I’m struck by a completely different facet to this situation. These ladies are short. Bib fucking deal. Izzo wants to hurt them by drawing attention to this fact. Big fucking deal. Why do some of you feel the need to pity them for that.?
I’m more taken by the fact that a 30 year friendship has suddenly and dramatically gone down the tubes. What gives here? Does Izzy need some medication ?
Hey, relax, gaucho. “Akin” does not mean “closely analogous to.”
Some of the same qualities. If it’s offensive hate speech executed with a paint-bomb, meant to intimidate people based on some general quality they possess, it’s akin to spray-painting a swastika on a synagogue.
A cute, cuddly widdle six-week-old Siamese kitten is akin to a man-eating leopard. Indisputably. Pointing this out doesn’t mean that I think they are in any way equivalent. No way am I going to allow a leopard to cuddle in my lap, and I’m not going to shit my pants if a Siamese kitten turns up in my back yard.
Same deal.
Not pity. I, for one, am pissed on their behalf if what was said in that article bears any relationship to reality at all. (And even more pissed if it doesn’t and somebody thought it’d be funny to make up a story about harassing them.)
I’m just over four feet tall myself – due to a very different condition that the one the people in the article have – and why the FUCK some people find this to be funny is beyond me. So there are some waaaaay short people out there. I don’t see the humor, I just see a simple fact.
There’s a follow-up.
Just as offensive as the first article, but the family doesn’t seem to be complaining.
Hmm. I was taught by my (physician) parents that “midget” was the correct medical term for a excessively short, but normally porportioned person, wheras “dwarf” was the correct term for people who were excessively short due to having short limbs, but normal sized torsos. Can you fight my ignorance?
mischievous
What is the correct term now? I’d never wish to offend, but I was taught the same thing as mischievous. And now it seems I’ve heard that one should say “little people”, but that’ can’t be right, can it? That sounds so offensive!
I don’t like “little people” either, I’ve heard it used to describe little kids too often. Kids are great, but I’m 29! However, it doesn’t really bother me. Neither does dwarf. Your best bet is probably to go with little person, and/or check with individuals. Midget doesn’t bother some, but for others it’s like a slap in the face. Best avoided unless you know it’s okay.
Midget is NOT used as a medical term anymore. Personally, I’m pretty sure this is because kids with hormone deficiencies are caught and treated these days. Midget was never meant to use to describe a non-proportional person anyway (like the people in the story). I’ve never heard it used except as an insult.
One of these years I should just do an “ask the dwarf” thread, though as with most of the “ask the whoever” threads whatever is said is IMO.
First, “vertically challenged” is not a politically correct word for “short”. It was proposed in the book The Official Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook by Henry Beard and Christopher Cerf. This was a parody of political correctness. The terms in it were never truly proposed as substitutes for supposedly offensive words. Unfortunately, some people have problems with understanding the notion of a joke and began using the term as if it were meant seriously.
I think that I’m the shortest man on the SDMB (at 4’11’) and whiterabbit is the shortest woman (at 4’2"). I don’t think that there is any good substitute word for “short”. So why not just call them “short”? It’s not an offensive word. Or why not just give their height and not bother with coming up with a term at all?
Among other things, there’s no way that you can tell for sure by someone’s height whether there’s any hormonal or other medical condition that causes their shortness. In so far as I know, the reason that I’m the height that I am is just genetics. My mother and father are both short.
Well, yes, “short”, but sometimes you need a word that conveys “shorter than the normal range of shortness one would expect a short person to be”. As in, “That bitch on the Simple Life was unspeakable for taking the room that was designed for Vern. He needed the specially designed room because he’s (insert appropriate word here).” A short man, say 5’6, won’t need adaptive technologies like Vern Troyer does - I think he’s somewhere around 3 feet tall.
I mean, I’d like to say “you should just call them their name, silly”, but obviously there are times when one needs to refer to the fact that a person is very short, for whatever reason.
nod This is what I was taught, too.
I’m a smallish guy.
I like “small.” It’s descriptive. “Short” drives me up the wall, because it implies deficiency. As far as I’m concerned, as long as your feet reach the floor when you’re standing up, you’re tall enough.
If I need to describe someone that’s considerably smaller than I am, I usually go with “very small.”
Yours sincerly,
Markov Chaney, Esq.
“Fortunately, with a neighbor like you, I can save some money and get a four-foot tall privacy fence.”
What? I thought it was one of THOSE threads.
-Joe
We NYC residents have a name for upstate NY.
Canada
please don’t hit me
Zsofia writes:
> Well, yes, “short”, but sometimes you need a word that conveys “shorter than
> the normal range of shortness one would expect a short person to be”.
Then just call them “very short” or just give their height. If their shortness is not caused by specific medical problems, why do you need a specific term to describe them at all? If their shortness is caused by specific medical problems, use the medical term. If you don’t know why they are short, what business is it of yours why they are short? There is a large range of heights for humans that are not caused by medical problems. It’s just genetics.
Incidentally, you seem to give 5’6" as if you meant it to be the limits of “the normal range of shortness one would expect a short person to be.” 5’6" is only three inches and a bit shorter than the average height for adult American males. (According to the most recent surveys I’ve seen, the average height for adult American males is 5’9.1" and the average height for adult American females is 5’4.0".) Would you insist on having a specific word for an adult American male who is 5’1"? Would you also insist on having a specific word for an adult American male who is 6’5.2"? Why not? 6’5.2" is just as far from average as 5’1" is. I’ve noticed that people use specific terms for heights that are below average while not using specific terms for heights that are an equal amount above average.
Larry Mudd writes:
> I like “small.” It’s descriptive. “Short” drives me up the wall, because it implies
> deficiency.
Whoa, I don’t see this one at all. “Small” and “short” for me don’t imply deficiency. “Short” and “tall” are for me the standard ways of talking about the range of human height. Going to the word “small” seems to be the standard “Hey, let’s pick a new word, since the old one has been used as an insult.” When you start doing this, you have to pick a new word every few years as the one you picked just a few years ago then in turn becomes an insult.
At least it’s funny. It’s so over-the-top (of my head? g) that I can’t believe that anybody takes it seriously, but I’ve heard it used seriously a time or two.
Well, there is short, and there is short enough to need special adaptations. For one thing, I drive with hand controls. I could have gone with pedal extensions, but for me the controls seemed a better option. I’m constantly getting on stools to get things most people don’t even think about – I don’t think about it much, either, though at work it can be a pain. I also have problems with standing for long because of pain. You are way short. I am, if you go by standard charts, pretty much off the chart completely. The world is just not built for adults my height.
That being said, wow, you’re short!
True, but in most cases if somebody is below about 4’10" (maybe drop that to 4’8" for women), barring a family background of really short people, the likelihood is that there is some reason for that. It’s pretty obvious something is going on with me because I’m a bit oddly proportioned, longer limbs and a short body.
I think there’s some necessity for a term or terms describing those of us who are flat-out weirdly short. I haven’t heard one I really like yet. In some English-speaking countries the current popular one is short-statured, which is fine, except that that could easily describe somebody a foot taller, so I don’t think it’s really specific enough.
whiterabbit writes:
> I’m constantly getting on stools to get things most people don’t even think
> about – I don’t think about it much, either, though at work it can be a pain.
I have to stand on a chair to reach my top kitchen shelves. This must be a fairly common thing. I would guess that about one women in 30 is my height or shorter and one man in 500 is my height or shorter. I would thus suppose that there must be millions of women in the U.S. and hundreds of thousands of men that have problems reaching shelves.
Well, yes, the stools aren’t a big deal, but I don’t know anybody of average height who has as many as I do. Seriously. I can barely reach the bottom shelf of the cupboards in my kitchen. Juuuuust barely.
Mostly, though, my height doesn’t make a difference. I have some back and leg issues that do, but shortness itself is a minor hassle most of the time.
I simply can’t comprehend why, to some people, it’s so funny to see a guy with achondroplasia, say, walking down the street. Or living in their house. Or grocery shopping. Or whatever. So they look different…so what?
That’s the part of the story that struck me ass very odd, too. I wonder why he suddenly did a 180. There must be more to this story.
According to Larry Mudd’s follow-up:
I guess I wouldn’t label it particularly funny - or tragic. In fact, if I had to select an adjective, I’d go with the original forum choice; mundane. I don’t think this story, or Izzo’s stupid actions rise to the level of a ‘hate crime’ - but YMMV.
When it comes to other (insensitive) peoples’ use of general descriptive terms (i.e. not geared to a specific individual who’s made it known they don’t like specific words), I tend to agree with this statement:
As evidenced by your posts in this thread - what’s considered an acceptable general descriptive term for some could be a smack in the face for others. For example; If someone requests I use the term “differently abled” in their presence, I’d gladly honor that request - and not consider it ‘puke-worthy’.
Is there a category called ‘stupid crime’?