FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > The newspeak has arrived...
The newspeak has arrived...
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"I think it could be years not days they work on this "Sometimes, I wish I had a job like this | |||
"A new edition of the Equal Treatment Bench Book sets out in 350 pages how judges should communicate with witnesses, defendants and lawyers in courts and tribunals in England and Wales.
It advises that “person seeking asylum” is now preferred to “asylum seekers” as it is more humanising and warns that terms such as “immigrant”, “people seeking asylum” and “refugee” should only be used where such terms are factually correct in connection with the particular individual.
“Even then, ‘immigrant’ should be used with caution, as it can sound exclusionary, especially for a person who has lived in the UK for a long time or who has gained British nationality,” it says.
“The words ‘immigrant’ or ‘second generation immigrant’ should never be used to describe a black, Asian or ethnic minority person who was born in the UK.”
It's better to read the 'Content' and not just grab the sound bite of the 'Title'.
| |||
"The clue is in the article itself . . .
"A new edition of the Equal Treatment Bench Book sets out in 350 pages how judges should communicate with witnesses, defendants and lawyers in courts and tribunals in England and Wales.
It advises that “person seeking asylum” is now preferred to “asylum seekers” as it is more humanising and warns that terms such as “immigrant”, “people seeking asylum” and “refugee” should only be used where such terms are factually correct in connection with the particular individual.
“Even then, ‘immigrant’ should be used with caution, as it can sound exclusionary, especially for a person who has lived in the UK for a long time or who has gained British nationality,” it says.
“The words ‘immigrant’ or ‘second generation immigrant’ should never be used to describe a black, Asian or ethnic minority person who was born in the UK.”
It's better to read the 'Content' and not just grab the sound bite of the 'Title'.
"We have been doing this in healthcare for some time simply because a disease is part of the person's health profile and not the whole person: a person with diabetes as opposed to a diabetic, as an example. | |||
"The clue is in the article itself . . .
"A new edition of the Equal Treatment Bench Book sets out in 350 pages how judges should communicate with witnesses, defendants and lawyers in courts and tribunals in England and Wales.
It advises that “person seeking asylum” is now preferred to “asylum seekers” as it is more humanising and warns that terms such as “immigrant”, “people seeking asylum” and “refugee” should only be used where such terms are factually correct in connection with the particular individual.
“Even then, ‘immigrant’ should be used with caution, as it can sound exclusionary, especially for a person who has lived in the UK for a long time or who has gained British nationality,” it says.
“The words ‘immigrant’ or ‘second generation immigrant’ should never be used to describe a black, Asian or ethnic minority person who was born in the UK.”
It's better to read the 'Content' and not just grab the sound bite of the 'Title'.
"I actually read the content two times before I posted and my point still stands. Keeping your baseless patronising remark aside, how is "person seeking asylum" better than "asylum seeker"? When did the word "homosexual" become offensive? And with all the financial troubles that the country is in, why are we paying people to do this useless work? | |||
" And with all the financial troubles that the country is in, why are we paying people to do this useless work?" It creates jobs? which is the most important thing according to advocates of capitalism | |||
| |||
"The clue is in the article itself . . .
"A new edition of the Equal Treatment Bench Book sets out in 350 pages how judges should communicate with witnesses, defendants and lawyers in courts and tribunals in England and Wales.
It advises that “person seeking asylum” is now preferred to “asylum seekers” as it is more humanising and warns that terms such as “immigrant”, “people seeking asylum” and “refugee” should only be used where such terms are factually correct in connection with the particular individual.
“Even then, ‘immigrant’ should be used with caution, as it can sound exclusionary, especially for a person who has lived in the UK for a long time or who has gained British nationality,” it says.
“The words ‘immigrant’ or ‘second generation immigrant’ should never be used to describe a black, Asian or ethnic minority person who was born in the UK.”
It's better to read the 'Content' and not just grab the sound bite of the 'Title'.
I actually read the content two times before I posted and my point still stands. Keeping your baseless patronising remark aside, how is "person seeking asylum" better than "asylum seeker"? When did the word "homosexual" become offensive?
And with all the financial troubles that the country is in, why are we paying people to do this useless work?"While ignoring your victim complex . . . Having read it twice? If you can't find it for yourself - let's face it, you just aren't going to find it. | |||
"The clue is in the article itself . . .
"A new edition of the Equal Treatment Bench Book sets out in 350 pages how judges should communicate with witnesses, defendants and lawyers in courts and tribunals in England and Wales.
It advises that “person seeking asylum” is now preferred to “asylum seekers” as it is more humanising and warns that terms such as “immigrant”, “people seeking asylum” and “refugee” should only be used where such terms are factually correct in connection with the particular individual.
“Even then, ‘immigrant’ should be used with caution, as it can sound exclusionary, especially for a person who has lived in the UK for a long time or who has gained British nationality,” it says.
“The words ‘immigrant’ or ‘second generation immigrant’ should never be used to describe a black, Asian or ethnic minority person who was born in the UK.”
It's better to read the 'Content' and not just grab the sound bite of the 'Title'.
I actually read the content two times before I posted and my point still stands. Keeping your baseless patronising remark aside, how is "person seeking asylum" better than "asylum seeker"? When did the word "homosexual" become offensive?
And with all the financial troubles that the country is in, why are we paying people to do this useless work?
While ignoring your victim complex . . .
Having read it twice? If you can't find it for yourself - let's face it, you just aren't going to find it.
"Pointing out your baseless assumption somehow makes me victim? Tell me more about this victim complex you are talking about. My point still stands. For a country with a cash strapped public funding, this seems to be a useless way to waste money on. And their idea of what's offensive doesn't make any sense. I know of gay people who just use the words gay and homosexual. | |||
" And with all the financial troubles that the country is in, why are we paying people to do this useless work? It creates jobs? which is the most important thing according to advocates of capitalism " Job creation when there is a need helps the country. Job creation for lame ass stuff like this is waste of money. | |||
"The clue is in the article itself . . .
"A new edition of the Equal Treatment Bench Book sets out in 350 pages how judges should communicate with witnesses, defendants and lawyers in courts and tribunals in England and Wales.
It advises that “person seeking asylum” is now preferred to “asylum seekers” as it is more humanising and warns that terms such as “immigrant”, “people seeking asylum” and “refugee” should only be used where such terms are factually correct in connection with the particular individual.
“Even then, ‘immigrant’ should be used with caution, as it can sound exclusionary, especially for a person who has lived in the UK for a long time or who has gained British nationality,” it says.
“The words ‘immigrant’ or ‘second generation immigrant’ should never be used to describe a black, Asian or ethnic minority person who was born in the UK.”
It's better to read the 'Content' and not just grab the sound bite of the 'Title'.
"Neither the words used now or the proposed words seem remotely offensive to anyone so not sure the point of change. | |||
"Neither the words used now or the proposed words seem remotely offensive to anyone so not sure the point of change." The guidance advised judges to use 'black' as an adjective, not a noun, i.e. to say "he is a black person", not "he is a black". Presumably this is aimed at the most out of touch of our judges, and I can see why some would be offended by being called "a black". The guidance also says that judges shouldn't use the term "second generation immigrant". That seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. I'm sure many people would be offended by being described that way. Another word advised against is "lame" to describe a disabled person. I'm not sure many people would be offended, but I can imagine lots of people would be confused. Again, aimed at the oldest and most out of touch judges. | |||
"Neither the words used now or the proposed words seem remotely offensive to anyone so not sure the point of change. The guidance advised judges to use 'black' as an adjective, not a noun, i.e. to say "he is a black person", not "he is a black". Presumably this is aimed at the most out of touch of our judges, and I can see why some would be offended by being called "a black". The guidance also says that judges shouldn't use the term "second generation immigrant". That seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. I'm sure many people would be offended by being described that way. Another word advised against is "lame" to describe a person with a disability." FTFY | |||
"Neither the words used now or the proposed words seem remotely offensive to anyone so not sure the point of change. The guidance advised judges to use 'black' as an adjective, not a noun, i.e. to say "he is a black person", not "he is a black". Presumably this is aimed at the most out of touch of our judges, and I can see why some would be offended by being called "a black". The guidance also says that judges shouldn't use the term "second generation immigrant". That seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. I'm sure many people would be offended by being described that way. Another word advised against is "lame" to describe a person with a disability." "FTFY" I'm not sure I'd count that as "fixed". I don't see any difference between "a disabled person" and "a person with a disability". In that sort of thing I'd agree with the guy above, it's a waste of time drawing such petty differences. | |||
"Neither the words used now or the proposed words seem remotely offensive to anyone so not sure the point of change. The guidance advised judges to use 'black' as an adjective, not a noun, i.e. to say "he is a black person", not "he is a black". Presumably this is aimed at the most out of touch of our judges, and I can see why some would be offended by being called "a black". The guidance also says that judges shouldn't use the term "second generation immigrant". That seems like a reasonable suggestion to me. I'm sure many people would be offended by being described that way. Another word advised against is "lame" to describe a person with a disability. FTFY I'm not sure I'd count that as "fixed". I don't see any difference between "a disabled person" and "a person with a disability". In that sort of thing I'd agree with the guy above, it's a waste of time drawing such petty differences." It's accurate and I've previously stated rationale It's reducing stereotype (how many people with disabilities would refuse to be call disabled or view themselves as such? What picture does it evoke?) It's not petty, it's more respectful. And if we are to get petty, lame is a temporary state, most disabilities are not. Btw I have a disability but not one person would look at me and call me disabled. Many people with disabilities are able or can be enabled! | |||
"I'm not sure I'd count that as "fixed". I don't see any difference between "a disabled person" and "a person with a disability". In that sort of thing I'd agree with the guy above, it's a waste of time drawing such petty differences." "It's accurate and I've previously stated rationale" Both phrases are accurate. Where have you stated your rationale? "It's reducing stereotype (how many people with disabilities would refuse to be call disabled or view themselves as such? What picture does it evoke?)" Some people might not like to describe themselves as 'disabled', but that doesn't change the fact that they are. The rest of society doesn't have a duty to enable that those persons' denial of the facts. "And if we are to get petty, lame is a temporary state, most disabilities are not." That's not true. Victorian writing is littered with references to "the halt and the lame", meaning anyone that didn't have a full range of movement. That covered permanent as well as temporary disabilities, and judges will be used to seeing that phrase in old legal cases. "Btw I have a disability but not one person would look at me and call me disabled." Are you saying that 'disabled' should only apply to those with physical disabilities that are obvious to others? | |||
"I'm not sure I'd count that as "fixed". I don't see any difference between "a disabled person" and "a person with a disability". In that sort of thing I'd agree with the guy above, it's a waste of time drawing such petty differences. It's accurate and I've previously stated rationale Both phrases are accurate. Where have you stated your rationale? It's reducing stereotype (how many people with disabilities would refuse to be call disabled or view themselves as such? What picture does it evoke?) Some people might not like to describe themselves as 'disabled', but that doesn't change the fact that they are. The rest of society doesn't have a duty to enable that those persons' denial of the facts. And if we are to get petty, lame is a temporary state, most disabilities are not. That's not true. Victorian writing is littered with references to "the halt and the lame", meaning anyone that didn't have a full range of movement. That covered permanent as well as temporary disabilities, and judges will be used to seeing that phrase in old legal cases. Btw I have a disability but not one person would look at me and call me disabled. Are you saying that 'disabled' should only apply to those with physical disabilities that are obvious to others?" My rationale c&p "We have been doing this in healthcare for some time simply because a disease is part of the person's health profile and not the whole person". Fact: although the words are interchangeable, disabled is less of "people first" language. Personally I'm not bothered about the words but work in an environment where we try to reduce stereotypes. | |||
"My rationale c&p "We have been doing this in healthcare for some time simply because a disease is part of the person's health profile and not the whole person". Fact: although the words are interchangeable, disabled is less of "people first" language. Personally I'm not bothered about the words but work in an environment where we try to reduce stereotypes." Thanks for the explanation. What I see is that people are trying to change the language to avoid the stereotype. But the stereotype is still there, and the new language will become just as tainted as the old. You can see this in the phrase "he's mental" which we used when I was a kid. That then got changed to "special", and it wasn't long before people started using "special" as a derogatory term. So then we moved to "learning difficulties", and that one became toxic too. But getting back to the subject. It's a good idea to give judges guidance as to what might be considered offensive by some, so that they can consider their language. It's a bad idea to insist that they only use approved words. What the Judicial College have done with the new version of the Equal Treatment Bench Book is an example of the good idea. What you have done by 'correcting' my language without being asked is an example of the bad idea. | |||
"My rationale c&p "We have been doing this in healthcare for some time simply because a disease is part of the person's health profile and not the whole person". Fact: although the words are interchangeable, disabled is less of "people first" language. Personally I'm not bothered about the words but work in an environment where we try to reduce stereotypes. Thanks for the explanation. What I see is that people are trying to change the language to avoid the stereotype. But the stereotype is still there, and the new language will become just as tainted as the old. You can see this in the phrase "he's mental" which we used when I was a kid. That then got changed to "special", and it wasn't long before people started using "special" as a derogatory term. So then we moved to "learning difficulties", and that one became toxic too. But getting back to the subject. It's a good idea to give judges guidance as to what might be considered offensive by some, so that they can consider their language. It's a bad idea to insist that they only use approved words. What the Judicial College have done with the new version of the Equal Treatment Bench Book is an example of the good idea. What you have done by 'correcting' my language without being asked is an example of the bad idea." You might think it's bad but to me it merely alerts one to a better language use. Especially as it carries little to no weight on a social forum. You've quoted how language has been consciously changed and yet gave an earlier example of the victorian "lame". I love language and we have to roll with it. We can see how our ancestors used to communicate by reading James I Bible. | |||
| |||
"Having become increasingly close to disability, I understand there is a strong desire to say a person with disability rather than disabled person. And from common decency I'd encourage people to use the preferred term. It's difficult to explain why, but as an example, how does these two statements evoke a different reaction. 1. Jonny is a disabled person 2. Jonny has a disability. It may be nothing for you, but I'd suggest many will form a picture with 1) quicker than 2) (and I will guess many have visualised a wheel chair) Whereas 2 invokes a question. What disability. Being close to a kid who has a blue badge yet goes on children's soft play, i believe curiosity is a better thing to evoke than a stereotype. " Glad to have someone totally agree with me  | |||
"Having become increasingly close to disability, I understand there is a strong desire to say a person with disability rather than disabled person. And from common decency I'd encourage people to use the preferred term. It's difficult to explain why, but as an example, how does these two statements evoke a different reaction. 1. Jonny is a disabled person 2. Jonny has a disability. It may be nothing for you, but I'd suggest many will form a picture with 1) quicker than 2) (and I will guess many have visualised a wheel chair) Whereas 2 invokes a question. What disability." This is where I think the problem is. It seems that some people have a fixed idea of what "a disabled person" is, and they don't see themselves fitting that mental picture. So instead of changing their own thoughts to fit the reality, they try to change everyone else's words to enable their denial. I don't like being called argumentative, because I think that mischaracterises my intentions. But I accept that some people will see me that way, and that they have a right to their opinion. Making other people use different words to describe you won't make them change their opinion of you. Other than to consider you a dick for not letting them say what they want. | |||
"Having become increasingly close to disability, I understand there is a strong desire to say a person with disability rather than disabled person. And from common decency I'd encourage people to use the preferred term. It's difficult to explain why, but as an example, how does these two statements evoke a different reaction. 1. Jonny is a disabled person 2. Jonny has a disability. It may be nothing for you, but I'd suggest many will form a picture with 1) quicker than 2) (and I will guess many have visualised a wheel chair) Whereas 2 invokes a question. What disability. Being close to a kid who has a blue badge yet goes on children's soft play, i believe curiosity is a better thing to evoke than a stereotype. Glad to have someone totally agree with me "Except the what disability. Not everyone has the right to know. | |||
"Having become increasingly close to disability, I understand there is a strong desire to say a person with disability rather than disabled person. And from common decency I'd encourage people to use the preferred term. It's difficult to explain why, but as an example, how does these two statements evoke a different reaction. 1. Jonny is a disabled person 2. Jonny has a disability. It may be nothing for you, but I'd suggest many will form a picture with 1) quicker than 2) (and I will guess many have visualised a wheel chair) Whereas 2 invokes a question. What disability. This is where I think the problem is. It seems that some people have a fixed idea of what "a disabled person" is, and they don't see themselves fitting that mental picture. So instead of changing their own thoughts to fit the reality, they try to change everyone else's words to enable their denial. I don't like being called argumentative, because I think that mischaracterises my intentions. But I accept that some people will see me that way, and that they have a right to their opinion. Making other people use different words to describe you won't make them change their opinion of you. Other than to consider you a dick for not letting them say what they want." Your argument sounds like some people's argument not to call people by their chosen pronouns. No skin of my nose to be pleasant and be "people first". It facilitates communication. Oh and people can say what they want, within or out of context, there are consequences. Is it really so difficult to forge positive consequences. And enabling denial? Wtf? People live with their disabilities day in, day out, how can they be in denial? | |||
"Your argument sounds like some people's argument not to call people by their chosen pronouns." They are similar issues. People who deliberately misgender others are dicks. People who take great offence when accidentally misgendered are also dicks. In between there's a whole bunch of reasonable people that are happy to use a certain form of address if asked to, but don't want to be told that they aren't allowed to say certain words. "And enabling denial? Wtf? People live with their disabilities day in, day out, how can they be in denial?" If a person doesn't accept that having a disability means that they are disabled, then they're in denial. | |||
"Your argument sounds like some people's argument not to call people by their chosen pronouns. They are similar issues. People who deliberately misgender others are dicks. People who take great offence when accidentally misgendered are also dicks. In between there's a whole bunch of reasonable people that are happy to use a certain form of address if asked to, but don't want to be told that they aren't allowed to say certain words. And enabling denial? Wtf? People live with their disabilities day in, day out, how can they be in denial? If a person doesn't accept that having a disability means that they are disabled, then they're in denial." no-one is being told. It's guidance. And afaik noone is taking great offence. And I'm not sure anyone is in denial. At the extreme it's people who may have had to come to terms with their own shortened lifespans (and having to do gej every opposite of deny but plan for) asking for what they see as slightly more compassionate terms. | |||
"Your argument sounds like some people's argument not to call people by their chosen pronouns." "They are similar issues. People who deliberately misgender others are dicks. People who take great offence when accidentally misgendered are also dicks. In between there's a whole bunch of reasonable people that are happy to use a certain form of address if asked to, but don't want to be told that they aren't allowed to say certain words." "no-one is being told. It's guidance. And afaik noone is taking great offence." We've drifted from the original topic. I agree that the new Bench Book is just guidance, and mostly useful and sensible. But earlier on I used the phrase "a disabled person", and I had it corrected. I was effectively told that my language was incorrect. I'm not sure whether the person that corrected me was offended or not. "And enabling denial? Wtf? People live with their disabilities day in, day out, how can they be in denial?" "If a person doesn't accept that having a disability means that they are disabled, then they're in denial." "And I'm not sure anyone is in denial. At the extreme it's people who may have had to come to terms with their own shortened lifespans (and having to do gej every opposite of deny but plan for) asking for what they see as slightly more compassionate terms. " In my head 'a person with disabilities' is exactly the same as 'a disabled person'. I use 'a disabled person' because the other phrase sounds clunky to me. In the heads of some other people, those phrases are different. They see themselves included by one phrase, and not the other. If those people ask nicely, I'll use the phrase they prefer, unless I forget. If those people tell me that I'm a bad person for failing to think like they do and using the wrong phrase, they won't be listened to. | |||
"Your argument sounds like some people's argument not to call people by their chosen pronouns. They are similar issues. People who deliberately misgender others are dicks. People who take great offence when accidentally misgendered are also dicks. In between there's a whole bunch of reasonable people that are happy to use a certain form of address if asked to, but don't want to be told that they aren't allowed to say certain words. no-one is being told. It's guidance. And afaik noone is taking great offence. We've drifted from the original topic. I agree that the new Bench Book is just guidance, and mostly useful and sensible. But earlier on I used the phrase "a disabled person", and I had it corrected. I was effectively told that my language was incorrect. I'm not sure whether the person that corrected me was offended or not. And enabling denial? Wtf? People live with their disabilities day in, day out, how can they be in denial? If a person doesn't accept that having a disability means that they are disabled, then they're in denial. And I'm not sure anyone is in denial. At the extreme it's people who may have had to come to terms with their own shortened lifespans (and having to do gej every opposite of deny but plan for) asking for what they see as slightly more compassionate terms. In my head 'a person with disabilities' is exactly the same as 'a disabled person'. I use 'a disabled person' because the other phrase sounds clunky to me. In the heads of some other people, those phrases are different. They see themselves included by one phrase, and not the other. If those people ask nicely, I'll use the phrase they prefer, unless I forget. If those people tell me that I'm a bad person for failing to think like they do and using the wrong phrase, they won't be listened to." Good lord no, I wasn't offended. I remarked that person first language is part of my job. I corrected you in that vein. When I use the "ftfy" post it's generally through humour. Admittedly this was less humour and more of an example of usage, and as stated an alert. I have called myself disabled but have inadvertently felt uncomfortable as if I'm trying to compare myself with someone who has severe disabilities. It's as if I don't deserve that label. But that's my psychology around the subject, not my knowledge. | |||
| |||
"I have called myself disabled but have inadvertently felt uncomfortable as if I'm trying to compare myself with someone who has severe disabilities. It's as if I don't deserve that label. But that's my psychology around the subject, not my knowledge." Do you feel that you don't deserve that label as it's a horrible one and it makes you feel bad about yourself? Or do you feel that there are people far worse than you, and giving you that label seems to trivialise their problems? I'm being extreme to hopefully make my point clear. It's hard to get this concept across at a distance. | |||
"I have called myself disabled but have inadvertently felt uncomfortable as if I'm trying to compare myself with someone who has severe disabilities. It's as if I don't deserve that label. But that's my psychology around the subject, not my knowledge. Do you feel that you don't deserve that label as it's a horrible one and it makes you feel bad about yourself? Or do you feel that there are people far worse than you, and giving you that label seems to trivialise their problems? I'm being extreme to hopefully make my point clear. It's hard to get this concept across at a distance." It's a nonsensical feeling. Helps no-one. I was brought up on the "there are people worse off than you", but when you get shit for breakfast and lunch, it really doesn't help to be told there are children getting shit for dinner too (and I'm not talking about food nor disabilities as mine occurred several years ago). Healthcare has moved on from the days when people on wards were their illnesses/surgeries/"disabledness". A patient is an integral part of the partnership with healthcare professionals. We talk to them with compassion and respect. We enable them with health promotion and positive, mindful language. We empower them to make informed choices. My childhood hang ups have no part to play in this, but an acknowledgement of the power of language. | |||
