A modest proposal on the over-use of rhetorical appeals to mental illness

[HereSince1628]

Do you and I mean to insult and discourage the mentally ill when we refer to our opponents as having one or more aspects of mental illness? Very probably not. It's just that the behavior we see is so bizarre, so ridiculous, so extreme compared to what we see as normative that it's easy, and acceptable, to apply the words crazy, daft, deranged nuts, looney (and looney tunes), neurotic, out of their minds, psychotic, wacko etc, to our posts and replies.

In American vernacular speech, it is common to use such adjectives to paint those with whom we differ. Just think of the myriad of derisively applied adjectives juxtaposed on DU to the name Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck or George W. Bush. Most of DU dislikes these people. But this _is_ DU and in our souls we know we are intellectually better than this. We needn't fall into the overused rhetorical tool and logical fallacy of pathologizing our opponents. We ARE sensitive.

On DU, we don't say that b word about women, even Michelle Bachman. We don't use the n word about blacks, even Steele. We recognize it's wrong to say 'that's so gay.' But we still use references to mental illness as a disparaging appellation. Even Keith Olbermann (bless his heart) talks about the republican party choosing the mental hospital as it's headquarters. But we, and Keith and Maher, NEVER actually _intend_ these terms to hurt our DU friends, right? We are just so used to saying words that are disparaging that we can't help ourselves. Then again... not realizing when something IS wrong may be the diagnostic symptom of the pervasiveness of bigotry. And we all will realize that a cobblestone unintentionally dropped on someone's toe still hurts regardless of intention.

So, I'm realistic, but optimistic. I know people hate to be told how to behave, and I know that this situation on DU is probably not going to change dramatically. So, I make the following modest proposal and you can make your own choices about it ...

Just before your press 'submit' as you are looking for spelling errors etc, ask yourself if you chose the right word wherever you used crazy, daft, neurotic, etc. Below, I've provided a brief list of possible alternatives. I think you'll find these words are colorful, expressive, and perhaps will give your post/reply even more precise meaning than things such as: mentally deranged, psychotic, wacko, etc.

Absurd
Astonishing
Bizarre
Comical
Contemptible
Deplorable
Derisory
Disgraceful
Eccentric
Embarrassing
Extraordinary
Extreme
Fanatical
Fantasy/Fantastic
Farcical
Far-fetched
Feeble
Foolish
Groundless
Hilarious
Ignorant
Illogical
Implausible
Inadequate
Inconceivable
Incredible
Injudicious
Irrational
Laughable
Ludicrous
Mind-boggling
Nonsensical
Obtuse
Outlandish
Outrageous
Pathetic
Peculiar
Pitiful
Preposterous
Ridiculous
Senseless
Strange
Unbelievable
Uninformed
Unfounded
Unreal
Useless
Weird
Wild

[BrklynLiberal]

1. valid point. It is just that there are times that many of the repukes' grasp on reality seems so

tenuous that it is hard to believe that they truly are not victims of some sort of mental disturbance.

Perhaps it is just easier to believe they are actually disturbed, than accept the idea that they could calmly, rationally and intentionally do and say the things they do.

[HereSince1628]

14. The facile association doesn't need to be our final word choice

I'm only asking that people think about whether they have something more meaningful to say.

I really object vigorously only to broad sweeping generalities which equate various political positions and behaviors as originating in mentally illness, and the equation of mental illness with such political position and behaviors.

Over a broad range of daily activity, many, if not most, of the mentally ill are actually very much like everyone else.

[BrklynLiberal]

15. ...

:thumbsup: :hi:

[enlightenment]

2. The English language is astonishing in its depth and range;

we really should take advantage of all it offers.

Thanks for the post.

[Warpy]

3. I have a large vocabulary and use all of them

but there are times I flash on the old Far Side cartoon, looking over the psychiatrist's shoulder onto his notepad, "Just plain nuts!"

[HereSince1628]

5. Yes, I think we all slip back.

Which is the point of asking everyone to try to remember to do the best that they can.

[DawgHouse]

4. Very well put. Thanks! n/t

[hlthe2b]

6. I respect your views...

I don't think progressives as a whole are insensitive nor intolerant towards the mentally ill, at all.


Thus, while I think we can be more careful with choice of language and adjectives, the truth is that there is clinical mental illness and an entire group of less clearly defined disorders--that group of disorders which include the social and personality dysfunctions. Do these latter rise to the level of mental illness? I don't believe they are considered as such, though they are studied and "treated" by mental health professionals and on a sociological level have profound influence on populations.

As I said, I respect your views, but I think you lump a great deal together when you strive for that degree of political correctness. I think the context of most posts make clear that they are not demeaning the truly mentally ill. Just my thoughts. I do believe in sensitivity, but not pooorly focused, nor "hyper sensitivity."

[HereSince1628]

11. I'm just proposing that people try to do better on this.

I think I'm pretty realistic about it.

Without getting into a philosophical debate about rhetorical ethics, I think one thing is clear about messaging: What hurts someone's feelings is ALWAYS a function of the receiver and only sometimes the intention of the sender.

On DU it's uncommon to call the LGBT, feminists etc., overly sensitive. It probably shouldn't be common to do that to the mentally ill.

[hlthe2b]

20. You seem to lump a lot together...

Perhaps you should include a list of examples, rather than a list of generic adjectives that have nothing to do with that with which you take offense. :shrug:

[HereSince1628]

29. I think those words DO have some relavance to what I am concerned about

And I probably should have made links to the many hundreds of applications of these words in General Discussion alone.

But,my point was to specifically AVOID calling out any DUer or thread.

[hlthe2b]

84. Are you equating suggesting RW is "wacko" with saying someone

is "schizophrenic," or "bipolar" (or as some have suggested, the "n" word, the "c" word, the "r" word? Since you are not being clear, it diminishes your ability to make a point. For those who are lumping such generic terms as "wacko" with those that refer only to a mental illness diagnosis or those terms that have traditionally been used to denigrade others based on race, gender, or mental disability, I caution that such "lumping" defeats the very objective you seek.

[EFerrari]

91. NAMI had a great anti-stigma campaign going in the earlier part of this decade.

In fact, "wacko" is a way to diminish someone by accusing them of mental illness, on par with using blackness or gayness or womanishness to put someone down. It's just so ingrained in our culture, we don't see it.

[hlthe2b]

94. "So ingrained in our culture, we don't see it..."

That is because these terms are used so generically that they cease to have the derogatory meaning for most people that you perceive. For example, my fav Sat morning fare is the CAR GUYS (NPR). These guys are about the most civil (and amusing) guys you could hope to listen to on radio, yet, they frequently use the terms "Dope" or "Dope slap" or "wacko..." Now, if anyone listening to them believes they are being derogatory, or advocating domestic violence by those terms, then I simply don't know what to say about their "sensitivity barometer."

I agree with the sentiment, if not the scope of the problem. I simply think equating generic terms like "wacko" or "nuts" to referring in a derogatory term to a specific group with very specific mental illness terminology (or to use of those slurs we all agree are meant only to hurt) is ridiculous. The former generic terms are part of the general vernacular and are not specific derogatory terms, being used more often to express confusion, surprise, or lack of agreement with someone's actions, tactics, or some specific belief. To suggest it specifically means (and is only used) to refer to someone in a derogatory way, is simply not true.

There are plenty of areas of language use that we should draw a line. Drawing it too finely only diminishes our credibility and makes it all to easy for others to discount the issue underlying our concern as baseless. I speak as someone who has had mental illness among members of their extended family. It is an issue that hits me as it does many here. Let's be focused in what we ask of others and they just might be quicker to come around.

[EFerrari]

97. With all respect, I don't see anyone on this thread who has to manage

this kind of problem saying stigmatizing language is not a problem.

[hlthe2b]

106. With all respect, I sincerly do not understand your reply...

Huh? :shrug:

[bobbolink]

99. There was a time that white people didn't see any problem with the "n" word, either.

It depends on which side the person is on.

When it comes too close to the bone, then the charge of "too sensitive" comes out, which is a personal attack, rather than a logical defense.

[Posteritatis]

105. And plenty of equivalents today...

"Man, I got gypped on that deal; the guy jewed me down so much I ended up selling at cost."

[hlthe2b]

111. Tolerance goes beyond language and includes

giving others benefit of the doubt, by looking at the context of what they say, and most importantly their ACTIONS.

I give the nod to those who are caring, compassionate, and helpful to others on a regular basis via their actions, rather than castigate them and denounce them for occasional use of generic terms that some might take offense. To equate the "N" word with such generally used and (most often) benign terms is hyperbole at its worse, in my sincere opinion.

[bobbolink]

123. Appearance is first impression, language is second.

When I can tell from someone's language that they aren't concerned with whether they hurt someone else or not, then I don't care to be around that person.

Then, if that person is politely asked to not use a term or phrase because it is hurtful and insulting to some, and that person refuses to do so, then I know that person wouldn't care about me or others, and I remove myself from their field of influence.

What is sad that that it used to be a small minority of people who were insensitive and uncaring. Now, it is common place, especially among the younger people, and it is creating a rough and harsh society. Sadder is that saying that doesn't even matter to these people... in fact, some of them derive pleasure from hearing it.

What we have come to as a society is very, very sad.

[RaleighNCDUer]

125. Wrong. There were always some who never used that word.

But that is beside the point. The n word was ALWAYS a disparaging word. 'Wacko' does not specifically apply to the mentally ill - it has ALWAYS been applied to people who are outside the mainstream. That 'outside the mainstream' might include the mentally ill, but it also includes sports fans, unionists, liberals, socialists, UFO enthusiasts, roll playing gamers...the examples are far too numerous to list because, for most people most OTHER people are wackos. That does not mean that they are 'crazy' (which IS a disparaging term for mental illness).

So, yeah, if someone mentions 'wacko' and YOU take it as a personal slur, that is being too sensitive.

[bobbolink]

129. Calling me or anyone else "too sensitive" is a personal attack, and you need to take

responsibility for the fact that it really doesn't matter to you.

Enough.

When you stoop to that level, I'm done.

Call me every name in the book, I no longer care. Because I won't see it. Have fun with the putting others down.

[RaleighNCDUer]

132. Beg your pardon, but it is YOU who is putting yourself down.

Nobody was talking about you when they call Palin or Beck wackos. You made that connection all on your own. If ANYBODY applies a generic reference not remotely aimed at them to themselves, they are too sensitive. And there is nothing really wrong with that, so long as you recognize it. As an atheist, I have been way too sensitive when people make idiotic statements about atheism being a religion. I know that. I still always bite that hook.

Seriously, dude, I did not attack you. That's not how I do things. I may attack another's ideas or positions, but I don't attack people. Step back, re-read everything I've posted here. Think about. I've got nothing to apologize for.

[bobbolink]

13. I, also, think that those in power demonstrate mental illness by their power.

However, hurting those who are labeled and treated horribly does NOT excuse us.

I assume that you do know that the term "political correctness" is from the RW? Given that, there is no reason why we, as aware progressives, cannot change our own bad habits, and spare the feelings of those who are already suffering. Surely we can care that much?

[hlthe2b]

18. Bobbolink, you miss the point...

and seem to be looking to take offense at what I said. I find that denigrating others for any reason, whether race, gender, religion, ethnicity, physical appearance or socioeconomic status is beyond the pale. I also find denigrating those who suffer, for any reason, whether due to illnesss, or mental or physical disability is indefensible. That said, I do not believe in unfocused criticism, sans any interpretation or consideration of context.

[bobbolink]

22. And I believe that you, have, too.

Whenever there is a movement to further our level of sensitivity to others, there is always a group who is resistant.

Changing habits is hard, and for some, they will fight rather than switch.

[hlthe2b]

24. You seem to want to make a disagreement where none exists...

That is all.

[bobbolink]

26. There are very few here on DU who are qualified to make those diagnoses.

And that is the point, which I am *not* missing.

I said that I agree that people in power often show signs of "mental illness" in the sociopathic way they treat others, and that I would like to see that recognized. Some of us have been talking about that.

But to say that DUers without a license to practice have the right to use those terms to describe others is, to use a word on the list, absurd.

[Obamanaut]

127. That is the regular MO. It always seems to be "Embrace my opinion, because

it is the right one."

[Posteritatis]

58. I think they actually often are.

There's also simply being clueless about the mentally ill, which is a lesser and forgivable sin if people address it.

I don't know if you were around for it or not, but after the Virginia Tech shooting there was no shortage of We Need To Do Something About These People, usually revolving around treating "the mentally ill" as a monolithically dangerous group which at least needed its basic rights curtailed. Because, after all, every last one of them is clearly a schizophrenic sociopath with violent tendencies. Or something.

There's also been the twin claims that to be not-progressive is to be mentally ill and - even worse - that to be mentally ill is to be conservative. Whenever someone gets in the news for something dangerous or embarrassing and mental illness is invoked in the article, just pay attention to comments here - regardless of the article's context you'll see people deciding the person's political orientations based on the fact that they're "insane."

Hell, last week someone in a thread seriously suggested that the Soviet-era practice of declaring political opponents insane and locking them up in hospitals was desirable and something Democrats should be doing. He got slapped about for saying it, but still felt comfortable doing so.

(And all this is before getting into people who simply deny the existence of mental disorders.)

This place has gotten considerably less stupid about that sort of thing than it was a couple of years ago, but there's still some pretty vile views that are alternately tolerated or encouraged. Of course, this place is a beacon of enlightenment compared to a lot of others, but that isn't to say there aren't real problems.

[hlthe2b]

86. Of course I share your disdain for what you describe...

but when it comes to others calling out their fellow DUers for the use of "wacko?" Give me a break. That is a generic term for those whose actions you don't understand and which are to most, inexplicable. I'm not saying you are equating that benign use of language for the far more offensive things you describe, but others her are.

[HereSince1628]

89. No one was called out in the OP or in my replies.

Calling out requires naming DUers or providing links to their threads for the purpose of being embarrassment. I have specifically avoided doing that. I've been as nonindicative in that respect as I can be, to the point that other posters have objected to the lack of specific examples.

Please PM with an explanation of how do you see suggesting that DUers make good word choices while working within the DU rules regarding groups/classes of people as calling anyone out? I don't want to overlook your response as this thread sinks.

[hlthe2b]

92. The reference was not made to you, but to others responding

to your OP. As I have expressed to you, I agree with the sentiment, if not the scope of the problem. I simply think equating generic terms like "wacko" or "nuts" to referring in a derogatory term to a specific group with very specific mental illness terminology (or to use of those slurs we all agree are meant only to hurt) is ridiculous. The former generic terms are part of the general vernacular and are not specific derogatory terms, being used more often to express confusion, surprise, or lack of agreement with someone's actions, tactics, or some specific belief. To suggest it specifically means (and is only used) to refer to someone in a derogatory way, is simply not true.

There are plenty of areas of language use that we should draw a line. Drawing it too finely only diminishes our credibility and makes it all to easy for others to discount the issue underlying our concern as baseless.

[mmonk]

7. No but what else could it be?

[LawnLover]

8. As a writer, I'm afraid I'll continue to feel free

to use all parts of the language, and not just some.

Palin is a right wing wacko. That sentence has a certain economy that just works.

[bobbolink]

10. So, it matters not to you if you hurt others in the process? Is that it?

[LawnLover]

16. I'm not big on censorship. Sorry.

If someone gets hurt, they get hurt, but I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to be cruel to them. The words wacko and nut and crazy are not words restricted only to descriptions of the mentally ill. They are expressive words that most of us use when we're trying to describe someone whose opinion or actions are off the map. If using those words offends a truly mentally ill person, then so be it. We can go through everyday language and find all kinds of offensive stuff—for reasons that might not even be known to us—but if we're going to do that, then we might as well not use words at all.

[bobbolink]

19. Thank you for clarifying. We now know where you stand... and it ain't on the side of sensitivity.

So, I'm guessing you also don't want censorship on the "n" word, or the "c" word, or any other words that hurt people but that you consider necessary?

[LawnLover]

25. I would never censor someone else from using either of those words

because I feel they have the right to say them. I may not agree with the sentiment behind them, but the last time I looked, this is a free country.

If we all stood on the "side of sensitivity," nothing would ever be said. We could all just be polite, vanilla little automatons.

[bobbolink]

31. You might want to check the rules for DU.. those words are banned here.

To say that being "sensitive" is bland is untrue and very sad.


That belief is creating a harsh and mean society that many of us no longer wish to live in.

[LawnLover]

37. And many of us would rather live in a society where we're free to express ourselves.

whether or not DU "bans" the language.

[bobbolink]

41. You're free to do that elsewhere, and you are also free to accept the disapproval of those who want

to live in a caring society.

[LawnLover]

49. Define a caring society for me

One where we go out of our way not to express ourselves because we might offend someone?

That's not a society.

[bobbolink]

54. You have given your definition. Many of us disagree and don't care to live in the society

you wish to create.

There is no further point to arguing with you. Have a field day with offending others. :party:

I appreciate that you have publicly made it clear where you are with sensitivity, and for that reason, I have pushed the button with the red "x" over your name. At least I won't be subjected to the lack of caring.

Bye now.

[LawnLover]

63. It's amazing to me how intolerant people can be, yet call

themselves progressives and free thinkers.

Wow.

[HereSince1628]

55. It is apparent that you wish to find points of disagreement and take this thread elsewhere

If you can be orthogonal in an interesting and potentially enriching way I will engage that, but this leaf has reached a point that is digressing into what I see appeals to semantics beyond the thread.

[LawnLover]

65. My point sailed over your head long ago and

no amount of pretentious language will help you find it.

I only ask that you choose your words more carefully, because I found your OP very insulting to writers. ...

Enough said.

[EFerrari]

100. No, the OP is right. You took this thread in your own direction

at every opportunity without considering the issues raised in the OP.

[LawnLover]

112. I was responding directly to the spirit of the OP's post in every instance.

Sorry, but if I think someone is dead wrong to the point of offensiveness--an irony apparently lost on the OP--then I'll say so. And if others think I'm wrong, so be it.

[cliffordu]

110. So, how's the work on the False Equivalency Project coming along??

:hurts:

[HereSince1628]

23. I'm not a fan of censorship, either.

I'd be interested to know what social groups are properly referred to as wacko, nut, and in particular, crazy.

I'm honestly interested in how words like wacko, nut, and crazy would be used so that they wouldn't have ambiguous and fuzzy edges that couldn't infer mental illness or personality disorder to the subject/noun/pronoun that they modify or represent. If you want to avoid an argument about that in this thread, I invite you to send me a PM.

[LawnLover]

32. No need to PM, we can discuss it here.

What I'm talking about is targeting and intent. If you target a group of mentally challenged people and call them "retards," then obviously you've chosen to be cruel to that group.

If you call your friend Bill who just crashed his car while texting an "idiot," are you guilty of being insensitive to people with low IQ's? No.

It's a matter of WHO the words are directed at and the intent behind them.

To lump it all together is completely disingenuous.

[RaleighNCDUer]

43. Who is hurt by that?

People who have been certified as wacko? Perhaps you are not aware, wacko is not a psychiatric diagnosis.

[bobbolink]

50. It is clear from this thread that many on DU have no concern whether others are hurt.

I will remind you that a few decades ago, the same would have been said about the "n" word.

Each step in awareness is met by resistance to change.

[LawnLover]

62. I was around more than a few decades ago and

the "n" word has never been anything but a slur, acceptable only among racist assholes. So the analogy doesn't wash.

Oh, sorry, I just insulted anuses. My bad.

[HereSince1628]

70. Re words that are now slurs but were generally accepted. I refer you to Mark Twain

and his books Pudd'nhead Wilson and Life on the Mississippi.

It is my impression, and only my impression after reading your many replies, that your major objection is that you feel that my proposal imposes on your sense of liberty.

That isn't my intent. You and every other DUer can use words however your choose. I only asked for consideration.

You have given yours and your opposition to even the modest proposal of making best word choices is offensive.

I think I understand both our positions and I thank you for sharing yours.

[RaleighNCDUer]

64. apples and lug nuts.

there is no correlation between 'wacko' and 'the n word'. Wacko is a description of observed attitudes or behaviors of a person, such attitudes and behaviors being so far removed from common experience that they stand out. It is particularized to the specific individual being commented on. It is not a generic term, derogatory or no, applied to a class or race or otherwise disparate group which is reflected in that particular.

IOW, no matter a person's mental health diagnosis, that person would have to be nuts to take a comment about Beck personally.

Incidentally, I've known a lot of people who are nuts - locked ward type - and they would be the last to infer that 'Beck is a wacko' in any way reflected on them. In fact, they are far more honest, and far less sensitive, to such terms than most "sane" people because they have to face and deal with their illness on a daily basis.

[bobbolink]

75. I suggest you take this up with the admins, and find out what the rules are.

You are free to use whatever language you wish in other places, and insult whoever you wish to insult. Sadly, that is still what many wish to do.

However, the rules on DU are clear, and some of us have been asking for more civility.

It is pointless to continue arguing when some only want to maintain a status quo, no matter who is hurt. You have been very clear on that, so there is no need for further discussion.

[hlthe2b]

90. Bobbolink, I've been here far longer than you--since 2001

I have never seen a rule that states we are not allowed to refer to the RW as "wacko". Please feel free to request Skinner to clarify for the benefit of me and countless other DUers if you believe we have been misinterpreting the rules all these years.

[HereSince1628]

12. I only ask for consideration of choosing the best word in your lexicon

I respect that, indeed, that could be the best you can do.

[LawnLover]

17. It's not a matter of "best." Who's to judge what's "best?"

Words are expressive and sometimes words outside of the list provided are the best and most appropriate words to use. I'm not in the censorship business and I don't think anyone else should be either.

[HereSince1628]

28. Well, YOU are the best person to judge what word is best in your posts/replies

I don't think that I suggested anything other than that.

I tried to be careful about that in the OP and in my other replies in this thread.

[LawnLover]

33. You gave us a LIST of words

And suggested they are better choices.

Look, I appreciate your intent, but if you think that's being careful...

[HereSince1628]

40. I did give an incomplete list as a starting place, but

I expected that list to be taken in context of the previous sentences that introduced the list.

One of the assumptions a poster on DU MUST make is that a person opening the post can read in context.

[LawnLover]

44. Your context is clear. You want to instruct us how to

be "proper" DUers and use approved language. I mean, come on. It really does come down to that.

What's next? A dress code?

[HereSince1628]

51. No, I want to provide you with a starting place to think about word choice

Really, I haven't approached any Administratot, and I do not have the authority or audacity to presume that I could provide the sort of list you are writing about.

[LawnLover]

56. Do you even realize the arrogance in that statement?

You want to "provide" us with "a starting place to think about word choice."

We're insensitive little children who need to be guided? Is that it?

Astonishing.

[HereSince1628]

77. I thought my proposal begged examples. I provided them.

as I have written elsewhere in this thread, being hurt/offended by a message ALWAYS depends upon the recipient of the message, only some of the time does it depend upon the sender.

I recognize,that communication is this way.

If I correctly understand your statement, you are calling me a name because you reject my communication of examples of alternative word choices.

In this thread I have defended your right to choose words you deem to be best. I still do.

I don't think it is arrogant for me to suggest that people afford the mentally ill the same consideration that they apply to other groups which are unfairly disparaged and stereotyped herein.

[LawnLover]

117. Saying a statement is arrogant is far different than

name-calling. It's pointing out the truth as I see it.

"No, I want to provide you with a starting place to think about word choice"

That is the arrogance I'm talking about.

[EFerrari]

78. How is offering a list of words that can be used instead of slurs

"arrogant"? Or, more arrogant than name calling, that is?

[LawnLover]

116. The arrogance comes from the statement that we need to chose "the best"

or "better" words, as if we're children in need of a lesson. You obviously don't get the point.

And if you're suggesting I've engaged in name-calling, I don't believe I have. If I'm wrong about that, my apologies.

[RaleighNCDUer]

47. Please explain how 'irrational' is better than 'wacko'. nt

[EFerrari]

57. Irrational describes a thought process where wacko dismisses a person?

[LawnLover]

60. I'd say irrational pretty much dismisses a person, too.

Not much else can be said after the word is used.

[EFerrari]

72. Well, that would depend upon how it's used.

If you call an argument irrational, that can be defended.

If you call a person irrational, that still implies a temporary condition.

If you call a person a wacko, that's a more global slur.

[RaleighNCDUer]

113. Not a slur - an observation.

YOU are the one conflating 'wacko' with mental illness. It seems most the posters here you disagree with are taking pains to dissociate the two.

[LawnLover]

118. EXACTLY!!!! The meaning of words and the offense they cause

depends on HOW they're used. NOT the words themselves.

If I call someone crazy, that's not meant as a slur to people with mental illness. Which is why this entire thread is ridiculous.

[Biker13]

133. My Dad...

has called me "Horse Crazy" from the time I was four years old.

I'm not offended, nor was his comment meant to be.

In fact, it describes me perfectly.

I'm 53, and still, proudly "Horse Crazy"

Biker's Old Lady

[EFerrari]

139. As a wordsmith, you surely know that the meaning of a word

and its context both contribute to its linguistic function in a speech act.

[LawnLover]

140. Context and meaning are certainly important, but don't forget intent

If I were to call you, for example, a condescending troll, my intent would be to insult YOU, not the millions of other condescending trolls out there.

[RaleighNCDUer]

103. Is that an answer or a question?

I, myself, see irrational as a particular idea or line of thought, and wacko as a world view. It has nothing to do with sanity, other than an irrational belief in the provably false - flat earthers are wackos, no matter how otherwise sane they might be. As are birthers. Most tea partiers. A lot of sane people, people who are not mentally ill, hold delusions which are demonstrably false. Wackos. Wackos is a term for people who are nuts who do not have mental illness.

Words have meaning. The world is filled with irrationality. Sports fans. Religious people. Spiritualists. UFO kooks. Just cause they are not mentally ill does not mean they are not wackos.

[EFerrari]

107. You seem to be in your own crisis of meaning.

Which is your right.

But when people who deal with mental illness every day give you feedback, that is theirs.

[HereSince1628]

74. Irrational can be used disparagingly, but it doesn't mean crazy

A statement/argument that is devoid of logical reasoning is irrational. Logic mistakes and incoherence are symptomatic or irrationality.

[bobbolink]

9. Thank you very much for posting this! I also posted a request to not use the "r" word.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9435541

As you indicated from your posting of that great list of alternate words, we really do have choices, and it is unnecessary to hurt others using words by habit, when we could be sensitive to others and creative at the same time.

I am assuming that these terms are banned under the rules of DU, and with the current push to make this site more civil, I hope that more people will alert on the use of these damaging terms.

Thank you again for posting this! We need to be more respectful of DUers who are dealing with these issues, as well as those outside of DU!

:applause:

[LawnLover]

21. What I find particularly annoying is your insistence that there's a better way to express ourselves

Your list of words is a great one, but they might not fit the bill at a particular place and time and I think it's ridiculous for you to offer an "approved" list of words that will help us "elevate" ourselves.

We use what words we need to use when we need to use them. If they're on your list, fine. If they're not on your list, fine.

To expect someone to be "careful" when choosing their words is insulting to anyone who appreciates language.

[HereSince1628]

27. I am nonplussed by the notion that asking people to choose the best words

would be insulting.

I'm not trying to provide a list of usable words. I only provided that list as an example of words which a poster could consider.

[LawnLover]

35. I am nonplussed that you don't get the problem with that

There are no "better" words. There are words. Period.

Anything else is politically correct bullshit.

[HereSince1628]

82. So your objection is that my post is an appeal to politically correct bullshit

I understand that. And you are entitled to it.

I also understand that the use the word bullshit, a perjorative devoid of meaning, is not a substitute for a meaningful contribution to a position statement. It's equivalent to certain
readily available DU emoticons.

[RaleighNCDUer]

85. bullshit

is a perjorative which has very precise meaning.

If you ever stepped in it you would know that.

[HereSince1628]

87. Oh, if you only knew of my life on a general farm

I've stepped in many forms of excrement. But that's headed in another direction.

[LawnLover]

121. Hahahahahahaha

Bullshit has all kinds of meaning. Again, it's HOW the word is used, not the word itself.

[EFerrari]

61. You'd think that someone who appreciates language as much as a writer does

would have no trouble at all with the idea of carefully choosing a word.

:)

[LawnLover]

69. Yes! And sometimes that word may offend. There are many to choose from and

writers would like to be able to choose them all to express what they have to say, without worrying about the word police.

[EFerrari]

73. You seem to be mixing up "choice" with "prescription".

Not to mention, writers are their own word police. That's the job. :)

[LawnLover]

119. Yes, I AM my own word police and I'd like it remain so,

without someone trying to teach me my manners. Thank you.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HereSince1628]

36. Yea, there is a good idea . . . NOT.

If you don't want to consider that the readers of DU include persons who might feel stigmatized and pushed to the side of society by the potential use of words, that is the extent of your consideration and I would not ask for more.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Posteritatis]

39. Interesting equation of "retarded" with mental illness in general there... (nt)

[bobbolink]

34. K&R

Too bad the recs are erased. :( Sad commentary.

You requested very politely, and yet...... :(

[RaleighNCDUer]

38. Be that as it may, when talking about Beck the only appropriate words

are those which describe his mental illness. He IS mentally deranged, and very probably psychotic. And undeniably wacko.

[LawnLover]

42. So I ask the author of the OP, how does

RaleighNCDUer's comment harm anyone other than Glenn Beck?

Like I said, target and intent.

[HereSince1628]

48. Word choice is a matter of available lexicon and need

The accurate application of words such as psychotic requires technical expertise and opportunity to interview the source that is completely unavailable to persons who are not providing counseling/therapy to Mr Beck.

I encourage you to make the best word choices in your lexicon.

I am pointing out only this caveat. Our language is full of words by which we disparage and dissociate US from THEM. It is an unfortunate reality that many of these words unfairly and hurtfully refer to some of those among US.

[RaleighNCDUer]

52. IOW, only psychiatrists are allowed to use the word 'psychotic'.

Now that's crazy talk.

[HereSince1628]

66. Well no. Various mental heathcare providers might make such

a determination relative to a particular person in their care.

By and large the colloquial use of it is as a disparagement, as in to be a tea-partier you must be a psychotic. The equation of a set of political beliefs/agenda items with diagnostic determinants of pscyhosis is wrong.

[EFerrari]

67. The larger point is that "psychotic" has a meaning beyond

"someone I want to tear down".

You know, there are people who post here who have to struggle with brains that really do produce psychotic episodes. With a mental health system that is one step away from disappearing entirely and with the vast ignorance that surrounds mental health issues in the public. It isn't very much to ask that people make a reasonable effort to not use their real situation as some kind of put down, as a metaphor for "less than".

Or, maybe it is on these here internets.

[RaleighNCDUer]

95. Of course it does. And i would only use it talking about someone like

Beck - who IS suffering some sort of severe mental illness. I heartily dislike Palin, but would not call her psychotic because she shows no sign of psychosis - greed, narcissism, vapidity, yes, but psychosis, no.

The OP wants us to choose our words carefully - well, so do I. We should not shun certain appropriate words for the sake of 'political correctness'. Calling Beck psychotic is no more an insult to the mentally ill than is calling Charlie Manson psychotic. It is a description, not a slur.

[EFerrari]

98. "Political correctness" is what the right wing calls common courtesy.

lol

And, "psychotic" is often used as a slur, not as a description. It still has the force of an accusation in this ignorant culture. There really is no reason to use the term unless your focus is on the clinical implications and not on some casual description. Because in the latter case, it's just a slur.

[bobbolink]

101. Since you speak with such certainty that Beck is psychotic,I am assuming that you are a psychiatrist

who has personally treated Beck.

Otherwise, you are throwing around terms that you are in no position to attach to *anyone*.

[RaleighNCDUer]

120. I never treated Hitler, and I think it's safe to make the claim that he

was a paranoid psychotic.

I don't need to be a cop to know that 160mph is not highway speeds. I don't need to have a degree in astronomy to know that those lights at night are stars. I don't need to have treated Beck to know he's psychotic - just watch a few episodes of his show, listen to his delusions, his dissociation with reality. For all I know he's schizophrenic as well - he has said more than once that 'god' talks to him. Even in the wizarding world, hearing voices is not a good thing.

Of course, having not treated him I could be wrong. Perhaps he's not a psychotic, but only plays one on TV. If that's the case, he's a hell of a lot better actor than I ever hoped to be.

[LawnLover]

53. Oh, for crap's sake

Are you even listening to yourself?

Should we not call anyone REPUBLICAN then? Because, I don't know if you noticed, but there's a real sense of dissociating US from THEM on DU.

[EFerrari]

71. I don't know why you think the OP is hard of "hearing'.

The OP has been very responsive in this thread.

And you'd think a writer could tell the difference between the chosen name of a political party and a slur.

[LawnLover]

122. And I would think you'd understand

the point I was making without me having to draw pictures and word balloons.

[RaleighNCDUer]

88. When the ravings of a psychotic are flooding the airwaves, the best

word choice is to call them the ravings of a psychotic.

Or perhaps you think that Hitler's broadcasts should be describes as 'deluded' - it is so much nicer a term, after all.

[HereSince1628]

102. Well I am not going to follow your trap into defending Hitler.

And btw you brought him up first, so as the saying goes...you lose.

I am not sure that Hitler actually met the criteria for "psychotic" over much of his life. He may have, and psychoses can remit and relapse.

But to the point, I wouldn't object to a discussion of Hitler's possible mental illnesses--free of sweeping generalizations that equate the mentally ill with nazi's. It's the stereotyping and social disparaging of the mentally ill to which I object.

I don't want the mentally ill "in the closet." I don't want us, I am one of them, to fear telling family or getting help because in addition to losing our insurance we will lose our friends, relatives, jobs, promotions, etc.

Most of the mentally ill are quite perceptive about the way others treat them. It would be great if DUers discussed mental illness when they really meant to and not just via perjorative application of crazy, wacko etc. The equation of mental illness with the perjoratives is demoralizing and it is an incentive for the mentally ill to stay in the closet away from the help to which they,we, should have access.

[EFerrari]

104. When you hear someone you don't like on the airwaves

you invoke a slur against mental illness.

Okay.

[EFerrari]

81. Great question. Virginia Woolf was likely schizophrenic.

Would you also describe her in the same "only appropriate words"?

I would guess not.

What that leaves is using the terms of mental illness to express your dislike for Beck and that circles back to the OP's point.

[RaleighNCDUer]

93. Yes. With her, the only appropriate term - when discussing her mental condition -

would be schizophrenic.

When discussing Beck's ideas, the word 'psychotic' it appropriate - i.e.: of, or having the nature of, psychosis - which itself is: a major mental disorder in which the personality is very seriously disorganized and contact with reality is usually impaired. Does that NOT describe Beck?

Words have meanings. Calling Beck psychotic is an informal diagnosis of observed acts and traits, and reflects on him and him alone - there is no equivalency with anyone else in the world who might also suffer the disease. What it is not is a slur of a person (Beck, I mean) who does NOT show psychotic traits, the equivalent of which is calling an obviously intelligent person a 'retard'.

Though not in any way a trained professional, I believe that Beck suffers a serious mental disorder. How does that belief impact on anyone who also suffers mental disorders?

[EFerrari]

96. You are using the terms of mental illness to register your dislike of Beck.

It's not rocket science, is it?

Words do have meaning and you are using "psychotic" as an insult when in fact it is a situation that many people deal with who aren't anti-social assholes like Glen Beck.

How does it impact other sufferers? What if you had been trying for years to find a doctor to help you manage your psychotic episodes, much like a diabetic has to manage their blood sugar, and you pop into this board and hear your condition being used to describe an anti-social grifter? What do you think?

[RaleighNCDUer]

130. That's just the point - WHY is Beck an anti-social grifter? From the

bizarre claims he's made in public on his show he evidences are very real dissociation from reality - a hallmark of psychosis. Does his being an anti-social grifter preclude him being ill?

You know, I don't dislike Beck - I don't know him, never met him. But what he says is not simply things that are dislikeable, such as Palin comes up with all the time, or simple lies, like much of what Limbaugh says, but truly delusion ideas rooted in an unreal world. Palin and Limbaugh may be wackos, but Beck is truly psychotic, and the adulation he receives is feeding his psychosis.

He is not a well man.

I can't put it any more clearly. It is an observation, not a slur.

When I say someone is a fascist, it is because I see fascist tendencies and belief coming from that person, not because I can't think of anything worse to say. When I say someone is a Nazi, it's because I can easily place that person into fitting in in Hitler's regime. And when I say someone is psychotic, it is because their behavior warrants that judgment. It is not that I don't like them - my personal likes or dislike are immaterial. It is the behavior they evidence that I'm referring to.

If calling Charlie Manson a psychotic does not affect any other mentally ill, why would calling Glen Beck a psychotic do so? The Manson comparison is far worse - he chopped people up into little pieces and buried them in the desert. So far as I know, Beck's never been accused of doing that. So why is it worse to call Beck a psychotic than calling Manson a psychotic? You know full well there are gradations of the disease (or syndrome, as you will). Is he just not psychotic enough? Does he have to put a bullet through his brain on the air for you to say "yeah, he's certifiable"?

[EFerrari]

136. If you are under the impression that people who are anti-social

are that way because they are psychotic, you might want to find out if that is true before acting on that belief.

[RaleighNCDUer]

141. I said no such thing, and you know it.

He is anti-social, and he is also delusional and god tells him what to do. THAT is psychotic. I've been going over and over his symptoms, bolstering my case that he IS psychotic, and you are ignoring that because it doesn't agree with your contention - whatever it is.

You say I'm using a 'psychotic' as a slur against someone I don't like.

I say, This guy IS Howard Beale and the only reason he is not getting treatment is because his producers make more money off him as he is. Fox News is manipulating this sad little man, using his illness to make money. At the end of it all, when Limbaugh is retired to the Dominican Republic where he can diddle little boys, and when Sarah is off making mooseburgers in her double-wide, Beck is going to be institutionalized or dead.

I get no satisfaction from that.

[Throd]

45. Is referring to something as "idiotic" offensive to idiots?

[HereSince1628]

59. Perhaps...but you wish to play in semantic eddies

I'm not interested in such sport.

I ask only that poster/repliers do their best to not offend anyone. I think that's in the DU rules. Really.

[Throd]

68. I'm not looking to offend anyone.

I also do not want language held hostage to the most sensitive person on a discussion board.

A lot of people around here revel in being offended on someone else's behalf.

[EFerrari]

76. For those of us who live with mental illness in our family

whether it be our own or someone else's, casual stigma is not new. It is, however, a pain in the @ss and for pragmatic reasons. Once you dismiss something, you don't have to pay attention to it, whether it be a person or a mental health system's funding. It's pretty simple and also, materially destructive in the long term.

People do go on tears about the outrage of the hour but this definitely isn't one of them, imo.

[Bragi]

79. May I add this thought

I agree with the OP, but I am also bothered by a couple of phrases that have become commonplace on the Internet among bloggers and others, phrases that I think undermine rational debate.

One of these is characterizing someone who holds an opposing viewpoint as "drinking the kool aid."

Perhaps this was clever many years back whenever someone came up with the phrase, but I find it to be a poor rhetorical tactic because it doesn't offer any argument, it just dismisses an opposing viewpoint without any counterpoints.

I find the phrase "give your head a shake" to be similarly unhelpful. Again, this phrase doesn't add anything to any discussion, it is simply an attempt to dismiss an opposing viewpoint without offering any real argument.

[pinboy3niner]

80. Something both funny--and insensitive...

[EFerrari]

83. It's funny because as someone who has spent a week at a time

trying to help a decompensated person put themselves back together without getting hurt myself, as a witness to the habit of some people who talk right over the head of someone they think can't hear because they have a serious diagnosis and should be patted on the head like a dog, as someone who spent most of a decade wrestling for basic care that could have been delivered in a matter of hours, I see the humor in that toon but also, the tragedy.

It's not as funny as it used to be, that's for sure.

[cliffordu]

108. Well........

I'm dual diagnosis and I call those fuckers stupid, insane, subnormal freaks, jackoffs, buttplugs (no offense to buttplugs....) and every other name I can think of, I think Cheney is a textbook sociopath, Palin is a classic Narccisist (sp) and Bachmann is just plain psycho.

So, really, having a nice list of what's politically correct is nice, but I'd rather not have to pay 385 bucks a month for Lamictal.

Your mileage may vary.

[cliffordu]

109. DO you have a dog in this fight?

Got a diagnosis and you feel hurt, or are you just the sensitivity police?

[HereSince1628]

115. I've got multiple diagnoses,

I like every other poster of every other post on this board has a motivation to post.

I am not the sensitivity police. I'm nothing.

I think it's pretty peculiar that the OP is seen that way. It's merely a request. A simple request to choose words that are most suitable and if a poster cares to, to use words with sensitivity.

That doesn't mean to not use any word you choose to, on DU the rules only say that you are to use them (and all words) in a manner that is consistent with avoiding disparaging generalizations and stereotypes.

If you choose to do otherwise, that's up to you. And I thank-you for your consideration.

[cliffordu]

137. I have a response to this unthread....one above this -

[Pathwalker]

114. I honestly believe Glen Beck is mentally ill. I had two mentally ill brothers,

both of whom are now deceased, one by his own hand, and he sounds frighteningly like they did when they were not taking the appropriate meds. I do not mock the mentally ill, I don't use the language you describe because this issue is just too personal for me. My brothers suffered greatly, and I would not wish their experiences on anyone. Anyone.

Wasn't Glen Beck having a bunch of medical tests? Does anyone know what happened about that? Did he ever say how that turned out?

[HereSince1628]

124. It's about the environment to which we contribute

As I've said repeatedly above, my concern is about the thoughtless contributions made to social stigmatization and stereotyping of the mentally ill through the repeated use of popular nouns in a general and perjorative manner.

Additionally, with a bit of thought most DUers can come up with words that are not only sensitive but also more descriptive of the behavior/postion of an opponent they wish to engage. Erudition isn't necessary, but accurate verbal diversity would also be pleasant.

Glenn Becks mental health isn't the issue. Understanding that calling out DUers as mentally ill would be a DU infraction under any circumstance, a purposeful discussion about the mental status of any single celebrity or political person isn't really the issue.

[Pathwalker]

135. Ok. I dont like to see the nasty vergabe, either. I agree that people

throw around insults and slurs about mental illness, and that it is wrong. But, as you can see, any request that people show a little more sensitivity is treated as a threat to "censorship", as if one owes no responsibility to their fellow humans, not even simple courtesy. People either get this, or they don't.
I wince from seeing these words hurled about because of my own experiences, and was trying, however inartfully to say, not all of us use those words, because we understand the pain associated with mental illness.

[DirkGently]

126. I'm sympathetic, but can't agree here.

And first off, I do recognize and appreciate that the OP is a polite, non-authoritarian request. It's a thoughtful, reasonable statement calling for empathy with which I don't agree for the reasons below:

Words have flexible, evolving meanings, and meanings in context, and we can't continually bland down our language based on an academic understanding of the former meanings of words, or their possible or tenuous connection to an unrelated party who might therefore be offended.

"Republican whacko" is not commonly understood to be a slur on both Republicans and those with mental illness. Various words given as examples of slurs toward the mentally ill have evolved entirely separate meanings. "Daft," for example, has a literal definition that includes "silly" or "stupid."

This is my objection to most pleas for politically correct terminology. Beyond outright slurs -- terms traditionally used to attack and incite hatred toward a particular group -- proposing to ban or discourage words on the idea that they might offend someone against whom the words are not even directed, or based on a rigid or technical definition that ignores context goes too far. It becomes an academic exercise to find reasons to be offended and reasons to (even politely) try to dictate what others may say.

I agree with the general principle that slurs and namecalling are a low form of discourse, but not that they all constitute some form of bigotry. I think we all are sympathetic to, for example, the intellectually challenged among us. Not everyone is "above average" like the children in Lake Wobegone. But must we sweep the infintely useful "moron" and "idiot" from our vocabularies to avoid "anti stupid bigotry?" These were, as far as I know, terms of art for real and unfortunate states of mental incapacity which are neither amusing nor a justified basis for belittling or disliking someone. They're not dirty words invented to attack those the terms really apply to, and they're not USED that way.

I saw someone here not long ago huffily announcing their "unrec" for the "use of the 'R' word" by someone quoted in the OP. I had to scratch my head and go back until I realized "Retarded" -- another real term of art -- was the word in question. I can see that a little more easily, given that the word is still understood to be an actual slur when directed at someone with an intellectual disability. But I wonder how many doctors earnestly discussing "mental retardation" have been rebuked by the well-meaning but holier-than-thou now that the "R word" is on the list of Bad Words? That list becomes diluted and less meaningful the longer it becomes.

We're going to waste a lot of time and outrage if we're going to extend the same taboos reserved for the epithets associated with hatred and violence to any comparison made to any form of human frailty. Will the obese object to derisively calling something "bloated?" Do we abuse the chronically ill when we call something "sick?"

I also think the amateur psychology we engage in as part of political discourse and rhetoric is both important and well understood to be disconnected from any type of malevolence for those literally suffering from mental illness. No one is exptessing contempt for the mentally ill calling Sharron Angle or Glenn Beck "batty" "nutty" "crazy" "certifiable" "fruitloops" who belong in "a padded room." It may be uncivil to do that, but these people and their actions go a bit beyond the "absurd." But no one is thinking (or implying) that someone with a diagnosed illness is a justified object of contempt. We can't stretch to make words mean something they don't in ORDER to take offense.

And the negative connotation associated with mental illness is not necessarily bigtory. Mental illness is in fact, a bad thing. "Bigotry" would be treating the mentally ill as bad people, which is not the same. We can be sympathetic to mental or cognitive or psychological ailment, without pretending that it would be okay for the American public to listen to the advice of, or vote into office, someone suffering from such a condition, or acting like they do.

I don't see an alternative for the need to rhetorically AND literally question the sanity and / or intellectual capacity of public figures. Someone who is genuinely mentally ill still needs us to call out Michele Bachmann for being "batcrap crazy" when she suggests the U.S. Census just might be a scheme to put people in "Japanese internment camps." We assume her brand of "crazy" is knowing and deliberate, but there just is not a better way to explain what she's doing than be questioning her sanity, figuratively and perhaps literally as well.

So my thought is that first, we know what we mean, and no one's advocating abuse or denigration of the mentally ill when we use these terms. We're not harkening back to days in which the mentally ill were tortured and imprisoned with a sense of approval. These are not epithets used to incite hatred

Second, there's a point where the rhetoric and armchair psychology may merge into a legitimate warning. Is Glenn Beck neurotic? Psychotic? A megalomanic? A sociopath? Borderline personality disorder? It's actually quite possible. If not, he's acting like he is and that ought to be recognized. Maybe it's not actually funny, come to think of it, but I think it's important and I don't think it's bigotry.

(Just my opinion, offered respectfully and free from overheated rhetorical device).

[HereSince1628]

134. This isn't about the using words without consideration of their context

It's a request to make word choices thoughtfully, and as a poster chose to use of words related to the mentally ill in a manner that contributes to an environment that makes socially acceptable the equation of opponents, and in a disparaging manner which generally are demeaning to the mentally ill.

I'm not suggesting banning words, I'm not proposing alternative language, I'm not suggesting that words don't have multiple meanings. One meaning of faggot is a burning torch, a fag can be a cigarette. Nazi is the popular term of a German political party. The same words in different context would be obvious infractions to social etiguette if not the rules of DU.

If a DUer lacks the vocabulary, interest or simply prefers particular words there isn't anything I can do about it.

This wasn't intended to be a DU proposal or petition to the Admins for a new rule. It was intended to be an invitation to receptive people.

[boppers]

128. Feeble?

Making fun of the physically ill or incapable?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/feeble

It's odd how people use insensitive words, even when they think they're generic terms that don't marginalize others.... it's especially ironic in this context.

[rucky]

131. What's with all the unrecs?

[proud2BlibKansan]

138. K&R