11 ms·
It's probably culture / location dependant. In the UK disabled or lesser-abled would probably be preferred. I'd probably have skirted the issue by saying it may
by VBprogrammer 7y ago
It's probably culture / location dependant. In the UK disabled or lesser-abled would probably be preferred. I'd probably have skirted the issue by saying it may exclude people using screen readers.
- GhostVII 7y agoAvoiding discussing a particular issue simply because you don't want to refer to people as handicapped or disabled seems absurd to me. Language is a tool, and we shouldn't reduce it's effectiveness simply because we are afraid of offending someone. Some people in the world are disabled, I think it is far more offensive to avoid talking about them then to use the term disabled or handicapped - how do you think it would feel to be a disabled person, and have people think that it is so offensive that they don't even feel comfortable saying that disabled people have a hard time on the modern internet?
- VBprogrammer 7y agoI don't think we should avoid discussing the issue at all. But I also feel that groups have the right to determine what they find acceptable as a collective noun. If disabled people in the UK are uncomfortable with the term handicapped then I won't use it; that has been the case for as long as I can remember so it struck me when I read it.
- GhostVII 7y agoI was more referring to you saying you would skirt the issue rather than using the term disabled or handicapped. If there is an alternative word that is less offensive, of course there is no problem with using it if it means the same thing.
- VBprogrammer 7y agoAh, I see what you mean. No, the issue I intended to skirt was choosing the most appropriate label, not the whole issue that JS may make websites less accessible.
- raxxorrax 7y agoIt could very well be true that disabled people are more offended by third parties policing language, especially if the expression was used in a neutral context. Because that can be very humiliating and shifts the topic to something many people want to overcome in their lives.
- saagarjha 7y ago> But I also feel that groups have the right to determine what they find acceptable as a collective noun. The group of people with disabilities is not one hive mind with a collective opinion of which nouns they prefer: some will like some terms and some won't. Handicapped seems to be generally accepted as inoffensive to most people, so I don't see any reason to not use it.
- VBprogrammer 7y agoThat's your call. I couldn't have been clearer that this applies to my understanding of the majority view within the UK. If those people aren't part of your audience then knock yourself out.
- reshie 7y agoi agree and is a very neutral term for a wide range of disabilities. now cripple would have some negative connotations to it. though i suppose context and use of any term could be used to degrade especially something like this which does point to capabilities but because of a condition and specific to the disability.
- VBprogrammer 7y ago> "Handicapped" is a word which many disabled people consider to be the equivalent of nigger. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3708576.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3708576.stm I wouldn't describe it as neutral at all.
- reshie 7y agoi would not put it in that category but i did address how it could be construed. how would you describe the term handicap in the form of a lack in capability specific to the disability?
- leppr 7y agoIn 10 years we will be back to preferring "handicapped" as "disabled" slowly slides into offensive territory and we still need a word to talk about this concept. Grandparent was probably just being considerate of future Internet Archive readers.
- fluffything 7y agoYeah, in my culture / location we call them "people that have to go through extra obstacles".