The s-word By Damon Rose Editor of BBC disability website Ouch! Link Woods has apologised Golfer Tiger Woods has been criticised for saying he played like 'a spaz'. Can using the word ever be right? Two years ago I was involved in a linguistic incident at work. I called a disabled colleague a spaz after hearing he'd spilt coffee over yet another expensive bit of computer kit. My colleague laughed it off. It was a friendly bit of banter - spaz in this case meaning I thought he was being a bit of a stereotype like the helpless disabled people you used to see in telethons and charity posters. I use the term with irony as someone who was regularly called a "spaz" in the school playground, though I'm visually impaired and not what we once called "a spastic". To confuse the issue, a non-disabled colleague had overheard and told me that she found that term offensive and thanked me not to use it in front of her. I was offended that she was offended because I didn't feel it was her place to be offended... after all, it's not her word and she wouldn't have been taunted with it. Bigger punch There is a history of minority groups reclaiming words once used against them. Gay people refer to each other as queer or queens. Black people use ****** in a friendly way. It's about humour, irony and taking the sting out of once powerful and hurtful taunts. It ain't what you say, it's the way that you say it. So what did Tiger Woods mean when he said: "I was so in control from tee to green, the best I've played for years... But as soon as I got on the green I was a spaz." He was describing a poor performance. A flawed performance. An impaired performance. Many e-mails to the Ouch! website on Tuesday were from people wanting to point out that spaz means something different in America. "It just means idiot," one reader wrote. Idiot with an etymological nod towards spasticity though? Is the fact that a nation has lost sight of the origins of the word a good or bad thing? Is it harmful or is it genuinely meaningless now? ADAPT is America's biggest grassroots disability rights organisation. I rang round some of their members and found out that they didn't even know about the Woods story as it wasn't reported as widely over there. But they did have views on the s-word. "When people say 'you're such a spaz' they're talking about someone with cerebral palsy," says Nancy Salandra from Philadelphia ADAPT. "People use it all the time but they are wrong. It's part of the language now, like r****d, but it doesn't make it right." "I would think that anybody in the disability community would see it as offensive," says Babs Johnson of National ADAPT. "It would be looked upon as someone having a fit or seizure or something like that. Body movements that you're not able to control." Ugly Tiger Woods used the word in a live TV interview. An article on Tuesday in online newspaper The Age tracked the reporting of Woods comments and found that spaz was edited out of subsequent news packages. They also say that an LA Times reporter got Tiger to re-word his sentence replacing spaz with wreck so he could report it with no problems. TOP TEN WORST WORDS 1. r****d 2. Spastic 3. Window-licker 4. Mong 5. Special 6. Brave 7. Cripple 8. Psycho 9. Handicapped 10. Wheelchair-bound Ouch! Worst Words vote In the UK, the words spaz and spastic seem to pack a bigger punch. I think we can firmly place the blame at the door of Blue Peter for this. Never was its potency or currency so big as when the programme featured Joey Deacon in the early 1980s, believing the story of a 60-year-old man with cerebral palsy overcoming the odds would touch the hearts of under-12s. Oh, how wrong. It unleashed a monster. Spaz, spastic, spacker, joey, spazmo - all became familiar phrases that year and were still being used years later by gurning children in the playground. Spaz became synonymous with useless incompetence - the type you see in disabled people portrayed badly on TV. Joey even got a mention in a Human League song and on Minder. Not long after, The Spastics Society famously changed its name to Scope. They should have charged Blue Peter for the re-branding expenses. Humour Interestingly though, Scope were criticised by many younger disabled people last October after they came out against a new US brand of wheelchair, The Spazz, which started selling in Britain. They said: "It may be a good chair but we can't accept the name. If it carries on, it won't be long before children are calling each other 'spazzo' in the playground again." It was felt that Scope didn't appreciate the irony and humour, used empoweringly, by a company trying to associate something positive with a previously negative word. Though this golfing incident has whipped up some interesting discussions around language, I'm convinced Tiger never meant to use the word offensively. But has this whole debate just fanned the flames of those who rail against so-called political correctness or has it made people think about how they might subconsciously be putting disabled people down?
I think we need to go back and re-examine what the article specifically says. That is pretty much straight forward Georgia Tech banning her from expressing her intolerant viewpoint which IMO is an infringement of freedom of speech. Georgia Tech as a public institution should be abiding by the First Ammendment and while under no obligation to fund her group shouldn't restrict them from expressing their viewpoints. Where it gets confusing is that the writer uses the term "harassment". While yes its true that they want to overturn these laws from the first paragraph of the article the issue seems to be allowing them to even express that they have an intolerant viewpoint. While I think this is a tortured argument on their part and muddies the issue. To me the argument is simpler than that. People have a right to express opinions even if they aren't popular. What gets them into trouble is their belief that they represent mainstream views or by saying that homophobic speech isn't the same as racist speech. Both are speech and the First Ammendment grants the right to speech. There are a few issues here. One is whether this group can discriminate in who are its members. I think the clear answer is yes. Under freedom of association they should be allowed to. The other issue is shold the university recognize them. The university is free to not recognize and especially not fund them. In both instances no rights are being infringed. OTOH though IMO though by forcing her to paint over part of her sign would clearly deny her right to free to speech. There are several issues here and I think what is complicating the issue is how these groups have framed the argument. So while yes they're make arguments that homosexuals should be discriminated against and shouldn't be protected under the same laws that apply to race what I'm reading is that they should have the right to express that view in the first place. What their end goal is doesn't matter so much as the right to express that opinion and also the right to associate with who they want to associate with.
I can understand how you read me wrong. The thread title was awkward. Every American has a right to be a bigot. I hate bigots, but I don't advocate quashing their free speech even if I deplore what they say. And I haven't seen anyone else in this thread advocate that either, so I guess I don't really know why you keep responding as if they or I have. My only point here is that gays should be protected under the same laws as other minorities. You seem to agree with that, albeit only parenthetically, so I don't know if we actually disagree on anything here. You go ahead and war on the PC police. That's fine by me. I'm more concerned with the ones trying to ensure that gays will never receive the same protections under the law that other historically persecuted classes enjoy.
p.s. With regard to the university limiting speech, for the most part I'm not for it. But my main point is that the rules should be the same for free speech that offends gays as they are for free speech that offends blacks or Jews or women.
The laws change from state to state and also on the size of the company. My company having only two owners who also happen to be the only two full time employees we are free to engage in bigotted talk in the work place. Of course if we do so in front of our clients that would probably cause us to lose a lot of clients. You're confusing her viewpoint with the right of her to express that viewpoint. While her viewpoint is that people should legally be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals I'm not defending that but that she should be allowed to express that even if it is offensive. There are several instances cited in the article that says that GeorgiaTech has limited her freedom of speech so this isn't an additional argument or side issue but one that is central to the issue. Under freedom of speech she should be allowed to publicly state that she thinks Asians are an abomination and that laws protecting Asians from discrimination should be repealed. That her ultimate target changes shouldn't deny her the right to express that argument. And they shouldn't be but that is a matter of cultural sanction such as having counter demostrations, boycotts, teach-ins and all sorts of things to shame people like that. Here is where I agree with SM. There is a market place of ideas and you counter hateful speech with other speech. The issue is whether legally those people can be silenced or forced to associate with people they don't agree with. Who says I'm denying equal rights for gays or lesbians? No offense but here is where you are buying into the mirror image of the argument that they make that allowing them to express their homophobic opinions denies gays and lesbians rights. Gays and lesbians are certainly free to express their own opinions and are still protecting from violence and harassment.
If you mandate that someone can't say that homosexuality is wrong, this is limiting their rights, no?
I didn't say or mean to imply you're against equal rights for gays and lesbians. I was simply saying, for the thousandth time, that I am for those rights and I am for equal protection under the law. That is the ENTIRE issue for me. And, again for the thousandth time, I'm not trying to shut this woman up or say she's not allowed to argue against equal protection laws -- only that I think she should lose that legal fight. I don't think SM's been back to clarify his position so I apologize again if I'm getting it wrong, but he seems to say that there should be no laws regarding discrimination against gays (not for hiring practices, housing or anything else). In fact, he further seems to imply that those laws aren't needed to ban discrimination against minorities or women. Is that what you agree with? If so, we're at significant loggerheads. If not, we don't disagree about a damn thing.
Nobody in this thread is saying you can't say that. You can also say that divorce is wrong, that interracial dating is wrong and that simply being black is wrong. And you can say, as you repeatedly do, that being Muslim is wrong. But there are laws against discriminating against people based on gender, race and religion in certain instances. In some cases those laws extend to sexual orientation. Eventually, they all will. And that is as it should be. But you and other Americans will still have the right to hold and express bigoted opinions, so calm down.
An old friend of mine, the one who went off the deep end, became the poster child for the more radical elements of the NRA, and a rabid Bush cheerleader (all this from a former hippie), now believes that Bush has betrayed America, and become a "One World" guy, whatever that means. Because of his stance on immigration. I got to hear all this because he'd sent me a xenophobic, radical nutcase collection of tripe, written by someone I've never heard of, that carries on about a plot being concocted by Mexico to take over the United States by pouring millions of illegal immigrants into the country until they make up a majority, and can vote to "rejoin" Mexico. To say it was bizarre would be an understatement. Needless to say, it's difficult to maintain any kind of friendship with the guy, who I rarely see. I replied to him that I'd asked him before not to send stuff like that to me, deleted the damn garbage, and got the predictable angry reply. (which was when he ranted about Bush, who he couldn't sing enough praises about just a couple of months ago, and said I'd see what ended up happening to the country, so there!) The reason I mention it is that it illustrates the wacko BS being circulated around the country about this issue. That, and the fact that it shows, once again, how utterly stupid it is to base your political beliefs on one issue. In his case, it all centers around the NRA and the right to bear arms. Sadly, it appears that doing that exposes you to just this sort of manianical crap. I know that everyone in the NRA doesn't buy into this stuff, but they are certainly exposed to it. One issue voters, WAKE UP!! Keep D&D Civil.
Hypothetical - In your brave new world, would a Christian bookstore be able to discriminate against gays when it comes to hiring practices? And, assuming that the Christian bookstore is forced to hire a gay, would the gay worker have a case for hostile environment harrassment if the bookstore stocked a number of titles declaring homosexuality a sin?
These are not easy questions as bigotry against gays and lesbians is currently a key tenet of some sects of Christianity. Let me answer your questions with another hypothetical. Let's say that tomorrow the Pope declares that being black is a sin. Should a Catholic bookstore then be allowed to discriminate against blacks when it comes to hiring? And, assuming they are forced to hire blacks, would a black worker have a case if he were asked to sell books advocating white power?
I'm still trying to find out exactly what "rights" are being hindered??? The ONLY one I can think of is the "right" to get married. Are their others? If gay marriage is the only "right" they are still not allowed, then boo-freaking-hoo.
I wouldn't be surprised if certain religious institutions asked, whether on an application or more informally. But when these laws are ultimately passed, I certainly hope they won't begin by leaning toward that ridiculous don't ask/don't tell compromise that's worked so well for the military.
I'm going to chalk your mocking tone here up to ignorance about the heaviness of these issues for some people and just let it go. There are many spousal rights beyond the simple right to get married, for example ones dealing with health care issues. There are also the basic rights now enjoyed by minorities, most notably the right not to be discriminated against for a job or housing. It is currently illegal to refuse to hire or rent an apartment to a black person simply because he is black, for example. The same rights do not currently extend to gays. They should though and eventually they will.
I would argue that the beliefs that should be "forced down someone else's proverbial throat" should be the ones promoting tolerance as opposed to those the promote bigotry, as has been the case in the past.
You seem to be missing the fact that nobody is talking about FORCING someone to hire a homosexual, just not being able to discriminate against an employee who happens to be homosexual. And your hypothetical doesn't hold any more water than in any other bookstore, since I doubt that any employee believes in everything in every book at their store. In that instance, the employee has a right to leave, not to dictate the stock of the store in question. It is the same thing for pharmacists who don't believe in dispensing birth control. They have the right to leave, but not to choose what their employer chooses to sell to customers.
Only inasmuch as you consider harrassment an opinion. This girl can wear "I hate fags" t-shirts and preach hate all day long (in jesus' name, mind you). That would not do any more than irritate me. What she's asking for in her lawsuit is to repeal laws designed to promote tolerance and acceptance. You have the right to be and proclaim yourself a hypocritical christian *******. You don't have the right to proclaim that you are a hypocritical christian ******* in such a way that infringes on someone else's right too "the pursuit of happiness". These laws are designed to discourage violence and discrimination. If this seems to "liberal" for the christians in the audience - well - I think that speaks volumes. On a side note, wikipedia notes that the Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia, contains the phrase "pursuit of happiness" in the following by Justice Warren: Thick irony, no?
