Given that there was some intellectual curiousity on words here - we checked it out and found this -
re connotations of uppity vs. geographic / demographic norms -
Apparently, this varies a lot by location. Asking some college-age students family/friends, here in liberal west Los Angeles, this word would be more likely to be used to call out an affluent white mom at a private school, who displays an unwelcome air of entitlement or privilege. It would be a knock on someone like Felicity Huffman or Lori Loughlin.
When pressed as to possible racial undertones - here at least, a few twenty-somethings had a mild sense that it may be unwelcome for some ethnicities. But mostly in these parts, it appears to be used as a dig on white elitism.
It is sometimes amazing how differently the same word may be parsed by different audiences. British and American English sometimes show wildly opposite meanings for popular words, but many of us know about some of those. Occasioned by the conversations above, we’re a bit more apprised of some of the finer strata of micro-cultures.
Thanks to all for visiting the topic. There’s much more depth to it than we imagined.
And that was apparently much more pronounced in southern states. It also seemed to matter a lot who was saying it to whom.
The evolution of a word like this is kind of amazing and bizarre -
A term coined by African-Americans in the 1880’s for someone out of line, which then became a racial slur used by whites in the 50’s, and now has morphed into LA slang knocking wealthy white women.
And that was apparently much more pronounced in southern states. It also seemed to matter a lot who was saying it to whom.
One thing I learned when I moved to the South was what the definition of "Redneck" was. It was anyone from further south than the speaker! So someone from northern Alabama would call those from southern Alabama "Rednecks"! But people from further north would call anyone from Alabama "Rednecks". It was definitely weird. But then, it usually wasn't usually really meant as a real insult. It was just part of the friendly banter between rivals (college) or between friends. Sort of like the banter between the Clint Eastwood character and his barber in "Gran Torino".
Of course, that was not always the case when a Yankee used the term. Then it often was used in a very derogatory manner.
Given that there was some intellectual curiousity on words here - we checked it out and found this - re connotations of uppity vs. geographic / demographic norms -
Patronizing
What matters most with such words is how the speaker intended it. Given your personality, its difficult to be certain why you would choose to direct such a peculiar and uncommonly used word with inescapable racial overtones at someone whose identity you first claimed was anonymous, and then claimed to know just a few posts later. Which of those statements were true? Who knows. The truth and the meaning of every word is nebulous and ambiguous in any conversation with Mark Knighton.
I detect no instincts in you to back away from your use of an offensive term. You wrote this to excuse yourself, so that is also telling.
When someone validly criticizes you for your unethical business practices, blatant lies, and failures to uphold your word, you do not seek any common ground. You defend yourself and attack. You ban critics. Because the money. The money. You want to keep all the money.
As I said before, this thread has evolved into the story of Mark Knighton. I think it is much clearer who we are all dealing with now.
Two pallets of aging Textblades with expired batteries. Millions of dollars collected from 100,000+ customers? $95,419.84 in revenue per prototype test units (131) supplied? 2 unfinished test units provided to journalists. 4+ years of waiting. No product shipped. No keys for kids. Who has the money? Mark Knighton has the money.
Apparently a bit of a ‘Russian-roulette” word, that has so many connotations, it’s hard to simply use it at face value.
Think it’s probably wiser to just sunset it.
Would’ve been quicker, easier and far more palatable to a wider audience to have said “We were unaware there were either racial or class based connotations associated with using that word. We unreservedly apologise if anyone felt offended by it and since people have indicated if could be offensive in that way, we know now not to use it. Please be aware, no racial/class offence was intended...”
Single post, problem solved (and you also maintain any passive-aggressive assertion that a different, less specific offence was entirely intended by the use of the word if that’s what you actually intended at the time by using it...)
weirdosmurf said: Would’ve been quicker, easier and far more palatable to a wider audience to have said “We were unaware there were either racial or class based connotations associated with using that word.
As I pointed out, there are certainly racial connotations to the word, but the way and context it was used in this thread was not. "Uppity" has many perfectly legitimate uses.
weirdosmurf said: Would’ve been quicker, easier and far more palatable to a wider audience to have said “We were unaware there were either racial or class based connotations associated with using that word.
As I pointed out, there are certainly racial connotations to the word, but the way and context it was used in this thread was not. "Uppity" has many perfectly legitimate uses.
...but I’m sure no one here would knowingly use offensive terminology in a way that offence could be taken once they were made aware of it: i.e. I’m absolutely sure you intended no offence when you used the term “spastic” earlier in the thread, but if you were made aware it is considered highly offensive to some, you’d have no problem acknowledging it as entirely unintended and move on rather than dig in and argue for a phyrric victory...
(Absolutely no intention of having a dig; I honestly believe you used that term with no knowledge it can be highly offensive; I’ve done so myself... it is simply a convenient and clear way of illustrating the point...)
Where I live (UK) the word “uppity” is rarely if ever used, primarily because its use implies as much about the speaker as it does about the object of its direction. It implies that the speaker considers the other person to be getting “above their station” and that the speaker believes there is therefore an implicit inferiority to their place. This chimes perfectly with the general impression one has that WTS does not wish to engage meaningfully with the customer, because they clearly see themselves, being the creator, as being above all the potential users.
I wasn’t defending the use of the word at all, it was most unwise: however having looked up its meaning in various dictionaries there was no hint that it was racist, beyond the article TBD had linked. Ultimately its etymology is North American however, and I accept the better knowledge of those here regarding its interpretation. I’m still not convinced it was intended to be racist, but it was definitely intended as an ill-considered put-down.
[edit] I think it’s also fair to say I disagree with DBK above - there are no legitimate uses for the word in the mouth of a company representative, much least one employed in customer relations.
...but I’m sure no one here would knowingly use offensive terminology in a way that offence could be taken once they were made aware of it: i.e. I’m absolutely sure you intended no offence when you used the term “spastic” earlier in the thread, but if you were made aware it is considered highly offensive to some, you’d have no problem acknowledging it as entirely unintended and move on rather than dig in and argue for a phyrric victory...
Normally I've used that to describe my problem early on when switching between the TB and a regular keyboard.
That not only doesn't refer to someone else, it specifically referred to me - and an accurate description of what I was having trouble with.
Sometimes it is the other person who needs to get over themselves if they are offended by a legitimate use of a word that isn't even referring to them.
It's kinda like how I see some white people who visit Hawaii complain about being called a "haole". The are incensed that they were insulted. But, the fact is, they ARE a haole and whether or not it is derogatory depends on usage. It isn't uncommon for someone, when trying to isolate a particular person in a group, may say, "The haole over there". Just as I may refer to the "Japanese" person, the "guy with the mustache", etc.
Now, throw some choice adjectives in front of "haole" and you have a different story, but not because of "haole" itself. In short, sometimes white folk get offended without cause too and it is their fault.
Two pallets of aging Textblades with expired batteries. Millions of dollars collected from 100,000+ customers? $95,419.84 in revenue per prototype test units (131) supplied? 2 unfinished test units provided to journalists. 4+ years of waiting. No product shipped. No keys for kids. Who has the money? Mark Knighton has the money.
...but I’m sure no one here would knowingly use offensive terminology in a way that offence could be taken once they were made aware of it: i.e. I’m absolutely sure you intended no offence when you used the term “spastic” earlier in the thread, but if you were made aware it is considered highly offensive to some, you’d have no problem acknowledging it as entirely unintended and move on rather than dig in and argue for a phyrric victory...
Normally I've used that to describe my problem early on when switching between the TB and a regular keyboard.
That not only doesn't refer to someone else, it specifically referred to me - and an accurate description of what I was having trouble with.
Sometimes it is the other person who needs to get over themselves if they are offended by a legitimate use of a word that isn't even referring to them.
Hey... you do you.
If you want to continue using something people used to use quite legitimately, but is now considered highly offensive by the disability community at large, that’s a decision for you. Far be it for me to suggest an inoffensive way to deal with an unintended offence...
If you’re happy with that, then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else...
(unintended offence = understandable and easily forgiven when apologised for... sticking to your guns and doubling down when it’s been pointed out people find it highly offensive...? Well that’s just plain mean spirited... I’d have thought no-one here was in the business of deliberately imparting harm... especially once they had the issue pointed out to them as a gentle assist; that’s the easiest layup to make isn’t it...?)
I’m reading that you think perhaps I need to get over myself for being offended...? I’d remind you I posted that I myself had used the word “spastic” in a joke line (on Waytools forum) and someone immediately posted at how highly offended they were; I immediately apologised for any slight as it was definitely not my intention to have caused it (look it up if you like - my user name is still active in WTF, it’s just shadowbanned from being able to post...). I’m not suggesting I’m any purer than anyone else; I’m simply offering for others to help avoid some of the missteps I have made in my imperfect past...
For sure, we apologize if anyone was hurt by this word. If you want to understand how we used it, please read below.
———————-
It never occurred to us that there could be anything hurtful about it, because of how we first learned it.
The custodian at our elementary school taught us this word, when we were about 8 years old.
He wasn’t just about keeping the campus in order. He was also very big-hearted and friendly, and would teach us about games all the kids could play together at lunch time.
Sometimes, when one of the kids wanted to hog the ball, and spoil the fun for the group, he’d come over quietly and talk to us. Whomever was being too self-absorbed, he’d take aside, and say something like “You know, when you get all uppity, taking that ball from everybody, you not only spoil the fun for them, but for yourself.”
We all listened, and we learned. He was always so soft-spoken and wise, you just sort of instinctively knew he was right.
Mr. Green left a lasting impression on all of us. We came to rely on his calming presence. He just made us feel safe, and free of worry.
We lived in a blissful bubble, playing on that playground, and Mr. Green made sure we were ok.
We had no clue at that time about what he had been through in his life. As adults, we later figured it out. The unfairness, the indignity that he had suffered in the time he grew up. He never talked about it. He just set his own tone, smiled softly and radiated his soothing calm, that everyone was drawn to.
When you’re 8, what you learn - that’s what gets imprinted in your mind as normal. That’s your North Star. We never made any connection between that word and anything bad. Because this guy we so looked up to, taught that word to us.
To this day, when we hear that word, we hear it as Mr. Green said it, and meant it. Don’t hog the ball, don’t push others down. That’s what it means to us, because of the life we’ve lived.
Presumptive arrogance, as the definition reads, holding one’s self above all others - hogging the ball - that. That is how we see it.
It’s not a put-down. Rather, it’s - “have you no shame?” when someone puts down others.
It’s not “stay in your caste”. It’s the opposite. It’s “Hey Felicity, teach your kid to earn admission the honest way. On equal footing with those less fortunate.”
It is very much in the precise spirit of how it was conceived in 1880. By those who knew oppression firsthand, and gave a name to it. Mr. Green knew it this way, very personally, and he passed his wisdom on to us, as tabula rasa kids. And it’s just as true today, no matter what passing memes might try to hijack it.
Intellectually, we grasp that others may have had a very different life experience, or maybe read something hurtful, and perhaps associated the word with unhappy thoughts. We hope they are spared suffering.
But emotionally, viscerally, we cling to a colorblind faith that there must be an enduring truth. What you’ve known to be normal, and true, and right, from the time you were 8.
The title of one of your links is part of the problem. It refers to statements that have "racist origins". But there are probably few that actually have racist "origins". Some statement may at some point be used by racists and become better known that way, but that is quite different. Personally, I have no intention of letting racists or anyone else destroy perfectly reasonable language.
If you want to continue using something people used to use quite legitimately, but is now considered highly offensive by the disability community at large, that’s a decision for you.
(unintended offence = understandable and easily forgiven when apologised for... sticking to your guns and doubling down when it’s been pointed out people find it highly offensive...?
I’m reading that you think perhaps I need to get over myself for being offended...?
1. Why should they be offended at my usage?
2. It wasn't offensive to begin with.
3. I didn't refer to you.
Now, here's the thing. During my lifetime we have moved from normal efforts to avoid things that bother others to an absurd degree of people wanting to claim offense for darn near anything.
For example, since I was very aware of things during the Civil Rights era, I remember those who were, at the time, commonly called "color people" or "negros" (I'm leaving out the clearly derogatory terms) declaring they wanted to be called "Black". Okay, no problem.
But what happened later? The same people later declared they wanted to be called "African-American" - and not just that, they also complained about people calling them "black" - the very thing they had insisted they be called previously! I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous and is less about being actually offended and more about using words as weapons to claim someone is racist when they aren't. I'll, as always, avoid words that are clearly offensive, but I won't let anyone use, "I'm offended" as an excuse to attack others.
Just as I defended locals from criticism for using "haole".
To me, a lot of this "offense" people take over darn near anything is a way of hogging the language. An insistence that it must only be used/interpreted one way.
Even stuff that is really bad can be handled in different ways.
I remember, near the end of my military service, in a hospital waiting for the doctor to get to me, a black man who worked there was really mad. I asked him what was wrong and he said someone called him the (n-word) and it really made him feel degraded.
Of course, such language really was completely inappropriate, but you can't stop some people from showing their bigotry. But I asked him if being called that actually changed the kind of person he was. He paused for a moment and said, "No, it does not. That guy doesn't determine who I am". He was much happier because he looked at the situation differently. The use of the word was not a reflection on him, but it was on the guy who used it.
...but I’m sure no one here would knowingly use offensive terminology in a way that offence could be taken once they were made aware of it: i.e. I’m absolutely sure you intended no offence when you used the term “spastic” earlier in the thread, but if you were made aware it is considered highly offensive to some, you’d have no problem acknowledging it as entirely unintended and move on rather than dig in and argue for a phyrric victory...
Normally I've used that to describe my problem early on when switching between the TB and a regular keyboard.
That not only doesn't refer to someone else, it specifically referred to me - and an accurate description of what I was having trouble with.
Sometimes it is the other person who needs to get over themselves if they are offended by a legitimate use of a word that isn't even referring to them.
Just as Weirdosmurf enlightened me, if I may you. That word is sufficiently offensive in the UK that were I to use it, even in reference to myself, publicly at work I could expect a formal warning on my record at the very least.
There was an episode of Friends where Rachel referred to herself as a “spazz” in relation to something or other (so, the same scenario as here: self-description). If memory serves, the episode’s broadcast was initially delayed in the UK, and eventually went out at a later time in the evening with a language warning after much discussion on the news etc and consultation with representatives of those with Cerebral Palsy. I accept that the word is not considered to be quite as offensive in other parts of the world, but I do not think it appropriate to suggest people need to “get over themselves”.
Why should some people get to decide what legitimate words will suddenly not be allowed? I just gave an example of a group attacking others who were using a term the referenced group had previously insisted must be used. - until they decided to change it again. That’s ridiculous.
Why should we have to abandon a word which very clearly expresses what I’m trying to describe because someone else says they are offended?
I learned a long time ago that it often isn’t about real offense, but is used as a weapon.
I was was involved in a very intense fight over a particular social/political issue. The opposition complained about the term used to describe their side. I felt it was accurate but it certainly was not a positive term (but it wasn’t nasty).
Regardless, I said I was fine with that - that we should use the name they preferred to use for themselves and they should use the one we preferred for ourselves instead of the negative one they were using.
They said we we must use the term they wanted but they would not change how they labeled us! Like I said, it was all about using words as weapons but only they would be allowed to do it. So, that was one of the things that led me to deciding it was almost impossible to discuss serious issues respectfully on the web. So I decided I would with those who reciprocated but for those who won’t, I respond accordingly.
Comments
Words
Given that there was some intellectual curiousity on words here - we checked it out and found this -
re connotations of uppity vs. geographic / demographic norms -
Apparently, this varies a lot by location. Asking some college-age students family/friends, here in liberal west Los Angeles, this word would be more likely to be used to call out an affluent white mom at a private school, who displays an unwelcome air of entitlement or privilege. It would be a knock on someone like Felicity Huffman or Lori Loughlin.
When pressed as to possible racial undertones - here at least, a few twenty-somethings had a mild sense that it may be unwelcome for some ethnicities. But mostly in these parts, it appears to be used as a dig on white elitism.
It is sometimes amazing how differently the same word may be parsed by different audiences. British and American English sometimes show wildly opposite meanings for popular words, but many of us know about some of those. Occasioned by the conversations above, we’re a bit more apprised of some of the finer strata of micro-cultures.
Thanks to all for visiting the topic. There’s much more depth to it than we imagined.
The evolution of a word like this is kind of amazing and bizarre -
A term coined by African-Americans in the 1880’s for someone out of line, which then became a racial slur used by whites in the 50’s, and now has morphed into LA slang knocking wealthy white women.
That runs the gamut, and yet it’s the same word.
This is why words are so fascinating.
Think it’s probably wiser to just sunset it.
Patronizing
What matters most with such words is how the speaker intended it. Given your personality, its difficult to be certain why you would choose to direct such a peculiar and uncommonly used word with inescapable racial overtones at someone whose identity you first claimed was anonymous, and then claimed to know just a few posts later. Which of those statements were true? Who knows. The truth and the meaning of every word is nebulous and ambiguous in any conversation with Mark Knighton.
I detect no instincts in you to back away from your use of an offensive term. You wrote this to excuse yourself, so that is also telling.
When someone validly criticizes you for your unethical business practices, blatant lies, and failures to uphold your word, you do not seek any common ground. You defend yourself and attack. You ban critics. Because the money. The money. You want to keep all the money.
As I said before, this thread has evolved into the story of Mark Knighton. I think it is much clearer who we are all dealing with now.
Single post, problem solved (and you also maintain any passive-aggressive assertion that a different, less specific offence was entirely intended by the use of the word if that’s what you actually intended at the time by using it...)
(Absolutely no intention of having a dig; I honestly believe you used that term with no knowledge it can be highly offensive; I’ve done so myself... it is simply a convenient and clear way of illustrating the point...)
I wasn’t defending the use of the word at all, it was most unwise: however having looked up its meaning in various dictionaries there was no hint that it was racist, beyond the article TBD had linked. Ultimately its etymology is North American however, and I accept the better knowledge of those here regarding its interpretation. I’m still not convinced it was intended to be racist, but it was definitely intended as an ill-considered put-down.
[edit] I think it’s also fair to say I disagree with DBK above - there are no legitimate uses for the word in the mouth of a company representative, much least one employed in customer relations.
That not only doesn't refer to someone else, it specifically referred to me - and an accurate description of what I was having trouble with.
https://www.theroot.com/i-am-your-uppity-negro-1796522107
https://uppitynegronetwork.com/what-is-an-uppity-negro/
https://thegrio.com/2011/11/23/uppity-slur-still-haunts-african-americans/
https://www.businessinsider.com/offensive-phrases-that-people-still-use-2013-11
https://lifehacker.com/these-words-and-phrases-have-racist-origins-1823042643
Hope this small sample illuminates.
Hey... you do you.
If you want to continue using something people used to use quite legitimately, but is now considered highly offensive by the disability community at large, that’s a decision for you. Far be it for me to suggest an inoffensive way to deal with an unintended offence...
If you’re happy with that, then it says far more about you than it does about anyone else...
(unintended offence = understandable and easily forgiven when apologised for... sticking to your guns and doubling down when it’s been pointed out people find it highly offensive...? Well that’s just plain mean spirited... I’d have thought no-one here was in the business of deliberately imparting harm... especially once they had the issue pointed out to them as a gentle assist; that’s the easiest layup to make isn’t it...?)
I’m reading that you think perhaps I need to get over myself for being offended...? I’d remind you I posted that I myself had used the word “spastic” in a joke line (on Waytools forum) and someone immediately posted at how highly offended they were; I immediately apologised for any slight as it was definitely not my intention to have caused it (look it up if you like - my user name is still active in WTF, it’s just shadowbanned from being able to post...). I’m not suggesting I’m any purer than anyone else; I’m simply offering for others to help avoid some of the missteps I have made in my imperfect past...
For sure, we apologize if anyone was hurt by this word. If you want to understand how we used it, please read below.
———————-
It never occurred to us that there could be anything hurtful about it, because of how we first learned it.
The custodian at our elementary school taught us this word, when we were about 8 years old.
He wasn’t just about keeping the campus in order. He was also very big-hearted and friendly, and would teach us about games all the kids could play together at lunch time.
Sometimes, when one of the kids wanted to hog the ball, and spoil the fun for the group, he’d come over quietly and talk to us. Whomever was being too self-absorbed, he’d take aside, and say something like “You know, when you get all uppity, taking that ball from everybody, you not only spoil the fun for them, but for yourself.”
We all listened, and we learned. He was always so soft-spoken and wise, you just sort of instinctively knew he was right.
Mr. Green left a lasting impression on all of us. We came to rely on his calming presence. He just made us feel safe, and free of worry.
We lived in a blissful bubble, playing on that playground, and Mr. Green made sure we were ok.
We had no clue at that time about what he had been through in his life. As adults, we later figured it out. The unfairness, the indignity that he had suffered in the time he grew up. He never talked about it. He just set his own tone, smiled softly and radiated his soothing calm, that everyone was drawn to.
When you’re 8, what you learn - that’s what gets imprinted in your mind as normal. That’s your North Star. We never made any connection between that word and anything bad. Because this guy we so looked up to, taught that word to us.
To this day, when we hear that word, we hear it as Mr. Green said it, and meant it. Don’t hog the ball, don’t push others down. That’s what it means to us, because of the life we’ve lived.
Presumptive arrogance, as the definition reads, holding one’s self above all others - hogging the ball - that. That is how we see it.
It’s not a put-down. Rather, it’s - “have you no shame?” when someone puts down others.
It’s not “stay in your caste”. It’s the opposite. It’s “Hey Felicity, teach your kid to earn admission the honest way. On equal footing with those less fortunate.”
It is very much in the precise spirit of how it was conceived in 1880. By those who knew oppression firsthand, and gave a name to it. Mr. Green knew it this way, very personally, and he passed his wisdom on to us, as tabula rasa kids. And it’s just as true today, no matter what passing memes might try to hijack it.
Intellectually, we grasp that others may have had a very different life experience, or maybe read something hurtful, and perhaps associated the word with unhappy thoughts. We hope they are spared suffering.
But emotionally, viscerally, we cling to a colorblind faith that there must be an enduring truth. What you’ve known to be normal, and true, and right, from the time you were 8.
God bless you, Mr. Green.
1. Why should they be offended at my usage?
2. It wasn't offensive to begin with.
3. I didn't refer to you.
Now, here's the thing. During my lifetime we have moved from normal efforts to avoid things that bother others to an absurd degree of people wanting to claim offense for darn near anything.
But what happened later? The same people later declared they wanted to be called "African-American" - and not just that, they also complained about people calling them "black" - the very thing they had insisted they be called previously! I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous and is less about being actually offended and more about using words as weapons to claim someone is racist when they aren't. I'll, as always, avoid words that are clearly offensive, but I won't let anyone use, "I'm offended" as an excuse to attack others.
To me, a lot of this "offense" people take over darn near anything is a way of hogging the language. An insistence that it must only be used/interpreted one way.
Even stuff that is really bad can be handled in different ways.
I remember, near the end of my military service, in a hospital waiting for the doctor to get to me, a black man who worked there was really mad. I asked him what was wrong and he said someone called him the (n-word) and it really made him feel degraded.
There was an episode of Friends where Rachel referred to herself as a “spazz” in relation to something or other (so, the same scenario as here: self-description). If memory serves, the episode’s broadcast was initially delayed in the UK, and eventually went out at a later time in the evening with a language warning after much discussion on the news etc and consultation with representatives of those with Cerebral Palsy. I accept that the word is not considered to be quite as offensive in other parts of the world, but I do not think it appropriate to suggest people need to “get over themselves”.
Why should we have to abandon a word which very clearly expresses what I’m trying to describe because someone else says they are offended?
I learned a long time ago that it often isn’t about real offense, but is used as a weapon.
I was was involved in a very intense fight over a particular social/political issue. The opposition complained about the term used to describe their side. I felt it was accurate but it certainly was not a positive term (but it wasn’t nasty).
Regardless, I said I was fine with that - that we should use the name they preferred to use for themselves and they should use the one we preferred for ourselves instead of the negative one they were using.
They said we we must use the term they wanted but they would not change how they labeled us! Like I said, it was all about using words as weapons but only they would be allowed to do it. So, that was one of the things that led me to deciding it was almost impossible to discuss serious issues respectfully on the web. So I decided I would with those who reciprocated but for those who won’t, I respond accordingly.