Post by Little Jack Horner on Jan 30, 2022 15:02:54 GMT
What’s in a word? Let’s try and dig deep and have a discussion.
Decades ago, a colleague suggested the answer to the question lies in the attitude of mind of the speaker or writer. I was recently involved in a discussion regarding fake news and alternative truth. Reflecting on this, I recalled that when Osama bin Laden was attacked in his secure home it was described as a “compound“. But we would not describe the secure home of the prime minister of the UK or of the President of the United States as being a compound. Why not? During the Falklands war, the government of Argentina was described as a “regime” and now we apply the same term to the government of Belarus. But we do not use that term to describe the governments of the UK and the United States. Why not?
There is the old joke about irregular nouns and adjectives — I am a freedom fighter, you are a guerrilla, and he is a terrorist. Or, I am determined, you are stubborn, he is obsessional. The use of many words illustrates the bias of the speaker or writer. But even the word “bias” can be loaded. Perhaps one should say attitude of the speaker or writer.
The term “mentally handicapped” was adopted as a happier alternative to mentally subnormal which was itself adopted as a replacement for the by then unacceptable terms mental defective and idiot, but within a very few years it had become unacceptable. Delayed development? Learning difficulties? Mentally challenged? What next? What is next should be a change in attitudes and a change in the way in which members of our community are regarded and treated. In the meantime, it will be interesting to see what new terminology is adopted. Perhaps we need another letter to add to the alphabetical soup which we have discussed elsewhere.
Decades ago, a colleague suggested the answer to the question lies in the attitude of mind of the speaker or writer. I was recently involved in a discussion regarding fake news and alternative truth. Reflecting on this, I recalled that when Osama bin Laden was attacked in his secure home it was described as a “compound“. But we would not describe the secure home of the prime minister of the UK or of the President of the United States as being a compound. Why not? During the Falklands war, the government of Argentina was described as a “regime” and now we apply the same term to the government of Belarus. But we do not use that term to describe the governments of the UK and the United States. Why not?
There is the old joke about irregular nouns and adjectives — I am a freedom fighter, you are a guerrilla, and he is a terrorist. Or, I am determined, you are stubborn, he is obsessional. The use of many words illustrates the bias of the speaker or writer. But even the word “bias” can be loaded. Perhaps one should say attitude of the speaker or writer.
The term “mentally handicapped” was adopted as a happier alternative to mentally subnormal which was itself adopted as a replacement for the by then unacceptable terms mental defective and idiot, but within a very few years it had become unacceptable. Delayed development? Learning difficulties? Mentally challenged? What next? What is next should be a change in attitudes and a change in the way in which members of our community are regarded and treated. In the meantime, it will be interesting to see what new terminology is adopted. Perhaps we need another letter to add to the alphabetical soup which we have discussed elsewhere.
