitive, I don't think there is _necessarily_ anything anti-disabled about having negative associations with _disabilities _as opposed to _people_ with disabilities. I mean, if we all had a choice about whether or not we had conditions that involved physical pain or restricted our ability to do things that other people take for granted the vast majority would choose not to have them. That doesn't imply any any anti-disabled sentiment though (even with the proviso that understandings of disability are socially constructed etc, or that certain physical 'impairments' might have certain advantages e.g. the enhancement of other sensory experiences). For me, its more an issue of not causing unnecessary hurt to people or helping reinforce stereotypes.


----------



## Onket (Jan 13, 2014)

The man walked with a limp.

Fuck off, I've got erectile dysfunction. 

Isn't it cloudy today. 

How dare you, I've got NSU.

etc.


----------



## Corax (Jan 13, 2014)

Those set on still using it:

Someone who has a disability has said very plainly that they find it upsetting.

What carries more weight - that, or your need to describe things as lame?

I said earlier that I don't think this is a clear-cut one, and it's more subjective than some comparisons that could be made.  I just don't see how that decision plays out atm.


----------



## Corax (Jan 13, 2014)

Onket said:


> The man walked with a limp.
> 
> Fuck off, I've got erectile dysfunction.
> 
> ...


Has anyone ever felt upset by those that you know of?


----------



## Onket (Jan 13, 2014)

I was only messing. 

Oi, I'm suffering from diarrhoea.


----------



## Manter (Jan 13, 2014)

xenon said:


> Other opinions are available.




This is the internet.  You're not supposed to be so reasonable


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 13, 2014)

Onket said:


> I was only messing.
> 
> Oi, I'm suffering from diarrhoea.


Because disability is such a fucking laugh


----------



## Onket (Jan 13, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Because disability is such a fucking laugh


The OP wasn't laughing at you.


----------



## Corax (Jan 13, 2014)

Onket said:


> The OP wasn't laughing at you.


Oh, come on!  You can imagine your own analogies there surely?


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 13, 2014)

Onket said:


> The OP wasn't laughing at you.


And your posts? Pisstaking directly after someone admits a) to having a disability and b) that they prefer it if people don't use language like lame.

What's your excuse?


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Jan 13, 2014)

Corax said:


> I want to like the fact that JV liked this post even more than I liked the post.


 
Hey, I don't go out of my way to offend.   At first I must admit I though equationgirl was being a bit OTT and bossy, but I can now see where she's coming from on this.


----------



## Onket (Jan 13, 2014)

Oh dear, equationgirl.

How about you give us some other words with more than one meaning that we should avoid using?


Johnny Vodka said:


> Hey, I don't go out of my way to offend.   At first I must admit I though equationgirl was being a bit OTT and bossy, but I can now see where she's coming from on this.


I can see where she's coming from, but she's still being OTT and bossy.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 13, 2014)

Corax said:


> Semantics won't get us anywhere on this by the way.  "Nigger" just means black after all, and "Paki" is no different to "Brit".
> 
> Neither of which hold water despite being technically correct.  It's about the potential reception.  Empathy, innit.



Don't be fucking stupid, Corax.

You're a smart geezer struggling to justify idiocy.

Sometimes it's best to just say "bollocks"!


----------



## Corax (Jan 13, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Don't be fucking stupid.


Engage with the substance.

It's about the effect the words have, not whether you can cite their use in other contexts.



Johnny Vodka said:


> Hey, I don't go out of my way to offend.   At first I must admit I though equationgirl was being a bit OTT and bossy, but I can now see where she's coming from on this.


And that's why I have a lot of time for you Johnny.  

So you may as well quit Urban now, you're in with the wrong crowd.


----------



## Corax (Jan 13, 2014)

You edited...



Spymaster said:


> You're a smart geezer struggling to justify idiocy.


Nope.  To both lol.

But the second - it's about the effect the word has.  Any intellectual justification is subservient to the distress it causes.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 13, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> That's like saying racism doesn't happen because you don't know anyone who doesn't use the words 'paki' or 'nigger'.



It's nothing of the sort.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 13, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Why? We're talking about disablism. C66 claims he doesn't know anyone who uses the term in reference to disability therefore it's not a disablist term.



It has more than one meaning. Does 'nigger' and 'paki' have several meanings (your examples)?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 13, 2014)

Perhaps I'm in the wrong here. But it irks me when words get policed as some kind of activism when the word has numerous meanings and no offence was meant. It's shit like this that turns people away from the left.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 13, 2014)

I'm not trying to turn this into activism. I'm saying that as someone with a physical disability I find this offensive.

I'm not trying not be bossy or OTT, but it's pretty arrogant to override or dismiss someone who says they find something offensive by saying they are being bossy or OTT.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 13, 2014)

Corax said:


> Has 'lame' been objected to when used against inanimate objects?



Has "lame" been objected to by any genuinely disabled folk?

My father would've pissed himself laughing in your face.

And then, as ever, I've had cleaned up!


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 13, 2014)

Corax said:


> Semantics won't get us anywhere on this by the way.  "Nigger" just means black after all, and "Paki" is no different to "Brit".
> 
> Neither of which hold water despite being technically correct.  It's about the potential reception.  Empathy, innit.



Pish and schticks.


----------



## Corax (Jan 13, 2014)

Spymaster said:
			
		

> Has "lame" been objected to by any genuinely disabled folk?
> 
> My father would've pissed himself laughing in your face.
> 
> And then, as ever, I've had cleaned up!



Your first question? Yes. 

You may want to retract your gloating?


----------



## Corax (Jan 13, 2014)

Citizen66 said:
			
		

> Perhaps I'm in the wrong here. But it irks me when words get policed as some kind of activism when the word has numerous meanings and no offence was meant. It's shit like this that turns people away from the left.



I'm well with you on general principle there. I just think this example is legit.  Especially given the first hand evidence in this thread.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 13, 2014)

Jeff Robinson said:


> The n word .....quote]



Are you referring to 'niggers' or 'nonces'?

WaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanKeeeeeeeeeeers"


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 13, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Has "lame" been objected to by any genuinely disabled folk?
> 
> My father would've pissed himself laughing in your face.
> 
> And then, as ever, I've had cleaned up!


Are you accusing me of not being genuinely disabled?


----------



## Favelado (Jan 13, 2014)

Would it be fair to say that "lame" has never used as a direct insult in its most literal sense and therefore when used in a metaphorical sense it doesn't generally carry much weight? It's not historically a word that has been spat as an insult, that place having being taken up by the (detestable) "cripple".

The most similar example I can think of is when "gay" started to be used to mean "rubbish" a few years back. It was being used in a non-literal way then, but it has historically been used literally as a pejorative insult to people's faces; thus meaning its metaphorical use is unacceptable.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 13, 2014)

Corax said:


> Your first question? Yes.
> 
> You may want to retract your gloating?



Gloating?

Stop being an obsequious tool, Corax. Think for yourself, FFS!

Do you really think that "lame" is disablist .... or can you give space to the fact that NOBODY beyond some "Lefty Offence Takers In Chief" (no names mentioned ) give a fuck about false etymology and dire contextual insinuation!


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 13, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Are you accusing me of not being genuinely disabled?



No.

Are you suggesting that I am?


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 13, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> No.
> 
> Are you suggesting that I am?


You made a reference to hearing from 'genuinely disabled folk' after I posted I had a disability.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 14, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> You made a reference to hearing from 'genuinely disabled folk' after I posted I had a disability.



Ok. Here we go ...

I've had you on 'ignore' for a while, up until this thread stopped making sense. Then I "un-ignored" you and saw the fucking nonsense that you've been posting.

I've just learned that you are disabled, but from all of your posts believe that you wouldn't want me to treat you as such.

So I won't.

My mum was bipolar. She was also a "plotter" for the Admiralty from 43-46.

My dad shat liquid for all his life that I knew him, via a tube into a bag on his outer thigh, courtesy of a shell over Italy whilst returning from bombing a rail target in a raid outside a gaff called Plovdiv in 1943. He held his own lower intestine in his hands for 3 hours at minus 20 degrees.

I used to take my dad to the khazi and wipe his arse (then, a hole in his hip)  when i took him out at weekends, right up until he died in 2004.

What I'm trying to say is "fuck you" if you think an out of context "lame" is something worth caring about.

My old man would have laughed in your fucking stupid face.

You want to police threads? Get a mod badge or fuck off.

You busy-body, shit-stirring, wanker.


----------



## toggle (Jan 14, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Has "lame" been objected to by any genuinely disabled folk?
> 
> My father would've pissed himself laughing in your face.
> 
> And then, as ever, I've had cleaned up!



the objection comes from someone who has a disability that you seem to be claiming isn't genuine. 

can we perhaps have your advice on what is and isn't a 'genuine' disability?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 14, 2014)

Just fuck off. Go and get your guts blown out, then have your kid look after you for 35 years and complain about the use of "lame". Fucking fuck off and fuck you you fucking fucking cunt. Just fuck off.


----------



## toggle (Jan 14, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Just fuck off. Go and get your guts blown out, and have your kid look after you for 30 years and complain about the use of "lame". Fucking fuck off and fuck you you fucking fucking cunt.




pissed again?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 14, 2014)

Just fucking angry.


----------



## toggle (Jan 14, 2014)

so perhaps when you've got your temper under control, we can have your definition of a genuine disability


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 14, 2014)

I'm Kris, and SOMEONE needs to go to bed. Bye.


----------



## toggle (Jan 14, 2014)

g'luck with that Kris


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 14, 2014)

xx


----------



## thriller (Jan 14, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> You busy-body, shit-stirring, wanker.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 14, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> And your posts? Pisstaking directly after someone admits a) to having a disability and b) that they prefer it if people don't use language like lame.
> 
> What's your excuse?


Being Onket should be excuse enough.


----------



## existentialist (Jan 14, 2014)

thriller said:


>


You really are a piece of shit, thriller. A zero contributor.


----------



## thriller (Jan 14, 2014)

painful or weak
weak; unconvincing
not effective or enthusiastic
_US_ conventional or uninspiring


----------



## mauvais (Jan 14, 2014)

If this thread was a war, it'd be The Three Hundred And Thirty Five Years War.


----------



## susie12 (Jan 14, 2014)

Just to be absolutely clear, my use of the word in the OP was not to slur anyone with a disability in any way and my apologies if anyone has taken genuine offence.


----------



## Sirena (Jan 14, 2014)

I am not trying to inflame but many words have (or have acquired) broader meanings: so they might have a disability meaning (say) but they also have other uses.  'Lame' is one, 'blind' is another.

I would not give up using the word 'lame', nor would I give up using the word 'blind' just to avoid offending one person.  Offence is, after all, subjective.


----------



## mauvais (Jan 14, 2014)

Sirena said:


> I would not give up using the word 'lame', nor would I give up using the word 'blind' just to avoid offending one person.  Offence is, after all, subjective.


Whenever I'm driving, I speed up for b***d bends to avoid offending anyone. You wouldn't believe the number of people I've killed on country lames.


----------



## Supine (Jan 14, 2014)

susie12 said:


> Just to be absolutely clear, my use of the word in the OP was not to slur anyone with a disability in any way and my apologies if anyone has taken genuine offence.



99.99999999% of the population wouldn't have been offended. Unfortunately for you, the 0.000000001% are also on this board


----------



## Wilf (Jan 14, 2014)

As someone with the kind of disability that qualifies for the old fashioned use of 'lame' (presumably someting like 'visible limp, slightly odd gait'?) I can't say I'm that fussed by the term.  Reason I'm not that fussed is that it's become an archaic term with reference to human disability, it's somehow passed beyond the perjorative.  Doesn't mean we shouldn't be offended by other terms, other usages, other intentions.  Even more, we should be fucking _furious_ at Atos.

Most of all though, I'd like to say that I _fucking hate_ farmer's markets.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2014)

Onket said:


> Said ViolentPanda, from his own little world.



You're stalkery like celery is.  That's all there is to it.

And we *all* live in our own little worlds, Eeyore.


----------



## Onket (Jan 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're stalkery like celery is.  That's all there is to it.
> 
> And we *all* live in our own little worlds, Eeyore.


Are you ok?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2014)

Onket said:


> Oh dear, equationgirl.
> 
> How about you give us some other words with more than one meaning that we should avoid using?
> 
> I can see where she's coming from, but she's still being OTT and bossy.



Give "us"?
You realise you're doing that thing that you slate the ed for doing, don'tcha?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2014)

Onket said:


> Are you ok?



I'm fine.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 14, 2014)

Well that was all rather unedifying wasn't it.

I suppose the fact is that behind every user name there's a real person with experiences and those of their friends and loved ones that we just don't know about. It's the easiest thing in the world to find something to take offence at and I took offence on my dads behalf at the attempt to elevate "lame" to something it simply isn't from any reasonable viewpoint.  None of that of course, excuses last night's outburst.

Perhaps we should all be showing a bit more tolerance.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Has "lame" been objected to by any genuinely disabled folk?



Why yes, yes it has.  And much more eloquently than your hastily-edited remark about idiocy. 
People take umbrage at the use of lame because even when not directly applied to disabled people it places the object or subject that is "lame" as inferior (whether a person/subject or thing/object). Disabled people get enough of that from other sources, without having to deal with it from people who can't be arsed to police a lazy use of language.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Well that was all rather unedifying wasn't it.
> 
> I suppose the fact is that behind every user name there's a real person with experiences and those of their friends and loved ones that we just don't know about. It's the easiest thing in the world to find something to take offence at and I took offence on my dads behalf at the attempt to elevate "lame" to something it simply isn't from any reasonable viewpoint.  None of that of course, excuses last night's outburst.
> 
> Perhaps we should all be showing a bit more tolerance.



We all need to get stuff of our chests.  It's whether a person has got the wit to reflect on what they've got off their chest that makes a person worth talking with or not.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2014)

thriller said:


>



Pathetic post from a pathetic poster. _Plus ça_ fucking _change..._ for you.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> And much more eloquently than your hastily-edited remark about idiocy.



 Which?


----------



## kabbes (Jan 14, 2014)

This thread does not appear to be about the thing I thought it was going to be about.


----------



## fractionMan (Jan 14, 2014)

mauvais said:


> If this thread was a war, it'd be The Three Hundred And Thirty Five Years War.


----------



## Wilf (Jan 14, 2014)

kabbes said:


> This thread does not appear to be about the thing I thought it was going to be about.


 Urban - the sound of one hand fapping.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Which?



The one which Corax mentions in post #111. Where he says "you edited", and then quotes your edit.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2014)

Wilf said:


> Urban - the sound of one hand fapping.



No, that's yer mum.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> The one which Corax mentions in post #111. Where he says "you edited", and then quotes your edit.



Oh. I think I just put that whole line in because I like him and was trying to take the weight out of the post. Unsuccessfully it seems.


----------



## Onket (Jan 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Give "us"?
> You realise you're doing that thing that you slate the ed for doing, don'tcha?


I've not slated the ed for months and months, so you'll have to explain your stalky self.


----------



## toggle (Jan 14, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Well that was all rather unedifying wasn't it.
> 
> I suppose the fact is that behind every user name there's a real person with experiences and those of their friends and loved ones that we just don't know about. It's the easiest thing in the world to find something to take offence at and I took offence on my dads behalf at the attempt to elevate "lame" to something it simply isn't from any reasonable viewpoint.  None of that of course, excuses last night's outburst.
> 
> Perhaps we should all be showing a bit more tolerance.



we all throw a shit fit on occasion.

but you do need to remember that what you consider a perfectly reasonable viewpoint isn't necessarily what others do. I'm still convinced that you're a decent bloke with good intentions that will eventually understand my perfectly reasonable POV when i've found the way of explaining it that you understand.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2014)

Onket said:


> I've not slated the ed for months and months, so you'll have to explain your stalky self.



You've missed the point.
Deliberately or otherwise, it makes you look a bit grubby.


----------



## Onket (Jan 14, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You've missed the point.
> Deliberately or otherwise, it makes you look a bit grubby.


Whereas you come out of this exchange looking rosy. Well done.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 14, 2014)

kabbes said:


> This thread does not appear to be about the thing I thought it was going to be about.


It also no longer appears to be about the thing that it was about when it was about the thing that it wasn't what I thought it would be about.


----------



## Onket (Jan 14, 2014)

It's now about ViolentPanda, and how much better he is than other posters.

Enjoyable stuff.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2014)

Onket said:


> Whereas you come out of this exchange looking rosy. Well done.



No, I come out of this exchange looking much as I always do - grubby and rumpled.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 14, 2014)

Onket said:


> It's now about ViolentPanda, and how much better he is than other posters.
> 
> Enjoyable stuff.



Well actually, *you* are the one who's made it about me, and I see nothing in what I've posted that asserts that I'm better than other posters, or better than you, Eeyore. You're projecting.


----------



## Onket (Jan 14, 2014)

Yawn.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 14, 2014)

Get a room.


----------



## Corax (Jan 14, 2014)

So, we're all agreed that the BBC are deliberately pushing a pro-tory agenda because they're run by Zionists, right?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 14, 2014)

mauvais said:


> Whenever I'm driving, I speed up for b***d bends to avoid offending anyone. You wouldn't believe the number of people I've killed on country lames.


Can you really not see the difference?


----------



## mauvais (Jan 14, 2014)

emanymton said:


> Can you really not see the difference?


Not without a working pair of eyes, you bastard.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 14, 2014)

toggle said:


> we all throw a shit fit on occasion.
> 
> but you do need to remember that what you consider a perfectly reasonable viewpoint isn't necessarily what others do. I'm still convinced that you're a decent bloke with good intentions that will eventually understand my perfectly reasonable POV when i've found the way of explaining it that you understand.



That's very kind. Thank you.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 14, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Ok. Here we go ...
> 
> I've had you on 'ignore' for a while, up until this thread stopped making sense. Then I "un-ignored" you and saw the fucking nonsense that you've been posting.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry your dad had such a tough time, and I'm sorry you seemed to be having such a bad day yesterday.

But that doesn't give you the right to decide what I think is worth caring about, or call me a cunt for doing so. That's a completely OTT response.

I wasn't trying to police the thread or shit-stir (there's at least two posters on this thread that have done nothing but), I politely asked people not to use a word as a perjorative. You might not agree with me or my viewpoint but there's no need to become so abusive.


----------



## Corax (Jan 14, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> I'm sorry your dad had such a tough time, and I'm sorry you seemed to be having such a bad day yesterday.
> 
> But that doesn't give you the right to decide what I think is worth caring about, or call me a cunt for doing so. That's a completely OTT response.
> 
> I wasn't trying to police the thread or shit-stir (there's at least two posters on this thread that have done nothing but), I politely asked people not to use a word as a perjorative. You might not agree with me or my viewpoint but there's no need to become so abusive.


Very decent response IMO.  Not that anyone's likely to give a fuck about what (I)MO is lol.

But FWIW from my PoV Spymaster's not a cunt, and equationgirl's neither a busybody nor OTT.  So fingers crossed you'll be cool with each other.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 14, 2014)

thriller said:


>


Another drive-by content-free post from thriller. Still stalking me, I see.


----------



## thriller (Jan 14, 2014)

Nice try, but:

painful or weak
weak; unconvincing
not effective or enthusiastic
_US_ conventional or uninspiring


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 14, 2014)

thriller said:


> Nice try, but:
> 
> painful or weak
> weak; unconvincing
> ...


What's your point thriller? Have you even read the thread?


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Jan 14, 2014)

Storm in a teacup aside, Spymaster is much older than I thought. Much, much older.


----------



## Dowie (Jan 14, 2014)

Supine said:


> *1*.
> (of a person or animal) unable to walk without difficulty as the result of an injury or illness affecting the leg or foot.
> "his horse *went lame*"
> 
> ...



I'm not sure that a dictionary listing an additional informal/slang meaning is necessarily always a reasonable excuse for using a work in that context. Obviously 'lame' used in an informal context is a less controversial as the word isn't used frequently when describing people with disabilities and is a bit dated in that context. The principle isn't too different though to using 'gay' in a different context, which people quite rightly get offended by.

Some dictionaries have listed it too:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/10452871/Apple-shock-at-gay-dictionary-definition.html


----------



## Dowie (Jan 14, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Many words derive popularly used meanings from others or have dual/multiple meanings.
> 
> Is a country "crippled" by debt now a no-no too? Should we no longer refer to being placed at a disadvantage as being "hamstrung"? What about "hobble"? Will I get told off for being "paralyzed" with fear?
> 
> This obsessive insistence with finding "isms" under the bed and completely out of context does nobody any favours.



Not necessarily - for example there is a current trend at the moment for people to use 'rape' in a lighthearted, jokey manner...

Someone could put forward the same argument and point out that its no worse than saying something like 'I could murder a curry' and murders are pretty horrific etc... While I can't necessarily argue with the logic it still doesn't feel right at all to use the work rape lightheartedly. Some words are just different...


----------



## stuff_it (Jan 14, 2014)

neonwilderness said:


> I wonder if Nick Griffin bought the ingredients for his beef stew from his local farmers market


"Market Street" more like


----------



## Supine (Jan 14, 2014)

Dowie said:


> I'm not sure that a dictionary listing an additional informal/slang meaning is necessarily always a reasonable excuse for using a work in that context. Obviously 'lame' used in an informal context is a less controversial as the word isn't used frequently when describing people with disabilities and is a bit dated in that context. The principle isn't too different though to using 'gay' in a different context, which people quite rightly get offended by.
> 
> Some dictionaries have listed it too:
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/10452871/Apple-shock-at-gay-dictionary-definition.html



I agree about the word gay, but it is used by the current generation in that way (annoyingly). Our grandparents probably still thinks it means happy rather than anything to do with sexuality.  That's the point though,  language is an evolving thing and always had been. The point to this thread is that lame is not always used in a way associated with disability,  so people shouldn't try to make an issue out of it when used for other purpose. 

Wonder where the BBC stand on this one. If I remember correctly this thread  was about them.


----------



## thriller (Jan 14, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> What's your point thriller? Have you even read the thread?



well, since you don't like the word lame, just another way to describe your post.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 14, 2014)

thriller said:


> well, since you don't like the word lame, just another way to describe your post.


I don't like the word 'lame' used in a derogatory manner.

There's a slight difference.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 14, 2014)

Supine said:


> I agree about the word gay, but it is used by the current generation in that way (annoyingly). Our grandparents probably still thinks it means happy rather than anything to do with sexuality.  That's the point though,  language is an evolving thing and always had been. The point to this thread is that lame is not always used in a way associated with disability,  so people shouldn't try to make an issue out of it when used for other purpose.
> 
> Wonder where the BBC stand on this one. If I remember correctly this thread  was about them.


Yes, language is evolving. In fact there are many, many words which can be used to describe something as bad or in a derogatory way.

So why continue to use lame in a negative context when there are so many other possibilities choices?


----------



## kabbes (Jan 14, 2014)

Still, that David Cameron and his meat market sausage stall, eh?


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 14, 2014)

And for those people who think it's just me being 'OTT' and 'bossy' and 'trying to police language', here's some links to a number of different sources showing that there's actually quite a lot of people making the same points about the use of disablist language in everyday speech - and for a number of years:

http://www.shakesville.com/2013/01/a-thing-about-disablist-language.html
http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2012/05/calling_out_dis
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archiv...st-disablism-day-addressing-ableist-language/
http://morrigan-reborn.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/blogging-against-disablism-day.html
http://pseudodeviant.wordpress.com/category/disablism/
http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2010/05/blogging_agains_1
http://still.my.revolution.tao.ca/node/54
http://jhameia.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/today-is-blog-against-disablism-day.html

Maybe the language of some posters on this forum needs to evolve.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 14, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> You might not agree with me or my viewpoint but there's no need to become so abusive.



Indeed. And I'm sorry.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 14, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> And for those people who think it's just me being 'OTT' and 'bossy' and 'trying to police language', here's some links to a number of different sources showing that there's actually quite a lot of people making the same points about the use of disablist language in everyday speech - and for a number of years:
> 
> http://www.shakesville.com/2013/01/a-thing-about-disablist-language.html
> http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2012/05/calling_out_dis
> ...



Oh fuck.

Linking a bunch of people that happen to agree with you doesn't make you right.

It just makes _them_ as wrong as _you._

Six feminist blog posts (2 by the same person ... ), and a couple of interest groups.

That's like linking to a _Daily Mail_ article and some BNP analysis to bolster an anti-immigration agenda!


----------



## toggle (Jan 14, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Oh fuck.
> 
> Linking up a bunch of people that happen to agree with you doesn't make you right.
> 
> It just makes them as wrong as you.



or it might just show that you are unwilling to consider that she is right.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 15, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Oh fuck.
> 
> Linking a bunch of people that happen to agree with you doesn't make you right.
> 
> ...


I posted the links to show that there's a growing number of people who want the use of the word lame to no longer be used to mean negative things about disability, as some people were claiming I was a lone OTT bossy voice. I am not.

The blogs aren't all feminist blogs, but it suits your agenda to assume that they are.

But hey, you go right ahead and continue to deny that there is a growing movement of people advocating change.


----------



## Onket (Jan 15, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> I posted the links to show that there's a growing number of people who want the use of the word lame to no longer be used to mean negative things about disability,



I don't think anyone would disagree with that. But the word wasn't used to mean 'negative things about disability' on this thread.

That is why some people are not agreeing with you.


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 15, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> But hey, you go right ahead and continue to deny that there is a growing movement of people advocating change.



Nobody is disagreeing that there are people who want to stop the word being used in certain contexts. The issue is whether or not they are being reasonable in doing so.

Where do you draw the line? There are hundreds of words with multiple meanings and usages that depend on context. What about "crazy", "mad", "deaf"? How about "spineless" to describe someone lacking courage? What about that Urban favourite "loonspud"?

Where do you stand on "nutter"?

There are people out there that could take offence to any of the above. What's special about "lame"?


----------



## Supine (Jan 15, 2014)

I take offence at the words bald and baldy cos I'm follicly challenged. I don't complain about it though.


----------



## Onket (Jan 15, 2014)

Supine said:


> I take offence at the words bald and baldy cos I'm follicly challenged. I don't complain about it though.


What about 'spam' or my old favourite 'gammon'?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 15, 2014)

Supine said:


> I take offence at the words bald and baldy cos I'm follicly challenged. I don't complain about it though.



But do you take offence when people talk about bald tyres?


----------



## emanymton (Jan 15, 2014)

Onket said:


> I don't think anyone would disagree with that. But the word wasn't used to mean 'negative things about disability' on this thread.
> 
> That is why some people are not agreeing with you.


No but it was used to mean negative things because it is associated with disability.

In the same way as if I described posting stupid comments as 'doing an onket' would imply something negative about you. namely, that you post stupid comments. Which I don't feel you do by the way.

I don't understand why this is so hard. No this isn't a crucial issue, not the fate of the human race is not going to be determined by the use of the word lame. But someone with a disability has said they find it offensive, why is it so hard just to stop using one word to avoid offence? It's a crap word anyway.


----------



## Onket (Jan 15, 2014)

Agree that it is a rubbish word emanymton. Your example, though, can only mean an additional dig or swipe is being made. Use of the word in the OP makes no such dig or swipe at anyone.


----------



## Supine (Jan 15, 2014)

To clarify, knowing somebody finds it offensive I will not use the word anymore on here. I'm interested in the discussion though cos it seems so trivial I don't understand why anyone cares


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 15, 2014)

Supine said:
			
		

> To clarify, knowing somebody finds it offensive I will not use the word anymore on here.



Selectively finds it offensive.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> What's your point thriller? Have you even read the thread?



He's like shit on your shoe - unpleasant, intrusive, but basically just crap.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 15, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> Oh fuck.
> 
> Linking a bunch of people that happen to agree with you doesn't make you right.
> 
> ...



Does it not occur to you that the subject might actually *matter* a bit more to "interest groups", than to those who aren't blessed with a disability or disabilities?


----------



## Corax (Jan 15, 2014)

Supine said:


> To clarify, knowing somebody finds it offensive I will not use the word anymore on here. I'm interested in the discussion though cos it seems so trivial I don't understand why anyone cares


I'd agree with that - _*except*_ I recognise that although it seems trivial to _*me*_, from my non-disabled perspective, it is clearly non-trivial to others who feel personally affected by its use - and I'm more than happy to go with them on it.  I can choose another word, it's not difficult.  I don't use 'cripple' as an insult, so it's not much of a leap to purge 'lame' as a pejorative from my language.  In the same way, I'll take my steer on the appropriateness of certain words from LGBT people, or women, or ethnic minorities.

And in return I fully expect people to respect my views on the use of insults that relate to non-disabled middle-class straight white males in gainful employment.  Oh, hang on...


----------



## andysays (Jan 15, 2014)

Supine said:


> To clarify, *knowing somebody finds it offensive I will not use the word anymore on here*. I'm interested in the discussion though cos it seems so trivial I don't understand why anyone cares



TBH, this seems rather an extreme precident to set (though you as an individual are of course welcome to choose whatever course of action you wish).

But to suggest that because one person here finds the use of a particular word offensive, people in general should be encouraged not to use it, whether or not they have an intention of causing offence, seems to me to be unneccessarily interfering with everyone's ability to have a reasonable discussion on sometimes contentious subjects.


----------



## toggle (Jan 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> But to suggest that because *one* person here finds the use of a particular word offensive, people in general should be encouraged not to use it.........



i think if you actually bothered to read the thread, you would find it's more than one person, but don't let facts get in the way....


----------



## toggle (Jan 15, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> What's special about "lame"?



it's the word that was used in this thread?


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Jan 15, 2014)

Turns out that mentally feeble is quite offensive.


----------



## Corax (Jan 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> TBH, this seems rather an extreme precident to set (though you as an individual are of course welcome to choose whatever course of action you wish).
> 
> But to suggest that because one person here finds the use of a particular word offensive, people in general should be encouraged not to use it, whether or not they have an intention of causing offence, seems to me to be unnecessarily interfering with everyone's ability to have a reasonable discussion on sometimes contentious subjects.





toggle said:


> i think if you actually bothered to read the thread, you would find it's more than one person, but don't let facts get in the way....


There's what toggle says for starters, but also...

Cost/benefit analysis:

Benefit:
Avoid the risk of upsetting someone by your choice of language

Cost:
Choosing an alternative word, instead of one that even without this consideration sounds a bit crap and american high-school anyway

It's a really painless choice to make tbh.  Which is why I don't really get the objections.  It clearly offends *some* people.  Whilst not regarding it on a par with "nigger" or "gay" or "cripple" I can appreciate their point.  But even if I didn't, it costs me essentially *nothing* to modify my vocabulary.  So given that I can avoid upsetting some people, for free, why wouldn't I do that?

And to pre-empt an argument that _hopefully_ no one on here would be daft enough to make - no, it's not 'the thin end of the wedge'.  That claim was made with the words I mentioned before, and we still appear to be able to effectively communicate with each other.


----------



## andysays (Jan 15, 2014)

toggle said:


> i think if you actually bothered to read the thread, you would find it's more than one person, but don't let facts get in the way....



I have in fact read the whole thread, even though this is the first time I've posted on it*. I agree that a number of others have subsequently said that they too find it offensive, and even though I don't find it offensive, I'm quite happy to accept that those people honestly feel that way and are not simply saying they do to push some kind of "PC" point as others seem to being accusing them of.

But the post I quoted said if "somebody" is offended, which to me means one person (and another poster who I can't remember made the same point a while back).

There is a difference between words or expressions which we can all/mostly agree are offensive in all cases, whatever the intention of the person using them, and words which one or some people find offensive but which others do not, and where the person using them had no intention to cause offence.

As far as I'm aware, Urban was never intended to be a place where no-one is ever offended by anything ever, and it certainly doesn't operate like that. I'm not arguing for gratuitous offensiveness at all times, but I think most people (and yes, we all know there are exceptions) are actually considerate enough, most of the time, to express themselves appropriately without having their words policed.

*Should I mention that I'm offended by your suggestion that I haven't read the thread, which I suspect actually was meant to be offensive in some not-particular-serious way? Should I argue that no one should ever use that rhetorical device because it might be offensive?


----------



## Corax (Jan 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> I have in fact read the whole thread, even though this is the first time I've posted on it*. I agree that a number of others have subsequently said that they too find it offensive, and even though I don't find it offensive, I'm quite happy to accept that those people honestly feel that way and are not simply saying they do to push some kind of "PC" point as others seem to being accusing them of.
> 
> But the post I quoted said if "somebody" is offended, which to me means one person (and another poster who I can't remember made the same point a while back).
> 
> ...


As above, cost/benefit.  It's a no-brainer IMO.

Tbh, the majority of people wouldn't be offended if I told you that your post was a bit gay.

So surely our decision-making should be based on something more than just quantitative measures?


----------



## andysays (Jan 15, 2014)

Corax said:


> As above, cost/benefit.  It's a no-brainer IMO.
> 
> Tbh, the majority of people wouldn't be offended if I told you that your post was a bit gay.
> 
> So surely our decision-making should be based on something more than just quantitative measures?



Actually, it isn't a "no-brainer" at all (and your suggestion that it is arguably just as offensive as the original word which kicked all this off, both literally in the words you've used and through the idea that anyone who doesn't agree with you is somehow of lesser mental capacity).

There is plenty of room here for a difference of opinion both on what is offensive (different poeple find different things offensive shock), how much we as individuals should police our own language and how much we should have our language policed by others. I can empathise with someone who says that my language has inadvertedly offended them; it doesn't follow that I should therefore have my language policed by them or others intervening on their behalf


----------



## Corax (Jan 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> Actually, it isn't a "no-brainer" at all (and your suggestion that it is arguably just as offensive as the original word which kicked all this off, both literally in the words you've used and through the idea that anyone who doesn't agree with you is somehow of lesser mental capacity).


That was a wee bit predictable tbh, and I considered it as I posted.

And if someone with legitimate experience posts that they find it offensive then I'd probably stop using it.  It's really not difficult.


andysays said:


> There is plenty of room here for a difference of opinion both on what is offensive (different poeple find different things offensive shock), how much we as individuals should police our own language and how much we should have our language policed by others. I can empathise with someone who says that my language has inadvertedly offended them; it doesn't follow that I should therefore have my language policed by them or others intervening on their behalf


No one's 'policing' anyone.  No one's being sanctioned in any way, or asking for it.  No one's suggesting that those choosing to use 'lame' should have their doors broken down in the dead of night.  It's simply a request really - although in true Urban style the 'request' has become rather... 'robust', as a result of the usual reverse helter-skelter escalation of expression.

You've totally ignored what I said about cost/benefit - what's your response to that bit?


----------



## toggle (Jan 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> I have in fact read the whole thread, even though this is the first time I've posted on it*. I agree that a number of others have subsequently said that they too find it offensive, and even though I don't find it offensive, I'm quite happy to accept that those people honestly feel that way and are not simply saying they do to push some kind of "PC" point as others seem to being accusing them of.
> 
> But the post I quoted said if "somebody" is offended, which to me means one person (and another poster who I can't remember made the same point a while back).
> 
> ...



nice try at wriggling. doesn't make a difference to the fact you tried to make out that the complaints were ONE person making a fuss. and are now trying to claim that anyone making a fuss is oversensitive. would you like to continue to police how you think people with disabilities are allowed to respond to perjorative language?


----------



## andysays (Jan 15, 2014)

Corax said:


> That was a wee bit predictable tbh, and I considered it as I posted.



But still chose to use that expression, knowing that it might cause offence. That's OK, it's your choice, but don't accuse others of being non-empathetic because they chose to do something different (or the same, in this case)



Corax said:


> And if someone with legitimate experience posts that they find it offensive then I'd probably stop using it.  It's really not difficult./quote]
> 
> Who are you (who is anyone here) to decide whether or not someone has "legitimate experience"? How do you (or anyone else eg toggle ) know what my "experience" with regard to either physical or mental disability is or isn't?
> 
> ...


----------



## Corax (Jan 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> But still chose to use that expression, knowing that it might cause offence. That's OK, it's your choice, but don't accuse others of being non-empathetic because they chose to do something different (or the same, in this case)


Can you read?  


Corax said:


> And if someone with legitimate experience posts that they find it offensive then I'd probably stop using it.  It's really not difficult.


Do you see the distinction there?  It's really not hard to discern.

And can you either sod off, or respond the the substance of my posts please?


Corax said:


> You've totally ignored what I said about cost/benefit - what's your response to that bit?


Thanks. x


----------



## andysays (Jan 15, 2014)

toggle said:


> nice try at wriggling. doesn't make a difference to the fact you tried to make out that the complaints were ONE person making a fuss



No, I didn't



toggle said:


> and are now trying to claim that anyone making a fuss is oversensitive



No, I'm not



toggle said:


> would you like to continue to police how you think people with disabilities are allowed to respond to perjorative language?



Unlike others, including you, I haven't being trying to police how anyone uses language, so it's not possible for me to continue.

Language which some people find offensive is not the same as perjorative language. The fact that you seem not to see the distinction suggests to me there's little point in continuing to discuss this with you


----------



## muscovyduck (Jan 15, 2014)

People actually bother complaining to the BBC?


----------



## Corax (Jan 15, 2014)

This 'policing' thing is bollocks btw.

The only policing on these boards is by the mods.

If you feel 'policed' in any other circumstances, it's merely because other posters disagree with you.  They can't control you in any way, shape or form, so you're not being 'policed' you're just being disagreed with.  Someone who has no means of enforcing sanctions disagreeing with you isn't 'policing' you FFS.


----------



## andysays (Jan 15, 2014)

Corax said:


> Do you see the distinction there?



It's interesting that you ask this question. It may be that I am missing some of the distinctions you're making, but I think you (and others) are missing some of the distinctions I'm seeking to make

The feelings of one or more people, however genuine (and I'm happy to accept that some people are offended by the word in question) are distinct from a demonstration that the word is in all possible uses, offensive or perjorative
The fact that you choose/attempt to alter your language on the basis that you may occasionally cause unknowing and unintended offence* to others does not mean that everyone else should do the same, or give you or others the right to berate people for not doing so.
*And it's important to note that I'm talking about unknowing and unintended offence, I'm not trying to extend this to things about which there is general consensus or which are deliberately offensive


----------



## Onslow (Jan 15, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Bought any degrees lately?


----------



## Ponyutd (Jan 15, 2014)

It's pronounced Lamay.
Amy Lamay.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 15, 2014)

toggle said:


> would you like to continue to police how you think people with disabilities are allowed to respond to perjorative language?



If I got caught up in someone's personal crusade to police language then I'd certainly expect a bit of consistency to their position. Which doesn't appear to be the case here, here or here.

And I'd certainly not expect to find that they'd actually used the word themselves in a not too dissimilar context.


----------



## Onslow (Jan 15, 2014)

Ponyutd said:


> It's pronounced Lamay.
> Amy Lamay.


 
But spelt Lame. Perhaps that's how i'll get around offending disabled people in future mind you. ill just pronounce the word as "lamay".


----------



## Supine (Jan 15, 2014)

Your all a bunch of cunts. 

There we go, everyone is offended let's move on


----------



## Supine (Jan 15, 2014)

andysays said:


> TBH, this seems rather an extreme precident to set (though you as an individual are of course welcome to choose whatever course of action you wish).
> 
> But to suggest that because one person here finds the use of a particular word offensive, people in general should be encouraged not to use it, whether or not they have an intention of causing offence, seems to me to be unneccessarily interfering.



That's why i said "I".  I'm not bothered what other people do


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 15, 2014)

Supine said:


> Your all a bunch of cunts.
> 
> There we go, everyone is offended let's move on



Cunt isn't offensive on urban. Lame is. Such is the topsy turvy nature of the board compared with reality.


----------



## Onslow (Jan 15, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> Bought any degrees lately?


 

Used the word 'lame', in the same vein that you're unhappy with others using it in lately?


----------



## Spymaster (Jan 15, 2014)

Supine said:


> Your all a bunch of cunts.
> 
> There we go, everyone is offended let's move on



I'm more offended by your spelling of "you're".


----------



## Onslow (Jan 15, 2014)

double post.


----------



## Supine (Jan 15, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> I'm more offended by your spelling of "you're".



<hangs hed in shame>


----------



## Corax (Jan 15, 2014)

Supine said:


> Your all a bunch of cunts.
> 
> There we go, everyone is offended let's move on


I'm not bothered by the cunts bit, but sort you're fucking apostrophe's out.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 15, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> If I got caught up in someone's personal crusade to police language then I'd certainly expect a bit of consistency to their position. Which doesn't appear to be the case here, here or here.
> 
> And I'd certainly not expect to find that they'd actually used the word themselves in a not too dissimilar context.


That's correct. I did. OVER FIVE YEARS AGO. Before my spinal problems were diagnosed and I became more involved in disability activism. Incidently I used it once between 2006 and 2008, in that very instance. The 2006 instance was talking about the lameness of cows in dairy herds on a thread about vegetarianism. I also used it in 2012 but that was in response to another poster who used the term.

I have changed. Knowing it is viewed as an offensive term by the disabled community, of which I am a part not an observer of, I changed the way I behaved. 

Are you a) the same person you were in 2008 and has your posting history evolved over the same time period?


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 15, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Cunt isn't offensive on urban. Lame is. Such is the topsy turvy nature of the board compared with reality.


I try not to use that word either but this tory government have unfortunately fucked that up.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 15, 2014)

Onslow said:


> Used the word 'lame', in the same vein that you're unhappy with others using it in lately?


No. Not for over 5 years.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2014)

Spymaster said:


> I'm more offended by your spelling of "you're".


pedantry alive and well i see


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 15, 2014)

Supine said:


> <hangs hed in shame>


hang shed in shame


----------



## Manter (Jan 15, 2014)

Corax said:


> I'm not bothered by the cunts bit, but sort you're fucking apostrophe's out.


That's plural not possessive apostrophes so I don't think you need one....

Now go pack.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 15, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> If I got caught up in someone's personal crusade to police language then I'd certainly expect a bit of consistency to their position. Which doesn't appear to be the case here, here or here.
> 
> And I'd certainly not expect to find that they'd actually used the word themselves in a not too dissimilar context.


First example was in response to a poster who use used it and I was trying to provide support - yes, I could have used a better word.

Second example does not have the word lame in it as far as I can see.

Third example was someone else using.

Again, I'm not trying to police words (I'm not a mod) and if you look at the timing of my posts you will see that I became more vocal (if you will) about other people using it as a perjorative early in 2012 which was not long after I started doing more disability activism stuff and became more aware of issues surrounding disability.

But hey, if you feel the need to rake over my posting history and moan about someone standing up and saying that they don't agree with something, you carry on.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 15, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> First example was in response to a poster who use used it and I was trying to provide support - yes, I could have used a better word.
> 
> Second example does not have the word lame in it as far as I can see.
> 
> Third example was someone else using.



All three examples were you _responding _to other people using the word. It seems sometimes you feel the need for a massive barney over it whilst on other occasions you let it slide. But it certainly suggests that you don't feel it sits alongside racist remarks like the examples you gave earlier.


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 15, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> All three examples were you _responding _to other people using the word. It seems sometimes you feel the need for a massive barney over it whilst on other occasions you let it slide. But it certainly suggests that you don't feel it sits alongside racist remarks like the examples you gave earlier.


I redirect you towards the dates of the posts.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 15, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> I redirect you towards the dates of the posts.



So between August and December 2012 you had your road to Damascus and went from finding a word acceptable to aggressively opposing its use? I am impressed.

I'd like to learn more about this kind of activism really. As an anarchist I support disability rights but am against thought policing. The sort of thing that boils my piss is being told that saying 'lame' is a major crime by folk who voted Lib Dem in the last election - people who are actually enacting shit against disabled people this very minute. I'm not saying that's you, but, well, what is your political position now we're on the subject?


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 15, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> So between August and December 2012 you had your road to Damascus and went from finding a word acceptable to aggressively opposing its use? I am impressed.
> 
> I'd like to learn more about this kind of activism really. As an anarchist I support disability rights but am against thought policing. The sort of thing that boils my piss is being told that saying 'lame' is a major crime by folk who voted Lib Dem in the last election - people who are actually enacting shit against disabled people this very minute. I'm not saying that's you, but, well, what is your political position now we're on the subject?


How many more times do I have to explain I'm not thought policing?

And where do the LibDems come into this?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 15, 2014)

I was giving an example. Maybe your efforts will lead to it falling out of vogue. I'd like to know what actual _harm _using this word causes people with disabilities? Given most people don't connect it with people with disabilities. I don't get this activism against words; what it sets out to achieve. People stop using the word, how does that further disability rights? Will it more likely appeal to people or repel them? What's the logic behind it?


----------



## andysays (Jan 15, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> That's correct. I did. OVER FIVE YEARS AGO. Before my spinal problems were diagnosed and I became more involved in disability activism. Incidently I used it once between 2006 and 2008, in that very instance. The 2006 instance was talking about the lameness of cows in dairy herds on a thread about vegetarianism. I also used it in 2012 but that was in response to another poster who used the term.
> 
> I have changed. Knowing *it is viewed as an offensive term by the disabled community*, of which I am a part not an observer of, I changed the way I behaved.
> 
> Are you a) the same person you were in 2008 and has your posting history evolved over the same time period?



Can you please clarify who exactly makes up the disabled community and when we (and I use that word deliberately...) decided to view this word as offensive.

I suggest that far from there being complete agreement as to the word's offensiveness, it is in fact the subject of disagreement and legitimate debate.

Your repeated insistance that you should be the arbiter of the word's meaning, that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow unqualified to hold an opinion, and that your feelings of offendedness (which, again, I totally accept are real and important to you) are so important that, on the basis of the use of one word which the poster concerned has said wasn't intended to cause offence, and which many people have argued is not inherently offensive, you've chosen to completely disrupt a thread which someone else felt was important to them.

It's been suggested above that we should all show some empathy to other people's feelings, and I quite agree, but it seems that you and those who have leapt to your defence still have something to learn in this area.


----------



## toggle (Jan 15, 2014)

oh the poor dear, he's been put upon by the disableds asking him to think about their viewpoint.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 15, 2014)

toggle said:


> the disableds



That's offensive.


----------



## andysays (Jan 15, 2014)

toggle said:


> oh the poor dear, he's been put upon by the disableds asking him to think about their viewpoint.



Assuming that's directed at me, I will reuse part of Corax's earlier response to me



Corax said:


> Can you read?



I'm not being "put upon" by the disabled because, among other reasons, I'm part of the "disabled community" myself. Unlike you however, I wouldn't dream of suggesting that only members of that community are entitled to hold or express an opinion on this matter.


----------



## Corax (Jan 15, 2014)

Manter said:


> That's plural not possessive apostrophes so I don't think you need one....
> 
> Now go pack.


Aw bless you.  

And its "dont" by the way.  Theirs no apostrophe because its in the conditional form.


----------



## Manter (Jan 15, 2014)

Corax said:


> Aw bless you.
> 
> And its "dont" by the way.  Theirs no apostrophe because its in the conditional form.


I don't believe you


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 15, 2014)

He's extracting the urine.


----------



## Corax (Jan 15, 2014)

Manter said:


> I don't believe you


*their


----------



## Manter (Jan 15, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> He's extracting the urine.


I do believe you


----------



## Corax (Jan 15, 2014)

Manter said:


> I do believe you


*do*'*


----------



## Corax (Jan 15, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> All three examples were you _responding _to other people using the word. It seems sometimes you feel the need for a massive barney over it whilst on other occasions you let it slide. But it certainly suggests that you don't feel it sits alongside racist remarks like the examples you gave earlier.


IIRC (and I'm not going to traipse back to find it) equationgirl agreed that it wasn't on a par with racist terms?


----------



## Onslow (Jan 16, 2014)

equationgirl said:


> No. Not for over 5 years.



i havent tried to 'buy a degree' for the same amount of time. in answer to your question.


----------



## toggle (Jan 16, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> All three examples were you _responding _to other people using the word. It seems sometimes you feel the need for a massive barney over it whilst on other occasions you let it slide.



wow. really?



can you have a few guesses at why there might be a perfectly logical reason for that? since you've chosen to have a dig, i'll guess you haven't given it much thought other than it lets you throw a few cheap digs. 

maybee, just maybee you might want to consider that someone with a full time job with a variable workload in a workplace that is *at best* dismissive of their chronic health concerns and disability, someone with chronic health problems and disability that includes significant pain management issues, might sometimes have the energy to deal with something and sometimes not?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 16, 2014)

toggle said:
			
		

> wow. really?
> 
> can you have a few guesses at why there might be a perfectly logical reason for that? since you've chosen to have a dig, i'll guess you haven't given it much thought other than it lets you throw a few cheap digs.
> 
> maybee, just maybee you might want to consider that someone with a full time job with a variable workload in a workplace that is at best dismissive of their chronic health concerns and disability, someone with chronic health problems and disability that includes significant pain management issues, might sometimes have the energy to deal with something and sometimes not?



Equationgirl already explained this so I have absolutely no idea why you felt you needed to offer an alternative explanation on her behalf.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 16, 2014)

Corax said:
			
		

> IIRC (and I'm not going to traipse back to find it) equationgirl agreed that it wasn't on a par with racist terms?



Then why use them as examples? 

Christ, am I having a discussion with eq or a whole fucking team here?


----------



## Favelado (Jan 16, 2014)

Looking at blogs related to this topic, I see there is talk of the word "weak" in similar terms.

http://disabledfeminists.com/2009/11/02/ableist-word-profile-weak/


----------



## toggle (Jan 16, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Equationgirl already explained this so I have absolutely no idea why you felt you needed to offer an alternative explanation on her behalf.



because you were still having a dig at her perhaps? 



Citizen66 said:


> Then why use them as examples?
> 
> Christ, am I having a discussion with eq or a whole fucking team here?



when did this become a private conversation?


----------



## inva (Jan 16, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Looking at blogs related to this topic, I see there is talk of the word "weak" in similar terms.
> 
> http://disabledfeminists.com/2009/11/02/ableist-word-profile-weak/






			
				that website said:
			
		

> I was working on something the other day and I unconsciously used the word “scab” to refer to temporary non-union workers brought in to break up a strike. And, as soon as I finished typing it, I said “hey, wait a minute!” So I took a break and researched the origins of the word to confirm my suspicions that it was ableist, and made a note to do an ableist word profile on it at some point in the reasonably near future.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 16, 2014)

toggle said:
			
		

> because you were still having a dig at her perhaps?



Eh? She had given her explanation and I accepted it and the conversation had moved on. Do you not think it's a bit patronising to offer a different response on her behalf? Was her response unsatisfactory, in your view?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 16, 2014)

toggle said:
			
		

> when did this become a private conversation?



It didn't. It just strikes me as weird to ask one person a question and have someone else answer it, especially as it had already been answered. Were you drunk or something?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2014)

Onslow said:


> But spelt Lame. Perhaps that's how i'll get around offending disabled people in future mind you. ill just pronounce the word as "lamay".



No, it's spelt "Lamé".  L-A-M, with an E with an acute accent over it, hence it being pronounced "Lamay".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2014)

andysays said:


> Can you please clarify who exactly makes up the disabled community and when we (and I use that word deliberately...) decided to view this word as offensive.



At the Trans-European Wheelchair Expo, 1997, held in Helsinki, Finland.  NEXT!!!



> I suggest that far from there being complete agreement as to the word's offensiveness, it is in fact the subject of disagreement and legitimate debate.
> 
> Your repeated insistance that you should be the arbiter of the word's meaning, that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow unqualified to hold an opinion...



Mmmm, these are all positions *you've* inferred, and then placed on eqg, not positions she's stated, therefore they're meaningless to the debate at hand.  tut-tut, didn't your English master beat this into you at your expensive private school. Andy? 



> ....and that your feelings of offendedness (which, again, I totally accept are real and important to you) are so important that, on the basis of the use of one word which the poster concerned has said wasn't intended to cause offence, and which many people have argued is not inherently offensive, you've chosen to completely disrupt a thread which someone else felt was important to them.



You know what offends me?  That some people don't give enough of a toss to think about the words they use in the first place.  It's hardly a revolutionary concept that language is not a neutral medium, and that some words are "loaded" against certain populations in certain times and places.



> It's been suggested above that we should all show some empathy to other people's feelings, and I quite agree, but it seems that you and those who have leapt to your defence still have something to learn in this area.



Says the bloke whose posts reek of defensiveness.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2014)

Onslow said:


> i havent tried to 'buy a degree' for the same amount of time. in answer to your question.



You can hardly expect people to forget possibly the only memorable thread you've ever contributed to though, can you?


----------



## tufty79 (Jan 16, 2014)

Onslow said:


> i havent tried to 'buy a degree' for the same amount of time. in answer to your question.


christy. time flies..


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> That's offensive.



Only if disabled people don't know that the user has a disability herself.  It tends to only *actually* be offensive when used by non-disabled people who either don't understand or don't care that calling a group "the *******" essentialises that group to the quality included - i.e. we're essentialised as "disabled", with all other characteristics ignored.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2014)

tufty79 said:


> christy. time flies..



Bet you still remember that thread, though!


----------



## tufty79 (Jan 16, 2014)

etched in my brain


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Jan 16, 2014)

Favelado said:


> Looking at blogs related to this topic, I see there is talk of the word "weak" in similar terms.
> 
> http://disabledfeminists.com/2009/11/02/ableist-word-profile-weak/


 
So would it be okay to describe a drink as 'weak' then?


----------



## xenon (Jan 16, 2014)

What a colossally teadious thing to want to do and then tell the world about. (The blogger re scab.)


----------



## Corax (Jan 16, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Christ, am I having a discussion with eq or a whole fucking team here?


What? 

If you want a one-to-one conversation, that's what the pm function's for.


----------



## toggle (Jan 16, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> It didn't. It just strikes me as weird to ask one person a question and have someone else answer it, especially as it had already been answered. Were you drunk or something?



just bemused by your belief that throwing about all this bullshit and insinuation does anyhting other than make you look like a complete tit


----------



## toggle (Jan 16, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Eh? She had given her explanation and I accepted it and the conversation had moved on. Do you not think it's a bit patronising to offer a different response on her behalf? Was her response unsatisfactory, in your view?




because clearly, she needs defending from a friend offering support much more than from the snide shitbags sticking in the boot.


----------



## Corax (Jan 16, 2014)

xenon said:


> What a colossally teadious thing to want to do and then tell the world about. (The blogger re scab.)


Have to agree. Researching the etymology of a word in order to discern whether you should be offended by it is entirely missing the point IMO.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 16, 2014)

Corax said:


> Have to agree. Researching the etymology of a word in order to discern whether you should be offended by it is entirely missing the point IMO.



Unless you're looking to take historical offence, which would frankly be daft.
But then, some people *are* daft.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 16, 2014)

Corax said:


> What?
> 
> If you want a one-to-one conversation, that's what the pm function's for.



So if a question is directed at someone it's normal for someone else to answer? Get tae fuck.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 16, 2014)

toggle said:


> just bemused by your belief that throwing about all this bullshit and insinuation does anyhting other than make you look like a complete tit



Using female body parts as a pejorative is a no no in some circles too you know.


----------



## toggle (Jan 16, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> So if a question is directed at someone it's normal for someone else to answer? Get tae fuck.



are you now trying to police who is allowed to respond to posts?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 16, 2014)

toggle said:


> are you now trying to police who is allowed to respond to posts?



Yeah. Obviously.


----------



## toggle (Jan 16, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Using female body parts as a pejorative is a no no in some circles too you know.




is it? 

thanks for educating me.


----------



## toggle (Jan 16, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Yeah. Obviously.




well, i suppose at least you're admitting that. it's a bit tedious though


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 16, 2014)

toggle said:


> is it?
> 
> thanks for educating me.



Hang on. I need to wait for my gang to turn up before I dare respond.


----------



## Corax (Jan 16, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> So if a question is directed at someone it's normal for someone else to answer? Get tae fuck.


On a discussion thread, if someone else has a view on it - then yes.  Have you never noticed this before?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 16, 2014)

Corax said:


> On a discussion thread, if someone else has a view on it - then yes.  Have you never noticed this before?



Can you even remember what we're talking about? 

If it pertains to something somebody has said then of course it's for them to answer. How the fuck could you know their motivations? Toggle embarassed herself doing the very same thing.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jan 16, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Can you even remember what we're talking about?
> 
> If it pertains to something somebody has said then of course it's for them to answer. How the fuck could you know their motivations? *Toggle embarassed herself doing the very same thing.*



From where I'm sat it's you that's looking a dick, chief.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 16, 2014)

Frances Lengel said:


> From where I'm sat it's you that's looking a dick, chief.



Not really bothered what kitten stranglers think of me tbh.


----------



## Frances Lengel (Jan 16, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Not really bothered what kitten stranglers think of me tbh.



Said the soi-distant anarchist in a high-pitched whiny-arsed lisp.

E2a It wasn't a kitten, sacco. That's sacco as in wrinkled old retainer, not sacco as in vanzetti btw.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 16, 2014)

Nice fantasy.


----------



## Onket (Jan 16, 2014)

toggle said:


> just bemused by your belief that throwing about all this bullshit and insinuation does anyhting other than make you look like a complete tit


Glass houses.


----------



## Supine (Jan 16, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Using female body parts is a no no in some circles too you know.



Gay male circles?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 16, 2014)

Supine said:


> Gay male circles?



Are you using gay to mean happy, homosexual, or a bit crap?


----------



## Corax (Jan 16, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Can you even remember what we're talking about?


Yes, but...


Citizen66 said:


> If it pertains to something somebody has said then of course it's for them to answer. *How the fuck could you know their motivations?*


It appears that you don't. 

Perhaps you should click a few of those up arrows and have a reread.


----------



## Supine (Jan 16, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Are you using gay to mean happy, homosexual, or a bit crap?



I think we need a fourth option just to confuse matters even more


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 16, 2014)

Corax said:


> Yes, but...
> 
> It appears that you don't.
> 
> Perhaps you should click a few of those up arrows and have a reread.



I was bored of this convo yesterday tbf.


----------



## Corax (Jan 16, 2014)

And yet...


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 16, 2014)

And yet what? It isn't me who has been trying to keep it going and it certainly isn't equationgirl.


----------



## Corax (Jan 16, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> And yet what? It isn't me who has been trying to keep it going and it certainly isn't equationgirl.


Scroll up.

You see the posts that say "Citizen66" beside them?

Well, lean in close for a second...

I'm surprised you've not twigged this before tbh, but *every time* someone posts on a thread it goes into people's 'new posts' list.  I know, this modern technology stuff is kerazy!


----------



## Onslow (Jan 17, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, it's spelt "Lamé".  L-A-M, with an E with an acute accent over it, hence it being pronounced "Lamay".


 
Quite. But the whole 'joke' is that it looks like the word 'Lame' innit. The disablist cow.


----------



## toggle (Jan 17, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Can you even remember what we're talking about?
> 
> If it pertains to something somebody has said then of course it's for them to answer. How the fuck could you know their motivations? Toggle embarassed herself doing the very same thing.



this is apparently some new definition of embarrassed that I've never come across before.


----------



## Onket (Jan 17, 2014)

11 pages.


----------



## Onslow (Jan 17, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> You can hardly expect people to forget possibly the only memorable thread you've ever contributed to though, can you?


 
Certainly not. Just pointing out that in the time period she claims not to have used 'lame' derogatively, we’ve both changed our outlook/opinion as circumstances change and the availability of hindsight becomes an option.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 17, 2014)

toggle said:


> this is apparently some new definition of embarrassed that I've never come across before.



Now why doesn't that surprise me?


----------



## equationgirl (Jan 17, 2014)

Onslow said:


> Certainly not. Just pointing out that in the time period she claims not to have used 'lame' derogatively, we’ve both changed our outlook/opinion as circumstances change and the availability of hindsight becomes an option.



'claims' not to have used the word lame in that time period? Check my posting history, I haven't.


----------



## toggle (Jan 17, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> Now why doesn't that surprise me?



why should it supprise you when you're the one making it up/


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 18, 2014)

Fair enough; I was projecting. It would embarass me to speak on behalf of someone else when they'd already answered the question adequately themselves.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 18, 2014)

Onslow said:


> Certainly not. Just pointing out that in the time period she claims not to have used 'lame' derogatively, we’ve both changed our outlook/opinion as circumstances change and the availability of hindsight becomes an option.



Her "claim" isn't a claim, it's a statement based on searching her own posts, and "Derogative" has a different meaning to "derogatory".  The world you're looking for is "derogatorily".


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 18, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Unless you're looking to take historical offence, which would frankly be daft.
> But then, some people *are* daft.



That's 'daft' from an Old German word meaning 'meek'?

Are you saying all mild-mannered people are stupid? I take historical offence at that, Sire, and I demand satisfaction.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 18, 2014)

billy_bob said:


> That's 'daft' from an Old German word meaning 'meek'?
> 
> Are you saying all mild-mannered people are stupid? I take historical offence at that, Sire, and I demand satisfaction.



No, "daft", as in "verrucht", addle-pate!

"Sire", eh?
It's good to see you acknowledging my elevated status, minion, even though you most assuredly meant "sirrah". 

Throws steel gauntlet a billy_bob's scowling phizzog, ruining his expensive dentistry.


----------



## billy_bob (Jan 18, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> minion



You won't sweet talk me out of this fight by calling me dainty, pleasing, gentle and kind.




			
				ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Throws steel gauntlet a billy_bob's scowling phizzog, ruining his expensive dentistry.



My name's billy_bob and you're aiming for the dentistry? Now who's daft.


----------



## Onslow (Jan 20, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Her "claim" isn't a claim, it's a statement based on searching her own posts, and "Derogative" has a different meaning to "derogatory".  The world you're looking for is "derogatorily".



Thanks. If only countless others had the inclination to check for spelling and grammatical errors on internet bulletin boards, the world would be a much more shitty and pedantic place.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 20, 2014)

Onslow said:


> Thanks. If only countless others had the inclination to check for spelling and grammatical errors on internet bulletin boards, the world would be a much more shitty and pedantic place.



Who's "check"ing?  If I see an *obvious* error, I tend to mention it so that the person can save themselves future embarrassment.

If the only way you can rationalise being politely corrected is to believe that people are checking your posts for errors, that says a lot about you.  And not much that's complimentary.


----------



## Onslow (Jan 20, 2014)

ViolentPanda said:


> Who's "check"ing?  If I see an *obvious* error, I tend to mention it so that the person can save themselves future embarrassment.
> 
> If the only way you can rationalise being politely corrected is to believe that people are checking your posts for errors, that says a lot about you.  And not much that's complimentary.



it's not the only way I can rationalise being corrected, it's the way i rationalised it in this particular exchange, which isn't particularly complimentary towards you either.


----------



## treelover (Nov 12, 2014)

BBC reporting on the economy is appalling, yesterday saw new evidence of sluggish service sector growth, today future level of inflation is reported by the BOE to be about 1% with dangers of stagflation, already on the horizon in Europe, yet BBC News leads with unemployment down, and rising wages, etc.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 12, 2014)

i think you may have confused the BBC with another organisation that isn't the informal mouthpiece of the conservative government.

once you accept that fact, it all becomes much easier to deal with.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 12, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> i think you may have confused the BBC with another organisation that isn't the informal mouthpiece of the conservative government.
> 
> once you accept that fact, it all becomes much easier to deal with.



It's funny that. One camp has the BBC as riddled with left wing, pc gone mad bias. Another camp sees it as a tory govt mouthpiece.

On the whole, it seems the impartiality ethos is working.


----------



## Citizen66 (Nov 12, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> It's funny that. One camp has the BBC as riddled with left wing, pc gone mad bias. Another camp sees it as a tory govt mouthpiece.
> 
> On the whole, it seems the impartiality ethos is working.


That says more about the political positions of those making those criticisms than it does supposed impartiality.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 12, 2014)

Has the OP put an end to this Call Me Dave country set bollocks yet?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 12, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> It's funny that. One camp has the BBC as riddled with left wing, pc gone mad bias. Another camp sees it as a tory govt mouthpiece.
> 
> On the whole, it seems the impartiality ethos is working.


The majority of people thinking you're shit isn't much of a result. And it's certainly not a indicator of impartiality. I mean lots of people liked thatcher and lots of people hated her  - would you then argue this was a sign she must be doing something right?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 12, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> It's funny that. One camp has the BBC as riddled with left wing, pc gone mad bias. Another camp sees it as a tory govt mouthpiece.
> 
> On the whole, it seems the impartiality ethos is working.



The people in the first category are just mad tories who think that anything short of putting the poor into camps and shooting all immigrants at the border amounts to ultra-leftist PC nonsense. Whereas you can show countless cases where the BBC has echoed the government's line at the expense of logic, morality or observable fact.

An example from just this morning: a statistic claiming a 20,000 drop in jobseeker's allowance claims in a month was presented with no mention of the well documented regime of arbitrary sanctions put in place to manufacture such figures. Doing shit like this doesn't just let the government off the hook, it amounts to actively supporting them in their campaign against the poor.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 12, 2014)

SpookyFrank said:


> The people in the first category are just mad tories who think that anything short of putting the poor into camps and shooting all immigrants at the border amounts to ultra-leftist PC nonsense. Whereas you can show countless cases where the BBC has echoed the government's line at the expense of logic, morality or observable fact.
> 
> An example from just this morning: a statistic claiming a 20,000 drop in jobseeker's allowance claims in a month was presented with no mention of the well documented regime of arbitrary sanctions put in place to manufacture such figures. Doing shit like this doesn't just let the government off the hook, it amounts to actively supporting them in their campaign against the poor.



Do things like Children in Need, Red Nose Day etc form part of that campaign?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 12, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Do things like Children in Need, Red Nose Day etc form part of that campaign?


No, that's the british public doing that - or part of it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 12, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Do things like Children in Need, Red Nose Day etc form part of that campaign?



That stuff is not exactly political coverage is it? They never stop halfway through one of their 'look at these poor kids' videos to ask _why_ people are going hungry in one of the richest countries on Earth do they? They never pan the camera across to the cackling billionaire who has made his cash lending twenty quid at a time at 2000% interest to people who would go hungry without it and have nowhere else to turn, nor the politician whose stock in trade is distracting people from the country's real problems by blaming the poor and the sick for everything.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 12, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> It's funny that. One camp has the BBC as riddled with left wing, pc gone mad bias. Another camp sees it as a tory govt mouthpiece.
> 
> On the whole, it seems the impartiality ethos is working.


 
you could take that position, but it would be a really really stupid one to take.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 12, 2014)

Impartial is not the same thing as 'wrong by anyone's standards'.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 12, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> Do things like Children in Need, Red Nose Day etc form part of that campaign?


 
explicitly so.  absolutely 100% so.  huge charity drives to cover up the damage done is a necessary part of the agenda.  pretending that all this stuff, poverty, starvation, etc etc esp in the UK, is all just some sort of natural disaster that couldn't be helped rather than the results of a cosnscious set of decisions made by the backers of the british govt.


----------



## xenon (Nov 12, 2014)

Voice of the establishment innit. Today was rubbish again. The R4 prog that is.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 12, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> explicitly so.  absolutely 100% so.  huge charity drives to cover up the damage done is a necessary part of the agenda.  pretending that all this stuff, poverty, starvation, etc etc esp in the UK, is all just some sort of natural disaster that couldn't be helped rather than the results of a cosnscious set of decisions made by the backers of the british govt.



so we shouldn't be giving to charities then?


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 12, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> so we shouldn't be giving to charities then?


 
that's entirely up to you.  the only right answer is the total demolision of global capitalism and the replacement with something nicer.  if we get into discussions about whether to give or not is implicit support for the neo-liberal position or whatnot, then we're ignoring the fact that their problems are being given to you to sort out as some sort of moral responsibility.  that's not right - you didn't cause it, you're not the one with the power to change the situation directly, why are you supposed to fix it.  IYSWIM.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> so we shouldn't be giving to charities then?


how many of you are there?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 12, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> you could take that position, but it would be a really really stupid one to take.


that's the one he'll take then.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 12, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> that's entirely up to you.  the only right answer is the total demolision of global capitalism and the replacement with something nicer.  if we get into discussions about whether to give or not is implicit support for the neo-liberal position or whatnot, then we're ignoring the fact that their problems are being given to you to sort out as some sort of moral responsibility.  that's not right - you didn't cause it, you're not the one with the power to change the situation directly, why are you supposed to fix it.  IYSWIM.



I just want to help, that's all


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 12, 2014)

krtek a houby said:


> I just want to help, that's all


 
so do we all, really.

i meant what i said, it really is up to you.  charity isn't change, it won't change the cause of the problem.  there's no right answer, if you can stop someone starving by feeding them that is a good thing.  a better thing would be to prevent people starving by changing the system that, for example, means that we can vegetables in sainsburys grown in countries where starvation is a risk.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Nov 12, 2014)

i guess you do what you can, when its in front of you.


----------



## krtek a houby (Nov 12, 2014)

el-ahrairah said:


> so do we all, really.
> 
> i meant what i said, it really is up to you.  charity isn't change, it won't change the cause of the problem.  there's no right answer, if you can stop someone starving by feeding them that is a good thing.  a better thing would be to prevent people starving by changing the system that, for example, means that we can vegetables in sainsburys grown in countries where starvation is a risk.



Yes, I follow. I haven't bought any Israeli products from supermarkets in many years. Not directly related but you know what I mean. When someone offers me a jaffa cake, I always refuse and then people laugh when I tell them why. There's so much of that disbelief and apathy around, it tends to rub off...


----------

