brythain wrote:I mean, if you call me an African-American and I complain that I am zero per cent African and that term is insulting to me, then the logical thing to ask is, "So, what do you want me to call you, then?"
Off-topic, but: are you even American?
(Also, if you trace back far enough, we're all
metalangel wrote:I provided a lot of facts and evidence.
The only facts you've given are that certain organizations will tell you certain things about the word. If you accept the overarching authority of those organizations over language, then this means something. If not, then not.
I don't know why you guys don't seem to have seen the quotes I posted from terminology sites
Well, let's look at the one you just posted (I think it's a copy/paste of one of the earlier ones) and maybe we'll see what the problem is.
The FCCDHH wrote:Deaf-Mute -- Another offensive term from the 18th-19th century, "mute" also means silent and without voice. This label is technically inaccurate, since deaf and hard of hearing people generally have functioning vocal chords. The problem lies with the fact that to successfully modulate your voice, you need to be able to hear your own voice. Again, because deaf and hard of hearing people use various methods of communication other than using their voices, they are not truly mute. True communication occurs when one's message is understood by others, and they can respond in kind.
What have they stated here?
- "Deaf-Mute": Well, we're off to a rocky start, since the term being debated is just plain "mute", not "deaf-mute". But let's soldier on.
- "offensive term": An assertion that it's offensive. Why? We can only surmise the following sentences are intended to explain. So:
- "'mute' also means silent and without voice." Ok, well, that doesn't sound as though it's insulting. They're just explaining what it means. Let's keep going.
- "This label is technically inaccurate, since deaf and hard of hearing people generally have functioning vocal chords." Wait. What? "Silent and without voice" doesn't mean "no functioning vocal cords". If I just up and decide never to talk again one day, I am indeed "silent and without voice". Not to mention that a lot of other things can be wrong besides vocal cords to induce incapability to speak. And anyway, there are in fact going to be some deaf people who do have a physical incapability of some kind preventing speech. So the label — even if this baseless dismissal of voluntary muteness were adhered to — wouldn't be inaccurate when applied to them. Therefore not offensive? Well, apparently not, since they just blanket-forbade it. Ok, what else?
- "to successfully modulate your voice, you need to be able to hear your own voice." Well, that's just factually wrong. Ask any of the deaf people out there who do in fact successfully modulate their voices every day. They'll tell you. By talking.
- "because deaf and hard of hearing people use various methods of communication other than using their voices, they are not truly mute": Moving the goalposts here, aren't we? They just finished establishing that "mute" means "silent and without voice". But now we're going shift to different, metaphorical senses of the words "voice" and "mute"?
It's quite a mess. In the end, the only actual point I can see here for offensiveness is using the term where it doesn't apply. But they manage to undercut that message by applying incorrect assertions on their own, and ignoring use where it does
apply. So, hrm. At any rate, nothing here is close to demonstrating that the term is inherently wrong. Furthermore, if we go ahead and let the term turn into a pure slur by forbidding anyone from using it, we (1) grant absolute insulting power where there was less or none and (2) invite the exact same process to happen with whatever replacement term is chosen ("'Voice off'? I'm not 'voice off', I didn't choose
not to speak! How dare
you! That's it, no one gets to use the term 'voice off' ever again!").
All told, it's kinda beyond me why you keep insisting that "mute" can only mean physical incapacity to talk.
It's kinda beyond me why you even made the remote control analogy in the first place
Changing the subject instead of answering? Bold move, Cotton.
It wasn't an analogy. The topic was what associations people had in their minds with the word. To you, apparently, seeing that button on your TV remote labeled "MUTE" must send you into a scarlet rage, since the manufacturer must be mocking the deaf by their blatant use of a pure slur word. To the rest of us, it's an ordinary, useful word 100-minus-epsilon percent of the times we've ever seen it in our lives, and can therefore not imagine why it should turn into a slur.
I hardly need people in my life who go around searching for innocuous things to be offended about and telling me how I'm allowed to talk.
You certainly get an A in assertiveness. Nobody tells you what to do.
You don't seem terribly inclined otherwise, yourself. Except when a certain magic word is invoked, then it's Katie bar the door.
Or, hey, just snort at me more, that works, right?
Is there much point doing anything else at this stage?
Probably not, being that you've decided you're above reconsidering the basis of anything you're asserting.
Your own attempts are all rooted in insisting that there can be no other kind of muteness besides physical incapability, and despite your flailing, we can all plainly see that voluntary muteness is still muteness.
Is that a 'technically correct is the best type of correct' situation?
Well, since you seem impervious to factual correctness, let's try the political approach you seem to credit so much.
How do you think your insistent segregation of involuntary muteness, like it's some kind of filth, makes people feel who are in fact physically incapable of speech? Apparently they're so vile to you that you'll go to the trouble of reshaping the whole world's very use of language to back it up. Why do you hate them so much?
You might not agree or understand why it's offensive to them, so that's carte blanche to tell them where to go?
Hey, if they're dead-set on creating and popularizing a powerful slur against themselves, I'm in no position to stop them. But I can certainly sit here and shake my head at how ass-backward it is.