Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: MLB rename the “Disabled List”

  1. Top | #11
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,585
    Rep Power
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by ronburgundy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TV and credit cards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by thebeave View Post
    When these things happen, I always wonder if its actually the people that are affected (in this case, disabled people) that complain, or is it just random goody two shoes who are eternally offended or outraged and think they speak on behalf of the affected group.
    They Meanwell.

    "Injured List" is more descriptive and accurate. "Disabled List" sounds like hires for the sake of being inclusive.
    Exactly. The issue is not that the term "disabled" is offensive, but that its inaccurate and misleading to use the term to refer to players who are being kept off an active player roster due to a temporary injury.

    There are players with disabilities who are on active rosters in pro sports, and almost none of the players on "disabled lists" have a disability as the term is commonly used and understood.

    The only snowflakes getting offending over nothing are the one's complaining about the change to a more objectively correct term.
    The term disabled has many meanings and contexts. A machine has been disabled. Didn't pay the bill and my cable has been disabled. And so on.

    The idea tyat we weed out all words possibly offensive to people will lead to a policaly correct authorterian stae of expression.

    The opposite of what the 1st amendent means.

    There are some cases. In manufacturing mechanical fixtures used to be called jigs. The term jig is a black slur and it passed from usage. Eliminating the word disabled in baseball is ridiculous.

    Handicapped was suppressed in favor of challenged. Are handicapped people so emotionally weak they need to be coddled? As I currently live with about 100 people all of which are handicapped in some way I say not. Myself included. It ios not severe for me but handicapped non the less.

    Personally the idea of being coddled by a bunch of do gooders makes me sick.

    MLB is protecting its brand. They are afraid of social media.

  2. Top | #12
    Intergalactic Villainess Angry Floof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Sector 001
    Posts
    9,000
    Archived
    14,435
    Total Posts
    23,435
    Rep Power
    58
    The power of language is scary (for some people).
    The Authoritarians

    GOP and Trump supporters will not be able to say they didn't know. Vote in numbers too big to manipulate.

  3. Top | #13
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Silicon Valley, CA
    Posts
    2,362
    Archived
    4,183
    Total Posts
    6,545
    Rep Power
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ronburgundy View Post

    Exactly. The issue is not that the term "disabled" is offensive, but that its inaccurate and misleading to use the term to refer to players who are being kept off an active player roster due to a temporary injury.

    There are players with disabilities who are on active rosters in pro sports, and almost none of the players on "disabled lists" have a disability as the term is commonly used and understood.

    The only snowflakes getting offending over nothing are the one's complaining about the change to a more objectively correct term.
    The term disabled has many meanings and contexts. A machine has been disabled. Didn't pay the bill and my cable has been disabled. And so on.

    The idea tyat we weed out all words possibly offensive to people will lead to a policaly correct authorterian stae of expression.

    The opposite of what the 1st amendent means.

    There are some cases. In manufacturing mechanical fixtures used to be called jigs. The term jig is a black slur and it passed from usage. Eliminating the word disabled in baseball is ridiculous.

    Handicapped was suppressed in favor of challenged. Are handicapped people so emotionally weak they need to be coddled? As I currently live with about 100 people all of which are handicapped in some way I say not. Myself included. It ios not severe for me but handicapped non the less.

    Personally the idea of being coddled by a bunch of do gooders makes me sick.

    MLB is protecting its brand. They are afraid of social media.
    Agreed. I remember seeing an outake from an interview awhile ago where a congenitally blind man did some amazing outdoor athletic feat. Forgot what it was exactly, but it was pretty impressive. The interviewer was some PC nutter who kept calling him, "optically challenged", etc. You could tell the guy was getting annoyed by her thinking she was protecting his feelings, and finally he said, "Lady, I'm fucking blind!". She turned bright red and stumbled over her words after that. It was actually quite hilarious.

  4. Top | #14
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    22,815
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    65,288
    Rep Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Godless Raven View Post
    It was only a few years ago "we" were being told by "them" that you can't call a disabled person disabled. Now you can't call the list of non-able bodied players disabled because...why? What in the fuck? What do these retards think the opposite of able bodied is? Let's just call it the "Super Able - They Can Do Anything Even Better Than Ever - Fucking Amazing Bedazzled Players List"!

    Fucking Nutters. PC police can shove an AIDs infected dildo up their walnut cracking asses and spin around screaming all the words they don't want other people to say....preferably in a sound proof closet.
    Personally, I call a person that is disabled by their name.

  5. Top | #15
    Veteran Member KeepTalking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    St. Louis Metro East
    Posts
    3,278
    Archived
    3,057
    Total Posts
    6,335
    Rep Power
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Godless Raven View Post
    It was only a few years ago "we" were being told by "them" that you can't call a disabled person disabled.
    Was it now? Are you sure that was the word, I am thinking it was a different word, but I am having trouble remembering...

    Quote Originally Posted by Godless Raven View Post
    Now you can't call the list of non-able bodied players disabled because...why? What in the fuck? What do these retards think the opposite of able bodied is?
    Oh, yeah, that was the one, thanks for reminding me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Godless Raven View Post
    PC police can shove an AIDs infected dildo up their walnut cracking asses and spin around screaming all the words they don't want other people to say....preferably in a sound proof closet.
    Those are some pretty damn ineffective police. They sure as hell aren't stopping you from saying anything you like about people who are different from you. Also, it seems that MLB came to this decision on their own, without any input from the PCPD. Perhaps you are getting a little worked up over nothing, as the freedom to be an offensive asshole in North America is in no way curtailed by this kind of thing.

    Of course, the flip side of that freedom is the freedom for others to try to shame you for being an offensive asshole. If that worries you, maybe you should stop saying and doing things that you are ashamed of.

  6. Top | #16
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,710
    Rep Power
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ronburgundy View Post

    Exactly. The issue is not that the term "disabled" is offensive, but that its inaccurate and misleading to use the term to refer to players who are being kept off an active player roster due to a temporary injury.

    There are players with disabilities who are on active rosters in pro sports, and almost none of the players on "disabled lists" have a disability as the term is commonly used and understood.

    The only snowflakes getting offending over nothing are the one's complaining about the change to a more objectively correct term.
    The term disabled has many meanings and contexts. A machine has been disabled. Didn't pay the bill and my cable has been disabled. And so on.
    This isn't about inanimate objects. It is very specifically referring to person's as disabled, and MLBs "disabled list" is among the only uses of the term applied to person that means merely not playing due to temporarily injured rather than a person with a more permanent disability who may or may not be playing. Anyone hearing the term "disabled list" who did not have specific knowledge of how the MLB uses the term would have a notion in their head that is not what MLB is intended. Thus, MLB is merely correcting their use of language to be more in tune to common usage. Take 100 people who know very little about the MLB and ask them what "disabled list" means and what "injured list" means. 100% of them will give answers to "injured list" that is much closer to what the MLB is trying to convey. Thus, "injured list" is an objectively better term for their list.

    The idea tyat we weed out all words possibly offensive to people will lead to a policaly correct authorterian stae of expression.
    The opposite of what the 1st amendent means.
    The 1st Amendment has zero relevance, b/c the government is in no way involved. And people choosing to revise their language to be more accurate is not authoritarian, it rational. And people's choosing to revise their language b/c it creates an unintended harmful association for some people (in this case, the association that a person with a disability cannot play a sport) is not authoritarian, it is called being ethical.

    There are instances of irrational PC word control, but this is not an example. An probable example would be the switch from handicapped to disabled. Handicapped seems like the less insulting term, b/c it merely implies the person is at a disadvantage for some things but could still overcome that disadvantage unlike "disability" which implies the person is inherently not able to perform the task so why bother trying. Handicapped was already a term employed by sociologists and social workers empathetic to the people to whom it referred, replacing terms like crippled and imbecile which had acquired centuries of use as insults and derogation.
    But during the 1990s, activists made the poor choice to try demand a change in language to symbolize the more meaningful change in rights and accommodations they were seeking. They were not the one's who made "handicapped" the standard term, so they wanted to force a change to a term they had chosen and they somehow chose disabled. IOW, there was no sound basis to claim that disabled was the more ethically or factually correct term, thus this was an example of being merely "politically correct" but not any real kind of correct sensible people should care about.

    In contrast, now that "disabled" has come to be the prevailing term for this group of people and are who is being referred to 99.99% of the time when a person is referred to as disabled, it is objectively misleading to refer to a group of people who are being kept from playing a sport due to a temporary injury as being disabled. .

    The problem with conservative snowflakes is that they go into a tizzy every time language (which is inherently and always under change) is revised, and want to lump every instance into the basket of unreasonable PC.

    Notice that neither you nor anyone complaining about this change has bothered to address the obvious fact that "injured" is a more specific and accurate term to refer to who and why the person is on this MLB list. You just want to rant and rave about language changing b/c it fits your narrative.

  7. Top | #17
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    2,120
    Rep Power
    9
    Quote Originally Posted by Godless Raven View Post
    It was only a few years ago "we" were being told by "them" that you can't call a disabled person disabled. Now you can't call the list of non-able bodied players disabled because...why? What in the fuck? What do these retards think the opposite of able bodied is? Let's just call it the "Super Able - They Can Do Anything Even Better Than Ever - Fucking Amazing Bedazzled Players List"!

    Fucking Nutters. PC police can shove an AIDs infected dildo up their walnut cracking asses and spin around screaming all the words they don't want other people to say....preferably in a sound proof closet.
    It's possible, given the evidence of this post, that you may not be the best authority on polite manners. Or perhaps I missed the etiquette course on AIDS infected walnuts. Nevertheless, were I in charge of public relations for an incredibly lucrative business, I'm not sure your advice is specifically what I would be using as my guidepost to likely public reactions. At least, not if I wanted to keep my job. Which most of us, I assume, do.

    If it costs one nothing to say A instead of B, and at least some people strongly disprefer B, it makes the most sense to just say A.

  8. Top | #18
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    4,585
    Rep Power
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by ronburgundy View Post

    This isn't about inanimate objects. It is very specifically referring to person's as disabled, and MLBs "disabled list" is among the only uses of the term applied to person that means merely not playing due to temporarily injured rather than a person with a more permanent disability who may or may not be playing. Anyone hearing the term "disabled list" who did not have specific knowledge of how the MLB uses the term would have a notion in their head that is not what MLB is intended. Thus, MLB is merely correcting their use of language to be more in tune to common usage. Take 100 people who know very little about the MLB and ask them what "disabled list" means and what "injured list" means. 100% of them will give answers to "injured list" that is much closer to what the MLB is trying to convey. Thus, "injured list" is an objectively better term for their list.

    The idea tyat we weed out all words possibly offensive to people will lead to a policaly correct authorterian stae of expression.
    The opposite of what the 1st amendent means.
    The 1st Amendment has zero relevance, b/c the government is in no way involved. And people choosing to revise their language to be more accurate is not authoritarian, it rational. And people's choosing to revise their language b/c it creates an unintended harmful association for some people (in this case, the association that a person with a disability cannot play a sport) is not authoritarian, it is called being ethical.

    There are instances of irrational PC word control, but this is not an example. An probable example would be the switch from handicapped to disabled. Handicapped seems like the less insulting term, b/c it merely implies the person is at a disadvantage for some things but could still overcome that disadvantage unlike "disability" which implies the person is inherently not able to perform the task so why bother trying. Handicapped was already a term employed by sociologists and social workers empathetic to the people to whom it referred, replacing terms like crippled and imbecile which had acquired centuries of use as insults and derogation.
    But during the 1990s, activists made the poor choice to try demand a change in language to symbolize the more meaningful change in rights and accommodations they were seeking. They were not the one's who made "handicapped" the standard term, so they wanted to force a change to a term they had chosen and they somehow chose disabled. IOW, there was no sound basis to claim that disabled was the more ethically or factually correct term, thus this was an example of being merely "politically correct" but not any real kind of correct sensible people should care about.

    In contrast, now that "disabled" has come to be the prevailing term for this group of people and are who is being referred to 99.99% of the time when a person is referred to as disabled, it is objectively misleading to refer to a group of people who are being kept from playing a sport due to a temporary injury as being disabled. .

    The problem with conservative snowflakes is that they go into a tizzy every time language (which is inherently and always under change) is revised, and want to lump every instance into the basket of unreasonable PC.

    Notice that neither you nor anyone complaining about this change has bothered to address the obvious fact that "injured" is a more specific and accurate term to refer to who and why the person is on this MLB list. You just want to rant and rave about language changing b/c it fits your narrative.
    It is supremely relevant. In a pluralistic society such as ours we al can not walk on egg shells worrying about how every word may be seen, and we all are required to tolerate some level of discomfort from others. The alternative is social engineering language with the indent o creating a womb like Disney cartoon reality where no one ever feels pain.

    They are, and I am 'disabled'. You can take your ridiculous moralizing and well...stuff it. Is there actualy a sizeable num,ber of handicapped people actually angered about MLB? How about hnadicappers in horde racing? They dtyermine how much extra weight has to carry in a race.

    So we can no longer say someone was crippled in a car accident. Now we say he or she has mobility problems erelating to being unable to use legs...?

    This is just the tip of the iceberg. Last year in Ca a couple of white women were hounded out of business who stared a food truck business selling in part Mexican food. They were accused of publically incorrectly appropriating Mexican culture.

    And another thing people like you are patronizing. Do you thin disabled people are so god damn weak and emotionally vulnerable that they need you to worry about the use of disabled by MLB? Or does it just make you feel good to moralize.

    What we are seeing is the rise of a thought police. Unelected groups using social media to intimidate groups like MLB to conform to a verbal morality. Where is the outcry and anger towards the explicit and degrading misogyny that has crept into music? We will never see that because people think vile language in music is art.
    Last edited by steve_bank; 02-12-2019 at 05:07 AM.

  9. Top | #19
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    22,815
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    65,288
    Rep Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ronburgundy View Post

    This isn't about inanimate objects. It is very specifically referring to person's as disabled, and MLBs "disabled list" is among the only uses of the term applied to person that means merely not playing due to temporarily injured rather than a person with a more permanent disability who may or may not be playing. Anyone hearing the term "disabled list" who did not have specific knowledge of how the MLB uses the term would have a notion in their head that is not what MLB is intended. Thus, MLB is merely correcting their use of language to be more in tune to common usage. Take 100 people who know very little about the MLB and ask them what "disabled list" means and what "injured list" means. 100% of them will give answers to "injured list" that is much closer to what the MLB is trying to convey. Thus, "injured list" is an objectively better term for their list.

    The idea tyat we weed out all words possibly offensive to people will lead to a policaly correct authorterian stae of expression.
    The opposite of what the 1st amendent means.
    The 1st Amendment has zero relevance, b/c the government is in no way involved. And people choosing to revise their language to be more accurate is not authoritarian, it rational. And people's choosing to revise their language b/c it creates an unintended harmful association for some people (in this case, the association that a person with a disability cannot play a sport) is not authoritarian, it is called being ethical.

    There are instances of irrational PC word control, but this is not an example. An probable example would be the switch from handicapped to disabled. Handicapped seems like the less insulting term, b/c it merely implies the person is at a disadvantage for some things but could still overcome that disadvantage unlike "disability" which implies the person is inherently not able to perform the task so why bother trying. Handicapped was already a term employed by sociologists and social workers empathetic to the people to whom it referred, replacing terms like crippled and imbecile which had acquired centuries of use as insults and derogation.
    But during the 1990s, activists made the poor choice to try demand a change in language to symbolize the more meaningful change in rights and accommodations they were seeking. They were not the one's who made "handicapped" the standard term, so they wanted to force a change to a term they had chosen and they somehow chose disabled. IOW, there was no sound basis to claim that disabled was the more ethically or factually correct term, thus this was an example of being merely "politically correct" but not any real kind of correct sensible people should care about.

    In contrast, now that "disabled" has come to be the prevailing term for this group of people and are who is being referred to 99.99% of the time when a person is referred to as disabled, it is objectively misleading to refer to a group of people who are being kept from playing a sport due to a temporary injury as being disabled. .

    The problem with conservative snowflakes is that they go into a tizzy every time language (which is inherently and always under change) is revised, and want to lump every instance into the basket of unreasonable PC.

    Notice that neither you nor anyone complaining about this change has bothered to address the obvious fact that "injured" is a more specific and accurate term to refer to who and why the person is on this MLB list. You just want to rant and rave about language changing b/c it fits your narrative.
    It is supremely relevant. In a pluralistic society such as ours we al can not walk on egg shells worrying about how every word may be seen, and we all are required to tolerate some level of discomfort from others. The alternative is social engineering language with the indent o creating a womb like Disney cartoon reality where no one ever feels pain.
    [Jan Brady]Inertia! Inertia Inertia![/Jan Brady]

    This from a guy who gets upset when people criticize his spelling (due to a disability he has).

    So we can no longer say someone was crippled in a car accident. Now we say he or she has mobility problems erelating to being unable to use legs...?
    We can say whatever we want. The whole point is identifying a person as a person, not as their disability.

    What we are seeing is the rise of a thought police. Unelected groups using social media to intimidate groups like MLB to conform to a verbal morality. Where is the outcry and anger towards the explicit and degrading misogyny that has crept into music? We will never see that because people think vile language in music is art.
    Vile language is art? Uh oh... looks like someone is a having "back in my days" moment of forgetfulness.

  10. Top | #20
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    West Hollywood
    Posts
    3,654
    Rep Power
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by jladam View Post
    I'm sorry. Could you please explain again how this negatively affects your life?
    It probably won't have much of an impact on my life. There may be an occasion where in conversation I may say "uh-oh, Clayton Kershaw has been put on the "DL", Dodgers could miss him in the next few games." And a SJW in the company will start their finger wagging lecture about how "It's not DISABLED LIST, it's INJURY LIST you insensitive monster !!". Sportscasters may inadvertently use the term DL (as they have done for decades) in public and the Twatterati lynch mob will go ape shit resulting in the sportscaster being hauled off air and dragged to the gulag for some "sensitivity training", if they are lucky.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-06-2017, 07:41 PM
  2. Can we rename this forum?
    By Loren Pechtel in forum US Presidential Politics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 05-26-2017, 01:47 PM
  3. Politics vs Tradition - derail from Can we rename this forum
    By Lion IRC in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-26-2017, 01:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •