Timeline for Is the term "aspie" derogatory?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
30 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 23, 2020 at 19:02 | vote | accept | Lilienthal | ||
| Jun 15, 2020 at 7:40 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://english.stackexchange.com/ with https://english.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Nov 18, 2015 at 15:50 | comment | added | A.P. | @ToddWilcox Todd, I'm not forgetting it, I try to take it in its immediate context. The word struck OP as "belittling and derogatory". Hence OP's concern about possible offense due to the word's nature. The question is not about tone, accompanying gestures, or qualifying adjectives before "aspie". Of course, as with any word, tone and context matter. But I assume the OP already knows that. And I don't think Andrew's answer is "Yes", I think he simply objected to someone assuming he's OK with the word before he says so. I think he misunderstood my answer a bit, really, but that's OK. | |
| Nov 18, 2015 at 13:27 | comment | added | Todd Wilcox | @A.P. Don't forget the second part of the question: "Is there a good chance that some people might take offence at its usage and should I therefore avoid using it?" If you re-read, you'll see that's what my comments are more focused on. Seems like the best answers to the two questions are "No" (as your answer details) and "Yes" (Andrew's answer), respectively. | |
| Nov 18, 2015 at 12:12 | comment | added | Scott Seidman | People generally don't use affectionate diminutives when dealing with people they don't know. | |
| Nov 17, 2015 at 20:54 | comment | added | A.P. | @ab2 I agree. (Note that gerrit likes the term.) But the question is not about presumption. It's whether the term is inherently derogatory. | |
| Nov 17, 2015 at 20:29 | comment | added | mplungjan | Don't call me "Mike" :) | |
| Nov 17, 2015 at 19:12 | comment | added | ab2 | I had never heard the term, and after reading all the answers and comments, I think calling someone an aspie without permission is presumptuous -- similar to calling a person named "Charles" by the nickname "Charlie" -- unless he has said "Call me Charlie". Using the diminutive/affectionate term is presumptuous unless you know it is not only tolerated, but welcome, and welcome from you. | |
| Nov 17, 2015 at 7:46 | comment | added | A.P. | Well, it's not meekness, merely a recognition of the fact that my research may not be extensive. Eg gerrit (an aspie) qualifies his answer with "as far as I've heard": english.stackexchange.com/a/287479/141939 | |
| Nov 17, 2015 at 7:44 | history | edited | A.P. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 174 characters in body
|
| Nov 17, 2015 at 7:33 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | Yes, that's my point. Any word, if the intention is malicious, can be used as an insult. Your opening line claims aspie is not inherently derogatory, that there are no negative connotations, in bold; and then in "small print" you add meekly: as far as I can tell. :) | |
| Nov 17, 2015 at 7:29 | comment | added | A.P. | @Mari-LouA But this arguably applies to 90% of the words we use to describe people. One could easily take offense at the word "sufferer", for example. The question then becomes, "Should you use the word X for a person who doesn't want to be called X?" I've addressed this question as well. | |
| Nov 17, 2015 at 7:20 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | It's opinionated as to whether aspie is derogatory; if I am not a sufferer but someone calls me an aspie, implying that I am odd or abnormal, and it was repeated consistently over time (i.e. bullying) it becomes derogatory. | |
| Nov 17, 2015 at 7:07 | history | edited | A.P. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1219 characters in body
|
| Nov 16, 2015 at 19:27 | history | edited | A.P. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 378 characters in body
|
| Nov 16, 2015 at 19:15 | comment | added | Todd Wilcox | @A.P. I didn't mean to imply that I thought you had answered the question incorrectly. A web search does turn up a few others who personally find the term offensive, so I was merely pointing out that just because it's not inherently derogatory doesn't mean that no one will be offended. In personal communications, it may be fine to use it with the expectation that in the rare case that someone is offended, an apology and explanation that it wasn't meant in a derogatory way is probably fine. A higher standard of risk-avoidance might be better for a public marketing campaign or press release. | |
| Nov 16, 2015 at 18:45 | history | edited | A.P. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 104 characters in body
|
| Nov 16, 2015 at 18:42 | comment | added | A.P. | @ToddWilcox And yet not a single example of derogatory usage has been provided so far, with many examples to the contrary, including from the Oxford Dictionary, medical research, etc. As far as I can tell from my research, the word is not inherently derogatory (going back to the original question), where "inherently" means the absolute, vast majority of those with the syndrome do not object to the term at all. It doesn't carry negative or insulting connotations, all things being equal. Of course, your tone can turn any word into an insult, but that's beside the point. | |
| Nov 16, 2015 at 16:50 | history | edited | A.P. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Nov 16, 2015 at 16:04 | history | edited | A.P. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Nov 16, 2015 at 14:52 | comment | added | Todd Wilcox | Offense is in the eye/ear of the beholder, which means some may take offense while others may not and others still may say that no one should take offense or everyone should take offense. If the goal of the asker is to minimize their chances of offending people, and we have reason to believe some might take offense (seemingly Andrew Leach, for one), it would probably be best for the asker (and anyone else in a similar situation) to play it safe and not use the word without checking with their audience first. | |
| Nov 16, 2015 at 13:12 | history | edited | A.P. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 16 characters in body
|
| Nov 16, 2015 at 12:23 | history | edited | A.P. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Nov 16, 2015 at 12:01 | history | edited | A.P. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1323 characters in body
|
| Nov 16, 2015 at 11:12 | history | edited | A.P. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 11 characters in body
|
| Nov 16, 2015 at 11:08 | comment | added | A.P. | Valid point, in general. But I don't think it applies here: the term was introduced by Liane Holliday Willey (see link in my answer), who herself suffers from the syndrome. By contrast, the N-word situation is a reappropriation. Originally a derogatory term, the N-word was co-opted by African Americans. | |
| Nov 16, 2015 at 11:03 | history | edited | A.P. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 650 characters in body
|
| Nov 16, 2015 at 10:57 | comment | added | Andrew Leach♦ | However, it may be a derogatory term when used to refer to others. Just because some Black people may use the N-word amongst themselves doesn't make it acceptable universally (to take a slightly more polarising example). | |
| Nov 16, 2015 at 10:55 | history | answered | A.P. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |