Good topic for discussion, Brynn!
Being a native speaker of a language, means your level of abstraction is higher and your understanding of nuances is much finer. That means, when native speakers reads a text, their level of interpretion is higher (ie they can add much more interpretion of their own) whereas as a non-native speaker you tend to write in a literal, concrete way and also interpret other's texts in the same fashion.
This, I think, is an often overlook reason for misunderstandings. Choosing between synonyms, grammar etc are more obvious reasons for why a text may appear in a certain way that the writer did not intend.
I checked out the thread you mentioned as example, and without defending this particular post or the judgement of it, I think it can be used as an example. Personally, I didn't understand at all why the thread was closed.
Im going to get right to the pont, please state your opinion on handicapped people and the way they are treated. (handicapped i mean by abnormalities like dwarfs people in wheel chairs ect)
i feel that people in wheel chairs should have some help, like ramps and things, but i have met people who correct me when i say handicapped, they say handicapable, that is moronic in my opinion, u do not have to cover up your uncomfortability. they are used to it... this may sound harsh but i do know that people tend to coddle WAY more than is neccesary
The poster use the expression "handicapped" and "dwarf", whereas some prefer to use other terms. The poster states that people in wheelchairs should have help, but he is critical to people who critisise his use of the word "handicapped". Now, I totally agree with the poster that the use of "politically correct" terms such as "handicapable" for physically disabled, "mentally challenged" for mental retardation or "vertically challenged" for dwarfism, is unnecessary and even ridiculous. Changing the word does not change the condition, and whereas I of course understand and acknowledge handicapped people's struggle for acceptance and equal human value as healthy people, I don't think changing the verbal labels is the way to achive this. The interesting thing is that it is mostly the
healthy, "normal" people who invent these PC terms,
not the disabled persons who are targets for the labels.
There are many organisations for handicapped people, just check out the names of these organisations - National Association for Visually Handicapped, Dwarf Athletic Association of America, Handicapped Scuba Association just to name a few examples. IMO, the problem with discrimination of handicapped people is not that they are called "handicapped" or "dwarwes", the problem is that "normal" people think their handicap makes them less worth, stupid, disgusting, etc.
Due to my job I have come in contact with many disabled people, especially patients with mental retardations. Something all handicapped people ususally hate, is when normal people view them with pity and act protective as if they were small children. Many handicapped find this humiliating - they want to do as much as they can by themselves and they don't want to be pitied, instead they want to be acknowledged as persons. The use of verbal labels that indicate that handicaps is some kind of advantage (ie "challenge" or "handicapable") is viewed as hypocritic and humiliating by all handicapped people I have ever met.
same goes for dwarfs except drarves could have it harder. people laughing ect... but i cant see sum1 laughing at a short person....
and mentaly retarded people..... they make me uncomfortable.... i dont like them in public schools... they deserve to b there, that i am aware of... i still feel strangely compelled to leave a room if one enters
I'm not sure how to interpret the first paragraph, but I think either the poster means he doesn't understand why people laugh at dwarfs since they don't laugh at other short people, or he means he has never seen people laught at people who are just short, not dwarfs. Either way I find nothing derrogatory in this.
Then comes the last paragraph, which I assume is the reason for other people's strong negative reaction. The poster states that mentally retarded people make him uncomfortable, that he doesn't like them in public schools although he realises they have the right to be there, and he states he feels compelled to leave the room if a mentally retarded person enters.
Ok, this is not very nice. On the other hand, it is what most people feel if they are not used to socialise with mentally retarded people, as well as most people who are not used to psychotic people feel uncomfortable and wish they were elsewhere. I don't think it's a discrimininatory statement - the poster fully acknowledge the
rights of disabled people, s/he merely express his personal feelings about the topic, and all sorts of personal feelings have always been accepted here at SYM. My impression is that the lack of verbal sophistication in this post, contributed to the harsh judgement it received.
