Comments on: Guardian 25,838 – Rufus

By: RCWhiting

RCWhiting — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 18:46:45 +0000

Rog, you are so right, and I even hesitated and recalled your previous comment. That’s why I avoided ‘prejorative’!

By: Rog

Rog — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 17:54:33 +0000

RCWhiting: I agree with you, but, again, it’s PEJORATIVE not perjorative!

By: RCWhiting

RCWhiting — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 14:07:41 +0000

DL
“It’s not an easy question, is it?”
No,it isn’t.
Because no group of cancer sufferers or non-sufferers are a persecuted minority. I know of no words or phrases which are used about these groups or their disease which are discriminatory, perjorative or abusive.
Hence your hypothetical situation is irrelevant.

By: matt

matt — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 10:55:24 +0000

Derek,

I quite agree with you.

Matt

By: ray

ray — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 08:25:28 +0000

Usually rely on you guys to explain answers to me after much (often unsuccessful) toil but for 27a: 1 rood = 1/4 of an acre so is an area! A dd for sure.

By: Derek Lazenby

Derek Lazenby — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 01:42:09 +0000

Insiduous little phrase “just good manners” isn’t it?

By pandering to every sensitive flower who invents a new way of being offended by what is generally accepted as inoffensive we emmasculate the language. More and more words and topics, many of which should be usable and discussable, become taboo for no good reason.

In any case, what constitutes good manners? There are potentially mutually exclusive possibilities. For example, in the presence of both of the following types of person, which is better, to be good mannered and pander to the sensibilities of a non-cancer sufferer who finds the subject disturbing, or be good mannered and allow a sufferer to have the theraputic effect of talking freely about the subject? It’s not an easy question is it?

I rather think the phrase “just good manners” can lead to bad simplifications of complex issues. Not always of course, but one has to be careful not to use the phrase in some blanket way.

By: Doug

Doug — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 23:33:13 +0000

Cliff,

Just as you say.
Your description of the Guardian’s policy of observing the power of language is not ‘mealy-mouthed’.
It is decent and something to which we should all aspire.
It should not in any way be denigrated.
Just saying…

By: RCWhiting

RCWhiting — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 23:14:24 +0000

PC in its original manifestation was “do not use an expression or term which you know others find offensive, choose an alternative”.
Put simply, it is just good manners. We should all be in favour of good manners.

By: Cliff

Cliff — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 23:02:49 +0000

Well, Collins has “mealy-mouthed” defined as “hesitant or afraid to speak plainly; not outspoken”, which I think just about covers it as a description of politically correct language. A non-politically correct term, but accurate.

It must be one of those highly irregular verbs: I speak plainly; you are politically correct; he is mealy-mouthed.

By: Doug

Doug — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 21:52:25 +0000

@Cliff

Your description of the Guardian’s policy on avoiding offense in language as ‘meally-mouthed’ has bothered me all day.
We, as crossword afficionados, should be aware of the power of language. To please, to amuse, and to offend.

There was nothing offensive in the clue; as others have pointed out, any connotations were in the minds of the readers, as is only correct with a cryptic crossword.

To just make myself clear; in its general reportage, The Guardian and other media should do all they can to avoid offence in casual use of language; that is not being ‘meally-mouthed’, that is giving respect to the sensibilities of others.