Shocked at my friend.

Peter333

coolcait wrote: »

It actually comes from 'miraculum' - 'object of wonder'. It carries with it a sense of awe. So, if you call someone a miracle, it's rather complimentary. You're not calling them strange at all.

Generations of girls in Spanish speaking countries have been called 'Milagros', so it's probably not too surprising that 'Miracles' has made its way into the English language name book too.

'Caste' - given its linguistic roots - has long had a connotation of 'purity' of lineage, race or breed.

In purely linguistic terms, if people believe that 'half caste' is an acceptable term, would they also make the same argument for 'half breed'?

On this thread, there have been posts about people who are a quarter this and a quarter that or three-quarters the other. There used to be specific terms for people who had specific percentages of mixed heritage.

Those terms have fallen into disuse - rightly so in my view. So I don't understand why there's resistance to allowing 'half-caste' to go the same way as those terms. After all, we no longer use the word 'mulatto', which describes the same mixture of heritages. Again, rightly so - especially when you look at the origins of that word!

Just as I adapted it to refer to 'accessible toilets' rather than 'disabled toilets'. Apart from anything else - as someone has already pointed out - 'disabled toilets' has another meaning. I'm hopeful that 'accessible toilets' will also be changed, as it is an equally ambiguous phrase.

I must admit, if someone asked me where the 'accessible toilets' are, I wouldn't have a clue what they were on about. And I doubt anyone else would either.

All 'accessible' means is approachable or available. What on earth is wrong with asking for the 'disabled toilet?' It makes it clear that you need the toilet that is for disabled people.

That's what it's called and it's just pointless to bring new fandangled names. Just call it the disabled toilet for goodness sake. If people are such fragile little snowflakes that they are offended at someone saying 'disabled toilet,' they need to get over themselves.

I agree with the people on here who have said that it's just ridiculous having to think about what you say before you say it. There are people dying all over the planet every day (and animals!) and people cry and moan about someone not using what they deem to be the correct terminology. Good grief!

I despair for humanity I really do! I don't know how people will cope when they have a real issue to contend with!

Meanwhile I shall continue to say what the heck I want, exactly how I wish to say it, I have no intention of 'adapting' for any little fragile snowflakes, and anyone that doesn't like it can do one.

UK0106

AubreyMac wrote: »

Whatever is acceptable now could change over time.


Sometimes people just can not win either way, I think the person in the receiving end of being labelled should just accept what was well intended. If you're going to correct people all the time it's going to be exhausting.


My nephew has disabilities, one of his conditions has over time been used to describe someone who is very thick/dumb/slow/not intelligent. When my sister and her family went to an attraction, the assistant managing the queue has to inform someone on the radio that 'a wheelchair was coming through'. Though my sister said nothing as she know the assistant wasn't meaning to sound offensive, she is upset that her son is seen as a 'wheelchair' and not a person. I can understand her upset, and can see how it is at times humiliating. It breaks my heart too


On the subject of disability, a 'disabled toilet' technically means a toilet that doesn't work.

The very fact that what is acceptable changes over time means that people have to adapt too. Technology has changed since it was considered acceptable to call somebody the "P" or "N" word for example. Do people continue to sit watching television on a black and white TV, or using manual dial phones, or driving cars manufactured in 1980 because they "can't keep up" with what's new these days? No, because they have moved on with the times - this is no different.

Why should I have to accept being called what I consider to be an offensive term just because somebody else can't be bothered to keep themselves educated about what is considered to be non-offensive terminology these days?

I agree with an earlier poster's sentiments; there is no excuse for anybody under pension age these day to not be aware of what is considered to be an unacceptable way to refer to somebody's race.

I appreciate that you have your opinion but it's not up to you (or anybody else) to tell anybody what they should find offensive. If somebody called me the "N" word but had good intentions, should I accept that? I consider the phrase "half-caste" to be equally offensive to me and I will continue to educate (notice the term I use is educate, not correct) people on the correct terminology.

burlington6

UK0106 wrote: »

The very fact that what is acceptable changes over time means that people have to adapt too. Technology has changed since it was considered acceptable to call somebody the "P" or "N" word for example. Do people continue to sit watching television on a black and white TV, or using manual dial phones, or driving cars manufactured in 1980 because they "can't keep up" with what's new these days? No, because they have moved on with the times - this is no different.

Why should I have to accept being called what I consider to be an offensive term just because somebody else can't be bothered to keep themselves educated about what is considered to be non-offensive terminology these days?

I agree with an earlier poster's sentiments; there is no excuse for anybody under pension age these day to not be aware of what is considered to be an unacceptable way to refer to somebody's race.

I appreciate that you have your opinion but it's not up to you (or anybody else) to tell anybody what they should find offensive. If somebody called me the "N" word but had good intentions, should I accept that? I consider the phrase "half-caste" to be equally offensive to me and I will continue to educate (notice the term I use is educate, not correct) people on the correct terminology.

Would you treat that somebody different if they were actually black?

missbiggles1

Peter333 wrote: »

I must admit, if someone asked me where the 'accessible toilets' are, I wouldn't have a clue what they were on about. And I doubt anyone else would either.

All 'accessible' means is approachable or available. What on earth is wrong with asking for the 'disabled toilet?' It makes it clear that you need the toilet that is for disabled people.

That's what it's called and it's just pointless to bring new fandangled names. Just call it the disabled toilet for goodness sake. If people are such fragile little snowflakes that they are offended at someone saying 'disabled toilet,' they need to get over themselves.

I agree with the people on here who have said that it's just ridiculous having to think about what you say before you say it. There are people dying all over the planet every day (and animals!) and people cry and moan about someone not using what they deem to be the correct terminology. Good grief!

I despair for humanity I really do! I don't know how people will cope when they have a real issue to contend with!

Meanwhile I shall continue to say what the heck I want, exactly how I wish to say it, I have no intention of 'adapting' for any little fragile snowflakes, and anyone that doesn't like it can do one.

I don't think anybody's offended by the use of the term "disabled toilet", just pointing out that it's inaccurate.

I can't believe that the majority of people wouldn't know (or be able to work out) what an "accessible toilet" is, particularly with the normal usage of the term "accessibility" to refer to workplace access, products and policies for disabled people.

AubreyMac

UK0106 wrote: »

The very fact that what is acceptable changes over time means that people have to adapt too. Technology has changed since it was considered acceptable to call somebody the "P" or "N" word for example. Do people continue to sit watching television on a black and white TV, or using manual dial phones, or driving cars manufactured in 1980 because they "can't keep up" with what's new these days? No, because they have moved on with the times - this is no different.

Why should I have to accept being called what I consider to be an offensive term just because somebody else can't be bothered to keep themselves educated about what is considered to be non-offensive terminology these days?

I agree with an earlier poster's sentiments; there is no excuse for anybody under pension age these day to not be aware of what is considered to be an unacceptable way to refer to somebody's race.

I appreciate that you have your opinion but it's not up to you (or anybody else) to tell anybody what they should find offensive. If somebody called me the "N" word but had good intentions, should I accept that? I consider the phrase "half-caste" to be equally offensive to me and I will continue to educate (notice the term I use is educate, not correct) people on the correct terminology.

You have every right to be offended and correct others if you wish. What I'm saying is that what one may find offensive another person wouldn't so what is someone to do when face with a mixed heritage person? consult with them first? (I have an image in my head now of that secretary in little Britain that has to describe people on the phone )


As with 'accessible toilets' I have never heard of that term. Wouldn't a functional toilet be 'accessible' by non disabled people too?

AubreyMac

burlington6 wrote: »

But what is the view when things like equality meet religion.

Does one trump the other?

I know many people who, rightly, fight for womens rights yet refuse to get involved in a discussion about a certain religion in this country and it's views towards women.

I guess it comes down to knowledge of the subject, i.e. if someone doesn't know the reasoning or purpose for religious dress codes etc then they should rightly not say too much without doing research first. Also, the gender you are born in isn't a choice or something you can change but entering or staying in a religion is.

summerspring

missbiggles1 wrote: »

You really don't like being proved wrong, do you?:rotfl:

There was really no need to report me, though

The report button is for abusive posts, not because you disagree with something or you don't like someone who's ousted you as an AE :rotfl:

Ah well.. no hard feelings.

coolcait

Peter333 wrote: »

I...

All 'accessible' means is approachable or available. What on earth is wrong with asking for the 'disabled toilet?' It makes it clear that you need the toilet that is for disabled people.

....

It's possible - though not fodder for outrage - that the change of name was simply because of the double meaning which has already been pointed out on this thread:


'disabled toilet' can mean a toilet which is not functional.

Pollycat

AubreyMac wrote: »

As with 'accessible toilets' I have never heard of that term.

Me neither.

UK0106

burlington6 wrote: »

Would you treat that somebody different if they were actually black?

Nope. If anybody called me that, regardless of their race, I'd tell them I found it offensive and ask them not to do it in the future.