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:
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:
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:
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.
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.Which you can read here.
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.
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
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?
"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.
Would that be ok with you?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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.