my friend wants to know
“Lame” is such a horrible, hate filled word that I can’t imagine any civilized person using it in any context.
I’m sorry, but could you explain this further? I understand that it used to be a word used to describe handicapped people, which might be construed as offensive, but when I hear, “That movie was lame,” it doesn’t raise my hackles. But I’m not handicapped or anything. I dislike the word “retarded” being used in casual conversation to insult a friend, etc., but it’s so common I can’t allow myself to get worked up over it.
But I sincerely would like to know why “lame” is considered horrible and hate filled, or uncivilized.
You are kidding, right?
If I say, “I was really looking forward to seeing this movie but it was just lame” this makes me uncivilized? I used a modifier that suggests hatefulness? Man, that is just la----No, I can’t do it–I find that to be peculiar.
Holy simulposting, Indygrrl.
Odd that we both came up with a movie to be described as lame.
Weirdness.
I don’t.
I’m pretty sure you both just got wooshed. I think he’s comparing “lame” with “fag”.
I was expressing my belief that the OP’s question is stupid through irony. Apparently he is referring to the gay as a word for lame poll.
I have never in my life heard anyone say they were offended by the use of the word “lame” to describe a walking disability.
Lame surgeon Donald Blake found that, by striking his newly-found walking stick to the ground, he could summon magical lightning that transformed him into his truest self, the great god Thor.
I’m lame, thanks to a broken femur. Just don’t tell me that I’m halt, though. And please don’t refer to me as a blame old crip.
I thought it might be a whoosh, but I’ve seen people get pissed over some things I think are completely innocent. Those people are f’n lame. 
I self refer as gimp typically, lame is neutral and halt strikes me as overly archaic/fussy. Halting as a descriptor of my movement is appropriate. I do not use crip as a descriptor as it has gang associations. i will occasionally use cripple.
I think that there is an important difference. On the whole, gays want homosexuality to be considered normal and healthy. On the other hand, most lame people would prefer that their leg(s) were fixed right now.
This isn’t true. One of the planks of the mainstream disability rights movement, at least in the UK, is that higher accessibility and changing social perception of disability is preferable to searching for a “magic fix”.
I can’t find it at the moment, but I remember reading an account of a wheelchair user’s encounter with a door-to-door missionary who reassured her that “in heaven, everyone can walk!” The wheelchair user said (or later wished she’d said), “No, in heaven there will be wheelchair ramps everywhere.” The disability rights movement is aiming for disabled people to be considered normal and for the idea of “healthy” to receive some significant scrutiny.
That sounds like the phenomena where self appointed “advocates” for people with problems develop an agenda to preserve instead of solve those problems to maintain their positions. You can’t be an advocate for the wheelchair-bound if no one needs wheelchairs anymore. I expect that if you went up to the average person with a broken leg or a missing one, they’d cheerfully take some magic pill if it existed.
That sounds like an easy way to slash the cost of health insurance. I call it the “Just Because You Have A Bullet In Your Lung Doesn’t Mean You Need Surgery” school of healthcare reform.
My brother is severely handicapped (almost completely paralized from the neck down) and he has nothing but scorn for these so-called advocates who say that there’s nothing wrong with him. Of course there’s something wrong with him! He can’t walk!
The fact that he manages to live a full and happy life - and the fact that he’s the poster boy for what a handicapped person can achieve with willpower and positive outlook - has nothing to do with it. Wheelchair ramps are nice. Being able to walk is nicer.
PSXer’s “friend” may have been referring to my post in the other thread, in which I commented that some disabled people I know object to lame being used to mean bad. Which they do. So there you go. We have plenty of words for something being not very good; we don’t need to use ones that refer to specific groups of people when using them thus then associates that group with being a bit rubbish.
I think you need to distinguish between different disabilities. A friend of mine is in a wheelchair with a congenital disability; I won’t name it as it’s rare enough to identify her. But since that has been her condition since birth, and is an integral part of who she is and (this is the important part): she is perfectly healthy, she would not want to be “cured.” Many people in the (d/D)eaf community feel the same. This is a completely different situation from someone who becomes paralyzed in an accident and then uses a wheelchair (or loses hearing), and both of those are different from someone who has a progressive disease like MS or old-age-induced hearing loss.
No disabled person has ever called me on the use of “lame,” though I have been called out on other issues arising from cluelessness.
Nearly all the disability rights activists I know of are themselves disabled.
Yes, thank you for making that point so well.