(
Sample, pulled from the YouTube transcript)
".... personally I prefer plain descriptive language. For
instance, and this is a suggestion that will bother some people,
but I'm serious about it ...
why
don't we just call handicapped people defective.
You know we don't mind talking about birth defects; we don't flinch
from that. We say "Gunther has a birth defect;" a concession to
the
fact that people can be defective. Then what would be wrong with
calling those people
the physically
defective? At what point in life does a person with a birth defect become a person who is
differently abled, and why does it happen? I'm confused.
Then there are those who don't quite measure up to society's accepted
standards of physical attractiveness. The worst of that group are
called ugly, or at least it used to be. The PC lingo cops have
been
working on this - and to demonstrate how far all this politically correct evasive language is
gone, some psychologists are actually now referring to ugly people as
those with
severe appearance
deficits. Okay,
severe appearance deficits. So tell me, psychologist,how
well does
that sort of language qualify for being in denial? These
allegedly
well-intentioned people have strayed so far from reality that it will
not be a surprise for me to someday hear a rape victim referred to as
an "
unwilling sperm recipient"!
Back to ugly... the political language police already have in
place one comically distorted term:
lookism.
They say that when you judge a person, or rather size them up, would
want to judge someone that would be judgmental if you take their looks
into account you're guilty of
lookism.
You're a
lookest,
and those valiant people who fight lookism -- many of them unattractive
themselves -- tell us that one problem is that in our society those who
get to be called beautiful and those who are called ugly are determined
by standards arbitrarily set by us. Somehow there's some fault
attached to the idea that we the people are the ones who set the
standards of beauty well we're the ones who have to look at one another
so why shouldn't we be the ones who set the standards? I'm
confused.
I would say the whole thing was stupid, but that's my next topic,
and
it would sound like a cheap transition. So stupid, it's important
to
face one thing about stupidity -- we can't get away from it! It's all
around us! Doesn't take a team of professional investigators to
discover that there are stupid people in the world. Their
presence,
and its effects speaks for itself, but where do these stupid people come from?
Well
they come from American schools. But while they're
attending these
schools they're never identified as stupid that comes later when they
grow up when they're kids you can't call them stupid, which may be
contributing to the problem. Unfortunately kids, stupid or otherwise,
come under a sort of protective umbrella we've established that
prevents them from being exposed to the real world until, at 18, their
parents spring them on the rest of us, full-grown! There are stupid
kids, and I do wish to be careful how I negotiate the minefield of the
learning disabled and the developmentally disadvantaged. In other
words, those with special needs .
All of these being more examples of this tiresome and ridiculous
language. I just want to talk about kids who are stupid, not the
ones
with
dings (one of the terms
now used to describe these stupid kids) ....
