What? Did you read what you wrote? The act of simplifying something to teach is fine and often necessary. I don't think I said anything to the contrary. Your use of the word 'dumb', even if it has multiple meanings (just like 'retarded'), was the offensive bit and should be replaced with 'simplify' or some such word if you want to be 100% PC (which is exceedingly annoying). I do not object to your use of the word 'dumb' or the phrase 'dumb down'; I would almost certainly use them myself. However, playing devil's advocate, you should be ashamed for using it if you maintain your position that 'retarded' in a self-deprecating sense is offensive to *you*.

1 members found this post helpful.

Hi,

Two faces!

Enough said.

0 members found this post helpful.

Where is the second face, exactly? I think you're mistaking my analogies and drawn parallels with my opinions here...I am simply implicating you for being guilty of your own accusation, either making both inappropriate or appropriate (thus making you a hypocrite or making this thread unnecessary harassment to the OP). If you object solely because you feel that 'dumb down' is remarkably different than 'dumb' I will direct you to another post of yours where dumb is used explicitly to indicate 'simple' or 'stupid' (though of course not intended to offend anyone, as was the case with the OP). If there was indeed no intent to offend in either case, yet both terms are offensive to a (presumably absent) third party, only *one* of which is classed as offensive to *you*, where lies the logic? Either cut both words out or allow them to exist if there is no negative sentiment implied. I do not understand the artificial disparity between a word like 'retard' and a word like 'dumb' when both can be classed as offensive but neither were used in an offensive sense.

1 members found this post helpful.

Hi,

Apparently differences do exist between us along with my interpretation of your presentations. As there are your interpretation of my usage of these terms.

Of course from the phrase below that indicates that the HDD is not Stupid/dumb was a valid statement in context. How was there any intent to harm in the below statement for the word 'dumb? We agree, non! No where was a third party or individual classed with the definition as it was with the discussed OP. Single representation for systems that the HDD is not dumb and implied that intelligence existed between devices.

Single term selection by cherry picking can continue for both of us to defend our position(s) without swaying the other. My original pointed argument was in that the use of the term 'retarded' did imply a lesser person that the OP related to other parties and though implied intent did harm. That is my objection. Harm by implication! By my argument then any simple form of either word is allowable unless it is used in context to imply harm or derogatory. By your definition then I should not use the word 'dumb' since I object to 'retarded' in the sense that was offensive by the OP. I believe 'context' should be the rule for a situation not single term representation. Terms that are weighted individually but related then when used improperly do cause misunderstanding, especially when one mixes definitions. That is why proper context would prevent implications or harm.

0 members found this post helpful.

At the risk of derailing this already derailed thread, I'll tell you what I heard last week. I attended a training session for basic skills tutors and learnt that as teachers we're not supposed to use the term 'brain storm' as it may be offensive for some people. Instead, we are strongly encouraged to use the phrase 'thought shower.'

The world has gone mad!!!! (I hope I haven't offended anyone by using the term 'mad')

Sorry, but some people should get a life.

1 members found this post helpful.

What does that mean?

---------- Post added 2011-03-24 at 11:33 ----------

How can "brain storm" possibly be offensive?

Hi,

Cute!

No where are we derailing from the original intent of these extracted posts to this thread which was off topic subject for original thread for the words that are offensive to some.

You may think this is trivial but it is not. I'm sure that 'T3Slider' has other things to do as I. But both of us do have our stances along with beliefs. We just differ in how we use terms or interpret this particular subject. I stand by context and how the words are used then interpret by a reader. Some, as I take offense to how the word 'retarded' was used within context for the OP. While others will let it slide as no offense by a justified colloquial sense used jest-fully.

While I feel the use of 'dumb' or 'dumb down' are OK to use when proper context supports this use. If these words were used to offended then no difference.

To me this has nothing to do with Political Correctness(PC). People who class others and find them inferior because of the lack or less being as compared to 'societies' status are fair game to misuse in jest comparatively. Sure we are all considered to be unique yet if someone differs in magnitude for intelligence can then be fodder for someones whimsical expression at their expense should not be tolerated. Implied or directly, it still offends.

"You must look into people as well as at them."-Chesterfield

"He who commits injustice is ever made more wretched than he who suffers it." -Plato

0 members found this post helpful.

"Do not squander time for that is the stuff life is made of. " -Ben Franklin

Hi,
Editing error! Thanks for pointing out. I do place notes within my content when expressing original content. Failed to remove, my mistake.

Slipped by!
Now correct.

This reminds me of the story in the news some years back, when political-correctness first started to mangle the English language, that the nursery rhyme "Baa Baa Black sheep" was being banned from infant schools. Whether it was true or not, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was. And blackboards had to be called chalkfaces.

1 members found this post helpful.

That part still doesn't seem gramatically correct.

---------- Post added 2011-03-24 at 13:51 ----------

That's just unbelievable.

I mean, the fact that your examples above or "brainstorm" can possibly sound offensive if you try hard to think about it is purely a coincidence. And I think that the person the phrase is thought to offend should be able to understand that.

While I find your first post completely uncalled for, I did not refer to you or T3Slider when I said that some people should get a life. Debating semantic interpretations can be interesting. What I find *offensive* (LOL) is generally the culture of PC and finding an increasing number of things offensive. It leads to a situation when a person (even with completely good intentions) must weigh each word for fear of unintentionally offending somebody.
To me it has everything to do with political correctness. There is no question that calling someone else 'retarded' or something similar is offensive, but I can call myself whatever I want [well, swear words are not allowed on LQ], and unless you are motivated by PC, I find it really difficult to understand why YOU would find it offensive.

1 members found this post helpful.

Hi,

Checks with my grammar checker rules.

BTW, it's grammatically here.

Exactly, we were given the words/phrases to avoid, eg. brainstorm, black board (and some other I don't remember) and it occurred to me that someone must have thought long and hard about it because I would *never* associate those words with something that might be offensive to somebody and, therefore, I would never use them in any inappropriate way (is it possible to use them in an inappropriate way in the first place?). By talking about it, IMO, they actually artificially create divisions that might not exist at all.