Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
"In 2003, ‘window licker’ was voted the third worst insult aimed at those with a disability in a poll for the BBC."
a) Who decided this poll was a good idea?
b) What won?
*hmm, there's something from a poll 9 years ago, that'll do*
so some context is necessary.
Not sure this is the best context, but it's something I guess.
but I guess it could be construed as quite offensive to disabled people. I quite like George Galloway, I think he's a good integrator, he has a constituency I find myself in quite frequently, and I think attempts at humour by politicians) are often made out to be grand slurs against humanity (is it OK when RDJ says it, but not GG?).
With the implication being that it's something that people with learning disabilities do.
what is so awful about licking windows (I genuinely dont understand)
Have you ever done it? Dont prejudge
There was a similar fuss made then, and at the time I wasn't even aware it was a slur against disabled people.
What's your point, spaceman?
As in - the young boy was literally licking the window. He was basically frenching the damn thing face to face as he scanned outside for trains (he really like trains). Offered me some of his crisps too (pre-chewed). Nice lad.
I don't like ready salted.
soundtracked by pumping techno
And then lick it clean.
Not sure what happened to him. He probably had the most developed immune system in the city, so I doubt he's dead.
That's all I can add to this thread.
he should have been awarded
Interesting that we judge him and yet people on this forum still regularly make reference to people acting like or displaying the behaviour of »retards«. Likewise slightly »odd« behaviour is often glibly chalked up as autism here. I get that he's an elected official and he shouldn't use the phrase. He's a buffoon and I'm not defending him, but there seems to be a slight hypocrisy.
Yes, semantic change happens over time but not enough time has really gone by for people who've grown up with the consequences of the word 'retard' to accept the change in meaning.
I accept most people who use the word 'retard' generally won't explicitly mean 'person with a learning disability' but it's still a word that people who used to be considered 'retards' might be very upset by. Use it if you want but the fact it's in common use in America etc. doesn't change the fact it's still an incredibly loaded term that upsets a lot of people and, to be honest, insisting on using it once you know it upsets a lot of people who either have or have family members who have learning disabilities strikes me as pointless bloody mindlessness.
We're not talking small pockets or right-on do-gooders here. For A LOT of people with learning disabilities, retard is still a hugely offensive term and I'm pretty sure if you ran the BBC poll again, it would still score way higher than window licker on the offensiveness scale, in part due to how commonly it seems to be used. Realistically a word like bastard is no longer offensive because you're not going to get treated differently due to being born out of wedlock these days. People with learning disabilities still suffer a huge amount of discrimination and prejudice and the fact that a word originally intended as a medical description of their condition is used as an insult to depict stupidity emphasises the prejudice for a lot of people who wouldn't regard it as an anachronistic word at all. Admittedly this isn't common knowledge to a lot of people for the simple reason that the views people with learning disabilities are pretty much hidden from mainstream media and, therefore, society as a whole. But make no mistake- it's still a word that causes a lot of hurt to a large number of people.
Sadly a lot of people think this is an anachronistic debate about a word that no longer has the power to offend but it really, really isn't the case.
without it being to imply that they have learning disabilities?
I'm not. I'm just pointing out a hypocrisy. We're obviously less forgiving of George Galloway using such a phrase because he's a pillock.
Well, that poll suggests that it is an offensive term. As a person without any disability I'm not going to make assumptions as to what people with disabilities find offensive.
My point was basically that today I have seen two posts today in which a user has posted something which could be compared to Galloway's tweet. One was comparing another user's posting style to a >>retard<<, the other glibly made a point about people in a certain thread displaying autistic traits. It's not an uncommon thing here, or anywhere else on the internet. I'm not saying that DiS is some offensive Stormfront-esque site, because it's clearly far from it. I'm just making the point that when people on these boards use language similar to Galloway did no-one bats an eyelid, yet we are quick to judge him for using the term >>windowlicker<<.
Like I said in my original post, he's an elected official who insults members of his electorate when he uses the term and would be wise not the use it, but why do we feel so comfortable to judge him on standards which we do not uphold ourselves? Is it acceptable if you're not elected? I was just pointing that out.
a member of the legislature and remains an influential public figure. It's pretty distasteful and irresponsible for him to be hurling abuse at people across the internet and using vulgar bullying language of the kind that ruins the lives of people across the country daily.
see here: http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4413711#r6966562
does this make me bad?
Did Galloway know?