Most stand-up comedians who have some kind of difference--physical or social--tend to start with themselves. It appears that most responde positively or at least not negatively.

In Britian Got Talent show, a teanager British boy on wheelchair tells a story about his sister who talked about his physical issues in another social gathering. Most attendees in this British Got Talent show laughed, and judges gave him positive scores. You might noticed that I am trying to avoid direct expressions, but I believe you have got the point.

Well, maybe, maybe not! If the point is that when once self-identity, others should leave them to it, then I can agree.

NOCK

Tariq, I agree with your observations. In fact, it is often positively judged when disabilities are openly addressed to people who do not suffer from the same disabilitiy. But that was not the question, at least not as I understand it. It is not about communication between people with a disabilitiy and people without that disability. I cannot judge whether such behavior is compellingly offensive for others with the same disabilitiy. This may depend on the context. We should not turn that important question in the wrong direction.

This is a most interesting situation which I didn't fully foresee. Thank you both! Originally, I was thinking mostly of one disabled person self-identifying as a "cripple" and the effects of that on others will similar health problems. But, of course, we might also want to consider its effects on the healthy. Even, perhaps, its effects on the individual themselves.

I'm happy to stick with my original thought. But am open to comments on the others.

NOCK

We live in a world where people quickly take offense. "Politically Correct" has come to mean that labels that might possibly be perceived as offensive should be carefully avoided.

Whether a person considers himself or herself as handicapped or crippled is probably not the point in terms of the possibility of others being offended by word choices.

Your friend is on dangerous ground if (s)he wants to avoid possibly offending others. Many people who have what some people might consider a "handicap" take great offense when labeled. In addition, some extremely talented individuals (e.g. the late Steven Hawking) had significant physical limitations but made profound contributions to the world despite having limited physical abilities.

The Platinum Rule suggests, "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them." Because some people could be offended by your friend's verbiage, you may want to counsel that person to be careful in their use of terminology that others might resent.

CC

Well that's interesting. Correctly understood pollitcal correctness is about doing or not doing things that deliberately undermine the peace to a serious extent. The ultimate goal is to avoid civil war. So we're talking quite serious matters. Some people do need continually educating in this, primarily by the state. Not self appointed offendees.

Surely, long before that point, we have the right to offend? Even deliberately perhaps? How else might the world change for the better (or worse)? If I self-identity as a cripple surely that's my business alone in relation to all those who not disabled by the same problems as me? Certainly those who have no such illness are offending me if they complain! Others with similar problems, I'm far less clear on.

Thanks for your thoughtful answer.

NOCK

There's a jewish professor who explained a topic similar to yours some months ago. He estabished that, since he's a jew, he is implicitly allowed to make some jokes about jewish people, like the one about their stinginess.

The point is that it can't be said that your opinion about yourself is offensive to others. I mean, if I say that I feel like an elephant due to my overwheight, I'm not directy offending others who suffer the same condition, I'm just describing how I see myself.

As a person who dislikes political correctness, I certainly believe the world needs what Morgan Freeman suggested in one of his interviews: to stop labelling people as "afroamerican, or "latino", because in the end we're all human beings, and society will change as soon as we realise that.

Greetings from Peru

P.S. Sorry if I made grammar mistakes in my answer, my English is a little bit rusty.

Thank you Peru! I have a terrible feeling that your written English is better than mine!

My instincts tell me that what you say is very sensible, and quite possibly true.

Perhaps other contributors disagree?

NOCK

Thanks for your thoughtful response. At the very least it shows, quite rightly I think, how careful we should be around this type of matter. For some, of course, carefulness is not always the strongest suit....

Should we consider labelling by those similarly effected to be as "bad" as that from the non-effected?

NOCK

Okay. I'm severely disabled. I sometimes self-identity as a "cripple" with friends and others who like a particular type of humour. We have some fun with it amongst ourselves. I certainly wouldn't broaden the identity to others in a similar position. I'm okay with it, they may well not be.

The humour helps me cope with the real misery of my condition which began in 2012. I wonder if late onset makes the misery worse than life long disability? I can't do most things that I used to. Life long sufferers may well have adapted much better their "natural" condition?

If I want to self-identity as a cripple, I will. That MIGHT mean that I don't care what the able bodied think. It may mean I don't care what those with quite different conditions think. And yet, I still wouldn't use in the company of others with similar conditions. Why's that?

Comments are welcome.

Christopher NOCK

Hi Christopher, that's what I meant by my first post. They are two distinct phenomena. 1. talk (joke about) a disability with people who are not equally disabled. 2. talk (joke about) a disability with people who are equally disabled. I can only speculate on what may not be appropriate. Nevertheless, in the first case it signals sovereignty (perhaps indifference), which is probably viewed positively. In the second case, it must be assumed that the recipients of such messages have the same degree of sovereignty, which does not have to be the case and which is of course difficult to assess. In other words, if you don't want to hurt a person's feelings, the second situation requires additional assumptions. Just my thoughts, I have no reference.

Many thanks. That helps.

NOCK

I "fear" that this is a disengenous question and you are actually asking from a philosophical or moral standpoint? (My attempt at humor). Yes, your "friend" may refer to himself in any manner that he finds acceptable. Humans have the "right" of self-description or of choosing a preferred "label". The correct answer lies wholly in subcontext or context. Chiefly, his audience and purpose for "said" description. I see you have attracted the "politically correct" crowd - both anti- and for. We have conflated politically correct with decency. Most westerners (acadamians and non-acadamians) are stirred with anger when forced to be "decent" (i.e. non-bias, judgmental, boorish). Intelligence and manners both dictate that it is "understood" that he is not the "cripple" who is your friend; but that your friend happens to be crippled - not "a cripple". One is a description of your friend and his condition; the other is an insult suggesting that he is nothing but. In referring to himself as a cripple, he is merely stating an aspect of his physicality and not his entire self. Once again, he may state or disclose as he wishes it is his right.

Ah, Andrea! If only I could control who I attracted....

To be very very clear on this, it ain't no friend, it's me! A little naughty of me not to reveal that straight up, but there were good reasons.

Yours is a great answer. Thanks very much. Very thoughtful. Makes some clear, some fine, distinctions. Thanks for helping me think this through more clearly.

Christopher NOCK

I knew it was you!

So did I.

And that's not always as obvious as it sounds!

NOCK