[ars]

Have you never heard of the euphemism treadmill?

It doesn't matter what you call it - nothing is going to change the reality. You might as well use the first word that was coined for it and stop. Every new word you find will eventually have the same emotional significance, since the underlying reality isn't going to change.

And calling something by how you're not going to have it is ridiculous - yes, please walk into my charred pieces of wood, while I search for my soon to be lost keys and give you a ride in the crushed metal.

[alanctgardner2]

The "euphemism treadmill" is interesting, but the goal in changing terminology isn't necessarily to escape previous negative connotations. It usually better reflects our current understanding of a particular disability or state. Saying that it doesn't change the reality is pretty ignorant; many people overcome physical disabilities, only to be looked down upon by society.

For example, "retard" is overwhelmingly negative. Saying someone has a learning disability doesn't magically make them learn better, but it does:

A) treat them as a person. Imagine if we had a particular term for a person with cancer. They're not a person now, they're a "cancee", or whatever the term is. This is degrading, you're defining them in terms of their illness. The same is true of mental illnesses and physical disabilities.

B) affect reality by changing the social situation. Treating someone with a disability with respect and referring to them in the way they prefer doesn't fix all their problems, but it is a contribution you can make to helping them. This is really true of all people; you might not be able to fix everyone's problems, but you should still be nice to them.

I agree that the currently able label is a stretch, partially because it's about labeling yourself. If you don't want to be referred to as currently able, that's your choice, and I don't think it negatively impacts other people.

Edit: I meant to add that a good counter example for the treadmill is reclamation: see dyke marches, use of the word "nigger" in black culture. There aren't a lot of terms that have come full circle in modern culture, but there also aren't many iterations on the treadmill so far

[tossacct]

Regarding the "euphemism treadmill": sometimes it is necessary to coin a new euphemism. For example, if the common usage of a word is different from its original meaning. "Homosexual" was the name of a psychological disorder, "moron", "retard", and "idiot" were all clinical definitions of mental handicap.

Times change, words continuously change meaning. Use the words that your audience understands, not the ones that your audience understood last week or one hundred years ago.

[ars]

That's the whole reason it's a treadmill: The new words will rapidly take on the new, undesired but real, meaning.

[tossacct]

I think we agree that the euphemism treadmill(ET) exists, and that (ET) means that our words constantly change meaning.

Your original post used it as a reason not to coin a new word: >>>It doesn't matter what you call it - nothing is going to change the reality. You might as well use the first word that was coined for it and stop.

I am saying that the (ET) is precisely the reason to coin a new word. Otherwise, your audience will not understand what you are talking about.

If you speak a language your audience doesn't understand, your audience will not understand your language. This applies to all languages: french, english, perl, python, and the euphemism treadmill.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do, including speaking the languages they understand if you would like them to understand your speech.

[lmm]

But whether I say "cripple" or "disabled person" or whatever the current euphemism du jour is, surely any audience understands what I mean equally well.

[tossacct]

I think that we can agree that any reasonable audience acting in good faith SHOULD understand, but I think we can also agree that most audiences are not made up of reasonable people acting in good faith, which likely predisposes failures of understanding.

I'll get specific with two mechanisms of failure that I've seen. Let's say that there is a euphemism treadmill that starts with the word A then proceeds alphabetically to K. A was created in 1852, and K is "the current euphemism du jour". Your favorite word is E, created in 1960 and popularized in the 70s, replaced with F in 1981.

Mechanism 1:your audience consists of people born after 1981 who are unaware that E is even on the treadmill at all, and they don't understand that E->F->G->H->I->J->K .

They have an opportunity to act in good faith and say "lmm, the word E is incredibly offensive to me. Did I misunderstand you?"

And then you could reply "Yes you misunderstood me because political correctness ruined the word E, I actually meant the current euphemism du jour which is K."

Another case is a person who is aware of the treadmill and does understand you, but decides that they are more interested in being offended than continuing the discussion. They will then decide to talk about their poor little feelings instead of whatever the discussion was actually about.

If you want to get a point across to that specific type of idiot, you need to use their language so they can't get distracted with their "feelings". Same thing goes for the rest of their irrational customs, and probably most of yours and mine as well. When in Rome.

One thing to note is that old words sometimes really are so offensive that their meanings should be either treadmilled or redefined. Homosexuality was the technical term for an illegal mental disorder that the computer hero Alan Turing(Turing machine, Turing test, WWII Enigma decoder) was chemically castrated for. Bill Hicks has a short bit about Jesus not wanting to see people wearing crosses when he comes back, I would think the same would apply to people who survived homosexual persecution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcM01akD0SA&feature=playe...