[ SECRET POST #3231 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3231 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 045 secrets from Secret Submission Post #462.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[sarillia]

They absolutely do. You're right. But I don't think the meaning has evolved entirely when people still understand the meaning that it supposedly doesn't have anymore. It's not something I get on people about but I don't get why people act like the word hasn't been used that way since the Normans invaded or something.

If you're actually interested in discussing the evolution of language and semantics and things like that I'd love to because it's very interesting. If you just want to tell me I'm wrong to think someone is a bad person for using the word "lame" as a pejorative, you can rest assured that I don't think that.

[(Anonymous)]

Using the word lame as an example. For me, coming from a So Cal mid sixties childhood background, lame meant either a horse who was injured or a bad day surfing. Later education, reading Victorian era and other assorted novels brought up the other, other meaning of someone crippled.

The FFR notion that it only applied to differently abled people was both odd and ludicrous. At this point, that's very much a secondary definition.

[sarillia]

I don't remember anyone ever claiming that it only applied to disabled people. That would be really weird. And I'll agree that that's a secondary definition. It's the people who act like it doesn't carry that meaning at all anymore that I disagree with. Those books that you mentioned don't come with an explanation for what the word used to mean because everyone is still expected to understand it. I'm just very much a descriptivist. If a word is generally understood when it's used a certain way then that's a valid definition of the word. Plus as someone who never picked up the habit of using the word as slang and has always loved old things, the "crippled" definition really is the one I think of first when I read it or hear it. There's an episode of MST3K where Dr. Forrester says a movie includes "a giant lame lobster" and I seriously thought the lobster thing was crippled at first. It could be I'm the only one but I generally try to avoid looking at myself as a special snowflake. But this whole thing is more about me nitpicking over what it means for a word to have a particular meaning than about policing language on the basis of it being offensive. Though I will still defend people with mobility problems who don't like it.

Would it push me further into SJW territory if I mention that I have issues with the term differently abled and vastly prefer disabled?

[(Anonymous)]

Not really. It's actually the term that I prefer as well. It's accurate. However if you jump onto the temporarily abled bodied for people who aren't disabled, then we'll have to part company.

[sarillia]

I've never been a fan of that either.