So after reading this BBC article I found over at Howling Point, I gotta say I really never gave much throught to the etymology of such a word as "spaz".
According to the article "Golfer Tiger Woods has been criticised for saying he played like 'a spaz'. Can using the word ever be right?".
Of course, people got in an uproar over it since people always get bent out of shape over words. Especially when words such as "spaz" here in the US don't seem to have the same
Now the BBC site Ouch!, a site with focus on the disabled, did an online poll. of the the "disability-related words that they find most offensive". The results?
1. Retard 19.6%
2. Spastic 18%
3. Window-licker 17%
4. Mong 13.4%
5. Special 10.2%
6. Brave 7.9%
7. Cripple 5.5%
8. Psycho 2.9%
9. Handicapped 2.5%
10. Wheelchair-bound 2%
Now perhaps it is a difference of meaning in the US versus England, but some of these must be culturally "British Englishism" since I have no frigg'n clue what some of them are, though I can figure most of them out.
I've never once heard the terms "Window-licker", "Mong", or "Brave" uttered in American English as a term used, derogatory or not, for someone with a physical or mental disability.
I'm assuming that "Mong" is short for the old school term "mongoloid", but "Window-licker" is just plain stupid and I have no frigg'n clue about "Brave" at all, though I'd imagine is as totally devoid of usefulness as "Special".
Now I'll be the first in line to admit that "retard" comes out of my mouth or off my fingers practically every day and you can call me insensitive or whatever you want but I will continue to use the term every day to describe my own actions and those of other Homo sapiens sapiens.
The word "special" does piss me off because it's use as a replacement for "mental retardation" and the like was because it was its own political correct word of its day.
Yesterday's "special" is tomorrow's "learning delayed" and all of them are truly meaningless illusions over conditions that the great majority of human populations don't like to discuss.
George Carlin did a routine a decade or so ago about the dumbing down of words through politically correct bullshit and to this day I still agree with him that by trying to remove words like "cripple" and "handicapped" from use, and replacing them with language such as "learning delayed" and so forth all we as a collective whole have done is hide the severity of conditions under our collective mental carpets.
Politically correct language, for the most part, really is just a means to create more illusions over something that, while not pleasant, is a reality.
Take me for example? While it isn't politically correct in Polonia to call me a "kielbasa-eater", it really is a truthful and accurate derogatory description.
I have been known to eat the kielbasa.
I've consumed massive quantities of kielbasa over the course of my life.
I've been known to eat kielbasa in the kitchen. I've eaten kielbasa in the dining room. I've eaten kielbasa outside. I've eaten kielbasa in bed. And hell, I've eaten my share of kielbasa even in the shower!
Hence, calling me Nala a "kielbasa-eater", while an ugly looking word due to that unsightly hyphen, is in fact a true thing.
Now my father would probably hate to be called a kielbasa-eater even though I know he's eaten a lot of kielbasa.
But me? I embrace the word! I suck it up and love it!
And you know something. If you want you can call me a "special kielbasa-eater" because I've eaten fresh kielbasa, smoked kielbasa, and all other kinds. I'm not a fan of the smoked though. It isn't my thing at all.
Like Chuck said, "Context is relevant. Intentions matter.".
And he's like all legally educated and stuff.
Context does matter. Intentions do matter.
Get through the illusions and get to the heart of the matter and you'll realize that intention of an act is more important than the rest.
Oh wait. It is easier to whine about things instead.