Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

How the heck is "impaired" offensive but "hard of" not offensive.

Let's see what the national association of the deaf says. "The term focuses on what people can’t do. It establishes the standard as “hearing” and anything different as “impaired,” or substandard, hindered, or damaged."

By what interpretation of words does "hard of" not do the exact same thing. Did I miss an important evolution of English again?

Edit: Looked some more. NCDS is fine with "hearing impaired" but says that some people object. Then I found this page http://www.deaflinx.com/DeafCommunity/identity.html Its objection to "hearing impaired" is the mere fact that it ignores people's culture/identity choices wrt the Deaf community. This reasoning reminds me of the insular sub-community of the deaf that tries to push 'Deaf Culture' so strongly that they can be against fixing people's ability to hear; people that will make 'Deaf' their very identity. To be honest I don't care what those people find offensive.

But if you have a better reasoning than those people I am ready and willing to learn and accept it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: