Instead of calling me a blogger, call me "a person with a blog"

I can't tell you all how glad I am that the legislature voted to extend the period to introduce bills.

Why, with out it, we'd have probably missed out on this wonderful measure:
SB 208 - An Act to provide for the regulation of tanning devices.
My God! The masses are crying out for the regulation of tanning devices.

Howls of "Ow, I stayed under the lamp too long" fill the streets with a cacophony of agonized and sunburnt pleas for justice.

Between "hand on weiner," banning smoking in video lottery parlors to protect children, and now this, I'm starting to wonder why we're holding session this year.

And then there's the latest bit of legislation to be introduced causing me to scratch my head - Although my wife might disagree, I'm referring to the terminology of the overly politically correct codified into law in the form of HB 1312.

Apparently, now we're codifying that:
"Terminology that references persons with disabilities should not imply that such persons are disabled as a whole, equate persons with their condition, or have negative overtones of a derogatory or demeaning effect."
Huh? Okay. I have a daughter with Apraxia of Speech. So now the proper terminology is to refer to her as a "person with a developmental disability" as opposed to her "having a developmental disability?" Or can I even use the term developmental disability anymore?

Apparently, the legislature is trying to be "in vogue" with what's called people-first terminology.

OK, so do the fools... Sorry "Legislators trying to get the world to conform to their misguided political correctness" realize that this terminology can be as fluid as the wind? It could change in six months. Sometimes it does change in the blink of an eye.

People first language is also not agreed upon even within the disability community. There's significant criticism for it as well. Some say it degrades it down to referring to people as a doctor would with medical terminology. Check out this notation from Wikipedia:
Person-first terminology is rejected by some disabled people, most commonly deaf and autistic people. People with these two conditions generally see their condition as an important part of their identity, and so prefer to be described as "deaf people" and "autistic people" rather than "people with deafness" and "people with autism". In a reversal of the rationale for person-first terminology, these people see person-first terminology as devaluing an important part of their identity and falsely suggesting that there is, somewhere in them, a person distinct from their condition.

and...

Most disability rights activists in the United States, perceive person-first terminology as an euphemism and prefer to avoid it, often using "disabled people" as the alternative.
Which you can read here.

So, my point - Why are we legislating this?

Before I'm grossly misconstrued, by all means, let's use the accepted terminology of the moment. But, wouldn't it be a better idea to simply ask - Government agencies, do you use the preferred current terminology for the various constituency groups that you serve? To which they'd answer "Yes, of course we do, silly. If we didn't, we'd be burned in effigy by our customers."

And let everyone go in peace without mandating language that could be wrong by this time next year.

Comments

Anonymous said…
The libs who supported Katus should ask him why he is co-sponsoring something that leads to GOVERNMENT INTRUSION ON A PERSONAL CHOICE. It's OK to kill a baby but not give yourself cancer maybe from tanning.
Anonymous said…
PP,
This is your most offensive post ever. Thanks for turning the clock back 30 years. Would you rather we use the language of HB 1077?
Anonymous said…
Found it surprising to read SB 208. If passed, it would make it illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to use a tanning bed. There would be a lot of pasty-looking teenagers at their high school proms...
Anonymous said…
1312 came up because of 1077. The title of 1077 is
"An Act to impose a tax on the net revenues of intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded."

You can decide for yourself which you would rather have.
Anonymous said…
...maybe we should just always call you a "white guy" PP, or an Anglo, or a Wasichu, or a Gentile. Maybe even an "old guy" or a "fat guy" or a "dumb guy."

Would that be ok with you?
Anonymous said…
For someone who claims that a 10 day old cluster of pluropotent embroyonic stem cells is a "person," your lack of compassion for people with handicaps here seems particularly ironic.
PP said…
Ahem...

My point was that we don't need to legislate common courtesy.

Especially in light of the fact that the disabled community (or community of persons with a disability, if you prefer)is in disagreement on the whole concept.

Some prefer it, some don't.
William said…
I'm deaf, not disabled. I find the term disabled offensive. If you use the term "physically disabled" how do you know I'm deaf and not an amputee?

Stuck on stupid and a total waste of time...

Jim Peterson is a sponser and just lost my vote and I just sent him an email to let him know why.
Douglas said…
Without knowing anything about the actual bills, it seems PP has a good point or two. Hardly offensive at all. Just plain common sense.

The main point should be to do what we can to actually help people who may need easier access to buildings,etc because of physical problems or whatever. Support communications systems that can be used to improve communications between the deaf or blind and the rest of us who may be temporarily luckier.

Changing the terminology doesn't change anything. It only gives the appearance of doing something on the cheap.
Anonymous said…
PP,
You show your ignorance in both your original post and your response. Further, it is hard to believe that you are using wikipedia your primary source. Somebody of your intelligence and computer savy should be able to find a better source.
William said…
2:55 PM Anonymous said...
Curious as to how this bill affects you personally? You prefer to offend those of us that are actually impacted by it?

Douglas
Excellent points!
Anonymous said…
William,
The bill does affect me personally. I have family members with developmental disabilities. Contrary to what you and Douglas write, language does make a difference. I have seen it first hand.
Anon 2:55
Anonymous said…
5:25 Right. As anyone in politics knows, language doesn't just make a difference, it makes ALL the difference.
Anonymous said…
So much for getting back to work "the people's work".
So much for all those lost seats! Just shows our tax dollars at work doesn't it!
First off when i meet someone i don't go looking for a disability and if i meet someone who has a disability it doesn't bother me they are people just like the rest of us. If we talk about the disability we talk about their disability or thier childs or a family members disability. If they don't speak we find a way to communicate.
I say let it alone.
K said…
I'm starting to wonder why we're holding session this year.

Good question. I want to see a bill that has the legislature meeting every other year. Left to their own devices, they just draft bill after bill, pass law after law, and most of it is TOTALLY POINTLESS.
Douglas said…
It seems that more than a few identifiable groups want to get aids and special rights (which may actually make sense) because of the terrible nature of their problems, but if they are identified with the obvious handicap or culture or whatever, then they become offended.

I may be paranoid, but it seems to me there are organizations and professionals of this kind of specialness and that kind that busily indoctrinate SOME POINT, SOME ISSUE so it appears they really are doing something when in fact they aren't really doing much but turning language into smoke and mirrors.

We would not need handicap parking or handicap accessible buildings if nobody was handicapped. It is impossible to have this both ways or all ways or whatever.

What is obvious by the action of the handicapped or their advocates is that making sure buildings and facislities accessible makes sense now and int the future and offers advantages to all of us. But then, architects should have figured that out for themselves many years ago and forgot about turning buildings into monumments instead of functional facilities.
Anonymous said…
This is a good post, pointing out stupid bills by liberal dems trying to meddle into every aspect of our life. Tough it out!
Anonymous said…
Thanks conservative republicans for trying to tax the mentally retarded and their families paying for their care. Good work!
Anonymous said…
what a ridiculous bill.
Anonymous said…
Liberal dems meddling in every aspect of our lives? What planet are you from? That's exactly what the conservative republicans have been doing ever since SD was a state. God protect us from the 'Daddy' state the repubs want.
Anonymous said…
You say blogger, I sat blahgur

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long

More RC Mayor Stuff - On the net, and in the paper.