“Increased muscle tone and rigidity” would be better.
Yes, but you need to be very careful as to how certain groups use language - I refer you here to “Black lives matter” vs “All lives matter”.
Although it is, indeed, true that all lives matter this phrase was warped when used by white supremacist groups in the US because whites are not a disproportionate target of police violence in the US but blacks are.
Yes but, in doing so one needs to take care that one does not denigrate, mock, disparage or discriminate. Which is unfortunately what a lot of people wish to do when they complain that “wokeness” is robbing them of their free speech.
I have always understood it derives from horse racing and levelling the field by use of handicaps, as in the total opposite of current interpretation. Horse racing was much more a cross-channel activity than urchins holding out caps.
The horse racing use dates from 1754 but the original creation of the noun ‘handicap’ comes from a game played 100 yrs previously. 1650s from hand in cap, a game whereby two bettors would engage a neutral umpire to determine the odds in an unequal contest. The bettors would put their hands holding forfeit money into a hat or cap. The umpire would announce the odds and the bettors would withdraw their hands — hands full meaning that they accepted the odds and the bet was on, hands empty meaning they did not accept the bet and were willing to forfeit the money. If one forfeited, then the money went to the other. If both agreed either on forfeiting or going ahead with the wager, then the umpire kept the money as payment.
Snopes has it as a false etymology but false or not it has fallen into disfavour - indeed the term “disabled” as opposed to “less abled” or “differently abled” has also fallen into disfavour.
Language shapes our thoughts, even our ability to think about some things (Orwell recognised this in 1984 with Newspeak) - describing someone as “disabled” lowers their worth, describing someone as handicapped also does so if it conjures (rightly or wrongly) an image on a beggar cap in hand.
I know Robert will pooh-pooh this but choosing non loaded terms is important.
Thanks Robert - we both referenced the same etymology.
In this case even if the derivation is not to do with beggars the false explanation is so widely believed that it might as well be true for the purposes of discussing why the term “handicapped” is not accptable.
Switching focus a bit - Robert - would you want freedom to use the “N” word to describe a person of colour?
As I said given that it is so widely believed that this is the origin it might as well be true when we are discussing whether the word “handicapped” has negative effect.
Oh Billy, clearly you have not been to the USA recently.
‘Person of colour’ or indeed ‘cloured person’ is a total NO No.
They are not coloured, they are Black !
As regards your question, indeed I feel discriminated against when a black person may refer to themself as an N word but I, because I am of caucasion appearance, may not.
Sauce for the goose and all that.
I note that the censorship of this site will not even allow me to spell out the N word as I had wished to do so, even in a relatively academic discussion such as this.
No, nor do I wish to. Which is a pity in many ways but their society is so broken.
AFAIK “person of colour” is still an acceptable umbrella term - “Black” is specific to those of Afro-Carribean origin; “coloured person” is, I agree you are right, not acceptable.
It might best be avoided but I personally would not object to spelling it out in full as part of a discussion - though I would feel it unnecessary and perhaps just included for shock value.
Anyway if you can see that that word is not acceptable, you should be able to see that a word which started out in a purely descriptive usage (from the latin for black) can become, over time, unacceptable.
I mean, just as a collection of letters it should be no different to the term “Black” - yet I doubt any sane person would try to argue that equivalence today.
What I do think is that it is odd that a black person should be protected from the N word but that it is OK to refer to a Mexican as a ‘Wetback’.
BTW. In the US a person who is not white, asian, chinese or latino is Black, which is why both Obama and Harris are regarded as being Black when by UK standards they are not.
Is it though? Acceptable that is. I admit I hadn’t seen the term before but it appears derogatory.
Are you happy to be a “rosbif”? OK, that’s nowhere near as strong (roughly equivalent to “frog” I guess) but still less positive than its origin as an observation as to the English national dish.
“Person of colour” would still cover all of the above, no?
Oh I don’t mind being a ‘rosbif’ although I would probably object to other obscene adjectives being placed around it.
‘Wetback’ in the US is just as derogatory as the N word, and although you might just get away with using “person of colour” if you were not referring to a black person, you certainly should not use that term to someone who identifies themself as being ‘Black’.
In conclusion I feel that if one is going to stop folks from writing the word N i g g e r without the spaces, then the many other words which are used to disparage persons of particular ethnicity or origin should also be banned, as to do otherwise is of itself discriminatory.
I note how this thread has morphed from French linguistic challenge to English ones
There are always plenty of dangers for a new learner of language. (I’ll spare you the excruciating errors that can be made in Cantonese, some of which have regrettably ended as permanent tattoos.)
In French, the perfectly acceptable verb ‘to kiss’ has somersaulted in common use into ‘to make love’. A frightening mistake to make in a country where the former is a popular greeting.
When I’m chatting with new acquaintances, apart from apologising for my accent and grammar … I make the point that if, by any chance, I say something “bad, rude etc” it will be by mistake and will they please forgive me
and they always agree to do so… and we have a good laugh
Is it ok though? Every online dictionary defines it as derogatory and a slur. It might be acceptable in some circles but probably not those that you would want to be in.
and we have a good laugh 