I get that “Jew bankers” is inappropriate, but I don’t know where the line is drawn. I refer to myself (and have been referred to) as a Jewban. More emphasis is placed on the intent and the non-verbal part of communication anyways, so that’s obviously more important.
I think the reason it’s frowned upon is that with mental health issues it can often be unhelpful to label and it’s better to make the clear distinction between the person and their illness simply from a therapeutic point of view.
In my experience, David would proudly self-identify as “a Jew” if he is anything like the majority of my Jewish friends.
It’s tricky, but generally, the more unwieldy the construction, the more preferred it is.
An example from the American Psychological Association stylistics (scroll down to the bottom section). Of course, I’m sure there’s more in the official guide, but I don’t have access to it.
Giving labels is thought to dehumanize, as in, “I’d like you to meet Schizo-Alice,” as if that was her entire personality. Of course, there is also a strong PC element, but it also occasionally has the effect of clarifying language.
Well, it’s partly true – he was denied the transfusion. But it wouldn’t have saved his life; his injuries were fatal in any case.
Why shouldn’t we forget that? Do you think that makes it OK? Am I supposed to believe that you don’t “intend to be offensive to the targets of [your] prejudice” when you say “teabagger”?
You apparently think me naive.
While I find that insightful (if not, as requested, inciteful), I don’t agree in this instance. I think the intent to emphasize the subgroup (race, religion, whatever), and thereby imply the group (and their associated world domination conspiracy) is of more importance to the individual(s) than the profession.
I think this is completely different from ‘women’, ‘black’, or ‘Jewish’ bankers; that is just insulting and dismissive, implying such bankers are different from regular, non-adjectivized, bankers. (Well, unless one is discussing the issue of banking on the first day of Yom Kippur …)
If I were in a position to need blood to keep my existence going, I’d probably take it from a heroin-addicted prostitute with a variety of diseases.
That said, Tatooing isn’t always done with sterilization in mind; homosexual sex carries a higher incidence of HIV due to tissue degradation; steroids are also a disqualifying factor if after xx year.
Trying to keep the recipients (who are already in a vulnerable state) doesn’t strike me as discriminatory.
They could also add, “have you ever f’d someone and found out they f’d around with someone else” as criteria… but that would significantly reduce their candidate pool.
I taught for several months in an Orthodox Jewish private school. Boy, was that some cognitive dissonance. Every other time in my life I heard someone refer to “that Jew” instead of “that Jewish person”, the context was always bigoted. Yet, the people I worked with prided themselves on being Jews. Not Jewish, but Jews. Posters by the kids declared “The Jews Shall Prosper!” and other such slogans. I’d twitch the first time I saw one, then realize it was positive, not negative, then have to remind myself that other groups (Christians, Americans, Yankee fans) made identical proclamations, and I really needed to relax.
Bear in mind that in Hebrew, adjectives can always be used as nouns; thus “Yehudi” means both “Jew” and “Jewish”.
Actually, they got a key element of the storyline wrong, promoting an Urban Legend, (unless there were two episodes with a similar theme).
In the one I saw, they swabbed the patients hands and face with something to darken the skin, then gave him a hard time about Dr. Charles Drew, a black man who developed ways to transport plasma and created the “blood bank,” dying because he was refused “white” blood after a traffic accident. Dr. Drew was real and did die in a traffic accident, but he did not die because he was denied medical services or blood because he was black.