Ableist language

[Ether's Bane]

I don't think a full-on ban on using words like "stupid" or "crazy" is very productive. Using them as insults referring to people, of course, is Not Okay, but they're so commonplace in everyday language expressing real, useful sentiments that have nothing to do with disability that I can't possibly see something like "Man, that was a stupid mistake I just made" or "This crazy thing happened to me yesterday" being meaningfully demeaning or hurtful to anyone who is intellectually disabled or mentally ill, the way similar uses of the word "retarded" are. The latter actually invokes disability to derive a derisive meaning; the former don't really.

I say this with the reservation that English isn't my native language and my sense of the connotations could just be off here, and I can't speak for the disabled; if somebody here actually feels demeaned by such nonpersonal usage, I stand corrected.

I'd... generally be more offended by some of these slurs? :/

Words like "dumb" and "stupid" are rather watered down insults that don't have as strong a negative connotation in reality. You can't just look at the literal denotative meanings.

Ideally you shouldn't have to use any of these insults, but if you did, comparing someone to a certain part of anatomy isn't really any more acceptable than calling them foolish.

also just noting the only one I'm really bothered with is the r word. :|b

But the dilution makes a pretty substantial difference! "Retarded" only gets to its colloquial meaning via invoking the image of someone who is mentally disabled, because it has a very immediate history of being used primarily to refer to the mentally disabled - similar to how the insult "gay" only gets to its colloquial meaning through invoking the idea of homosexuality.

A word like "crazy" has a colloquial meaning that at least by now is so deep-rooted that it generally doesn't go "through" the idea of mental illness (when it's not being used as an insult in reference to people, at least). If you're saying you had a crazy day, nobody pictures anything to do with mental illness; they just picture a strange, hectic, unusual day. If you say you had a crazy idea, they expect something wacky and over-the-top. Those connotations may have gotten attached to the word "crazy" through being associated with the mentally ill, but there's no implication when you read the sentence today that the idea is being compared to the mentally ill. I can't really imagine an actual mentally ill person hearing that and feeling genuinely marginalized by it (but again, if I'm wrong, I stand corrected).

Agreed wholeheartedly with all of these.

I don't really think that "crazy" or "insane" or anything like that ought to be banned. However, terms such as

Spoiler: offensive language here

"retarded"

or "spaz" ought to be banned. Really, it comes down to societal context.

 

[Phantom]

I think it's all in the context of how these words are used, as Butterfree explained very well. Obviously, not all of them have immediately negative connotations. Some do, and some may be used to be negative, but unless it's obviously directed to meant to be taken as an insult of some sort it doesn't deserved to be banned. That's a bit over dramatic.

Words like "insane" or "crazy" mean very different things now they they did say, fifty years ago. The language evolves, and we should evolve with it rather than the alternative. Remember when "gay" meant that something or someone was happy?

I think it's not a good idea and is just looking to start arguments.

 

[Minish]

These words just feel really creepy to me. That's so wild it's something a mentally ill person would do/say!!! haha!!!! Honestly yeah it's just tacky and weird rather than all-out offensive. If you're okay with a :| reaction from a bunch of us, then sure, use whatever words you like and come off kinda gross.

Words like "insane" or "crazy" mean very different things now they they did say, fifty years ago. The language evolves, and we should evolve with it rather than the alternative. Remember when "gay" meant that something or someone was happy?

Y...eah, they've become colloquial. That's not intrinsically good? Why don't you use the "remember when 'gay' meant just homosexual" argument in favour of negative colloquial 'that's so gay!' use, then? If you're going to use the ~go with the times~ argument you have to go all out, you know! Yeah, language evolution happens, and sometimes it hurts other people!

I can't really imagine an actual mentally ill person hearing that and feeling genuinely marginalized by it (but again, if I'm wrong, I stand corrected).

Well, you only have to look. The link Datura provided is all about how lots of mentally ill people have issues with it.

 

[Butterfree]

That's so wild it's something a mentally ill person would do/say!!! haha!!!!

My point was sort of that's not at all how the thought process of someone who says or reads "I had a crazy day" goes. Yes, language can affect how people think without actual malicious intent being behind it, but when people get into "It doesn't matter whether that association actually even comes up at all because this is how it originated, period", it's relying on this weird magical thinking where the origins of a word can somehow affect how a person thinks about groups of people even when said groups of people never even entered into their minds on any level as they read and processed the word. (Many people don't even know the word "lame" refers to a disability at all, for instance; how could it possibly affect how they view or think of people with any disability?) A crazy day isn't weird or over-the-top by association with mentally ill people; it's just a weird and over-the-top day. That's the crucial difference between it and something like 'gay' as an insult, which gets all its insulting connotations from the idea that gayness is to be mocked and derided and is so strongly associated with homosexuality that anyone who hears the word will think of it.

Well, you only have to look. The link Datura provided is all about how lots of mentally ill people have issues with it.

I did look at it, and not really. It's making an intellectual argument for why the connotations of the word "crazy" are problematic to associate with mental illness, but my argument is that the association doesn't quite meaningfully happen in (at least some) nonpersonal use of it. I read through a lot of the comments; some of them talked about having been targeted with it as a slur, or talking about the hurtfulness of actually calling people crazy, and then a lot talk generally about trying to purge it from their vocabulary (and about how even though they themselves have a mental illness they still used it that way and didn't even realize it was ableist). I truly have never actually seen a mentally ill person say, "When I see the word 'crazy', even in completely nonpersonal contexts, I feel marginalized." I just see a lot of people talking about how it refers to mental illness and therefore it's ableist and therefore it's bad, without properly asking the question of what harm it does if any when it's not actually being used to invoke the idea of mental illness as a bad thing or even directed at people. If it (the idea that even that is bad) does really originate in actual people being actually hurt and marginalized, I'll be the first to say we should not use it, but so far I feel uncomfortably like it's just some kind of a big social justice positive feedback loop.

 

[Minish]

My point was sort of that's not at all how the thought process of someone who says or reads "I had a crazy day" goes. Yes, language can affect how people think without actual malicious intent being behind it, but when people get into "It doesn't matter whether that association actually even comes up at all because this is how it originated, period", it's relying on this weird magical thinking where the origins of a word can somehow affect how a person thinks about groups of people even when said groups of people never even entered into their minds on any level as they read and processed the word. (Many people don't even know the word "lame" refers to a disability at all, for instance; how could it possibly
affect how they view or think of people with any disability?)

That makes sense! And it's why I usually don't bother with pointing out that it's questionable to people, because it's not really a particularly big issue and I just can't be bothered.

But the biggest issue is about the people who hear 'crazy', right? Rather than how people intend it. As discussed in the link - people who are mentally ill are dismissed for 'just being crazy', so hearing that 'crazy' used in other negative contexts can be really shitty for them. So that's why I try to not use it at all, just in case! I do also feel that if you use it in the kind of 'wow that politician did that thing he's just crazy' way, you're getting into the habit of seeing 'being crazy' as a reason for being a complete douchecanoe. And that just has creepy implications!

A 'crazy day' type thing, yeah, that's a lot less dangerous. But I still don't personally want to say it, because there are people who feel marginalised when you do that! So why take the risk?

I'm not sure if it's completely different to 'gay'. My sister uses the phrase sporadically and I've observed it and concluded that she literally just doesn't really have that association. It's not what she thinks of when she uses it, and her queer sibling, who she's fine with, certainly doesn't come to mind. She doesn't think of gayness, she thinks of the other times she's used the phrase, which is in connection to boring or ridiculous or sentimental or whatever stuff.

They both have connotations to a marginalised group, and they've both become pretty divorced from direct association. You're probably like me and don't hear it much, but 'gay' really is sometimes used with just no conscious association. It's weird.

I truly have never actually seen a mentally ill person say, "When I see the word 'crazy', even in completely nonpersonal contexts, I feel marginalized." I just see a lot of people talking about how it refers to mental illness and therefore it's ableist and therefore it's bad, without properly asking the question of what harm it does if any when it's not actually being used to invoke the idea of mental illness as a bad thing or even directed at people. If it does really originate in actual people being actually hurt and marginalized, I'll be the first to say we should not use it, but so far I feel uncomfortably like it's just some kind of a big social justice positive feedback loop.

But... well, I don't really know what else you want! These are people saying that the phrase makes them feel bad, that they don't want to use it themselves or hear it said, and that in general we should phase it out of our vocabulary. Even if you don't think it's the perfect argument, using it hurts and upsets these mentally ill people! Why do you need more reasons, really?

I thought there was a decent amount of discussion there about how using it even when not directed at people/in a negative way is still bad. You're associating something absurd with people who are deemed clinically crazy. You're doing it with this word that is used to dismiss them. It's not a direct association but for some people, the word 'crazy' has been used to dismiss and marginalise them, so keeping up the 'crazy = something wacky and/or ridiculous' association is a questionable thing.


(EDIT: I just wanted to add, by in large I think this kind of discussion is good, that we're both/all being civil and thoughtful, and that it's good for the forum in general to go over this kind of thing. Just in light of cries of 'oh just tcodf being tcodf again and getting worked up over nothing!!' I don't think it's nothing, but I also don't think anyone's getting overly worked up. I wouldn't call this fun, but it's interesting and useful and I want to hear other people's points of view.)

 

[yiran]

ableism |ˈābəˌlizəm|(also ablism )
noun
discrimination in favor of able-bodied people.

discrimination |disˌkriməˈnāSHən|
noun
1 the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex: victims of racial discrimination | discrimination against homosexuals.

So no, the concept of intelligence isn't ableist. The concept of intelligence is to measure how well a person would potentially do something, not to provoke unjust treatment of people of lesser intelligence. That may be a side affect, but if that counts then you could say toilets are sexist. It is true that disabled people have are physically unable to do less things, such as a paralysed child simply will not be able to participate in PE class. That's not ableism, that's just how things work, because they're not all going to play a wheelchair basketball game for one person.

As for the other stuff, I don't really care about insults. If someone calls me retarded I'm unaffected. I don't call others retarded, though, so I don't think I'll have a problem here.

 

[Adriane]

I'd... generally be more offended by some of these slurs? :/

Unless you're disabled and we're not aware of it, this isn't about you. Of course they're still intrinsically rude. That's not the point, though. Avoiding ableist (or racist, sexist, etc.) language isn't about being nice, it's about being not a jerk who compromises less-privileged people.

 

[surskitty]

ableism |ˈābəˌlizəm|(also ablism )
noun
discrimination in favor of able-bodied people.

discrimination |disˌkriməˈnāSHən|
noun
1 the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex: victims of racial discrimination | discrimination against homosexuals.

So no, the concept of intelligence isn't ableist. The concept of intelligence is to measure how well a person would potentially do something, not to provoke unjust treatment of people of lesser intelligence. That may be a side affect, but if that counts then you could say toilets are sexist. It is true that disabled people have are physically unable to do less things, such as a paralysed child simply will not be able to participate in PE class. That's not ableism, that's just how things work, because they're not all going to play a wheelchair basketball game for one person.

As for the other stuff, I don't really care about insults. If someone calls me retarded I'm unaffected. I don't call others retarded, though, so I don't think I'll have a problem here.

As a general rule, if you pull up dictionary definitions in the middle of a discussion, you have made a wrong turn. I'm not sure if there are any exceptions to that rule.

Uh, if the class setup doesn't let the person using a wheelchair participate in anything, then that means the class setup is ableist, yes. Your claim there makes about as much sense as saying that 'inaccessible buildings aren't ableist because they're not going to install a ramp just for one person.' I hope you can see the issue here.

I'm not saying they all have to play wheelchair basketball (though that would probably be an interesting learning experience for a lot of the class, and knowing how to maneuver a wheelchair effectively can be useful for a lot of people currently without physical disabilities: consider if you break your leg), but if your class setup is leaving people out, you are probably doing something wrong.


While this isn't the same topic, I'm now thinking of mainstreaming d/Deaf kids into hearing schools and how they frequently end up socially isolated. https://ritdml.rit.edu/handle/1850/1063 Here's an article!

 

[Vipera Magnifica]

Avoiding ableist (or racist, sexist, etc.) language isn't about being nice, it's about being not a jerk who compromises less-privileged people.

Insulting an entire group of people rather than the actions of the person(s) in question is entirely tasteless, yes. But the point is that the association isn't always made. Calling someone out just for using a particular word that has developed a meaning entirely separate from its original use isn't exactly productive.

 

[yiran]

No, it is not the wrong turn, because everyone here seems to treat everything as discrimination when it should be only applied when it is unjust.

Also, you have just called most schools ableist. So I don't really care if you think of me at ableist because you are also thinking of a lot of other people as ableist.

It is similar to saying "we shouldn't cater to you" to me about the mafia phase-ending thing. That would be time-zone-ist by your definition. So similarly, don't join the school if you think it is ableist.

People are overly sensitive here. I am not saying this because I am insensitive, but most people in our school wouldn't make a fuss about things like mixing up "gender" and "sex" because that seems also like pulling out dictionary definitions to me. (Also this is coming from a school environment which is very tolerant of homosexuality, so it's not that we're conservative that we are "ableist" either.)

 

[ultraviolet]

Also, you have just called most schools ableist. So I don't really care if you think of me at ableist because you are also thinking of a lot of other people as ableist.

um, no? most schools do make an effort to make things easier for the disabled (because it's usually required under... anti-discrimination & accessibility laws). In fact, my primary school got ramps and stuff installed just because of one person who was born with a birth defect and had to use a wheelchair because he essentially didn't have legs.

It is similar to saying "we shouldn't cater to you" to me about the mafia phase-ending thing. That would be time-zone-ist by your definition. So similarly, don't join the school if you think it is ableist.

no it is not, because you have a choice to participate in certain mafia games that don't pander to you! People kind of don't have a choice to be disabled, and people are generally required by law to go to school! most of the time people can't just go to a different school because it might be the only one close, it might be the only affordable school in the area, travel or commuting to a different school might be too expensive or difficult, etc. Similarly, playing mafia games on the internet isn't as quite an integral part of your life as being able to go to school!

Besides, your use of the dictionary doesn't really make much sense anyway; ableism extends to anyone who is disabled, including people who might be mentally disabled. dictionary.com actually gives it to mean 'discrimination against disabled people', so it kind of goes to show that pulling out a dictionary is kind of a useless point to bring up?

like it just seems that you're taking this personally when really this doesn't have much to do with you or anyone in particular. or am I wrong?

 

[yiran]

My point on the dictionary is the definition of "discrimination". Unjust treatment is discrimination, not what happens in the norm. Here's another example: stairs are far more helpful for able-bodied people than the physically disabled but they are not "ableist".

Yes, but principally they are the same; the "host" using more effort in order to help some of the "participants" that are not as privileged as the majority. Choice is not all that relevant in questioning the morals of the "host".

If I look like I am taking this personally it is because I don't like people being oversensitive, and act like they have a right to criticise others for acting what is in the norm for it.

 

[shy ♡]

No, it is not the wrong turn, because everyone here seems to treat everything as discrimination when it should be only applied when it is unjust.

Also, you have just called most schools ableist. So I don't really care if you think of me at ableist because you are also thinking of a lot of other people as ableist.

It is similar to saying "we shouldn't cater to you" to me about the mafia phase-ending thing. That would be time-zone-ist by your definition. So similarly, don't join the school if you think it is ableist.

People are overly sensitive here. I am not saying this because I am insensitive, but most people in our school wouldn't make a fuss about things like mixing up "gender" and "sex" because that seems also like pulling out dictionary definitions to me. (Also this is coming from a school environment which is very tolerant of homosexuality, so it's not that we're conservative that we are "ableist" either.)

No.

Who writes dictionary definitions? Is it people with disabilities? No. Do the definitions define word usage, or does word usage define the dictionary definition? The latter. So fuck the dictionary, thanks. :)

Here is a more accurate definition.

It feels to me like you are being overly sensitive about how much effort you need to put into things. Of course you can say and act however you want, but we will consider you a douche for doing so.

Oh, and yes, all schools are ableist. All people are ableist. We live in a fucking ableist society. Just like all schools are racist, sexist, etc. I dropped out of school in fourth grade because it caters to neurotypical, not-depressed people who can do maths and don't have anxiety disorders. Seriously, you don't think schools are ableist? :|

 

[surskitty]

No, it is not the wrong turn, because everyone here seems to treat everything as discrimination when it should be only applied when it is unjust.

Also, you have just called most schools ableist. So I don't really care if you think of me at ableist because you are also thinking of a lot of other people as ableist.

It is similar to saying "we shouldn't cater to you" to me about the mafia phase-ending thing. That would be time-zone-ist by your definition. So similarly, don't join the school if you think it is ableist.

People are overly sensitive here. I am not saying this because I am insensitive, but most people in our school wouldn't make a fuss about things like mixing up "gender" and "sex" because that seems also like pulling out dictionary definitions to me. (Also this is coming from a school environment which is very tolerant of homosexuality, so it's not that we're conservative that we are "ableist" either.)

No, sorry, regardless of your stance, you automatically look 90% less credible when you pull out dictionary definitions. There are basically no scenarios in which that is a good direction to go in.

Last I checked, most schools and most people are ableist. Shit, really? It's like this society as a whole has major issues acknowledging that people with physical and/or mental disabilities are people.

1. Bit of a difference when you can pick mafia games. 2. ... Don't most mafia games give you at least 24 hours to respond? A lot of them seem kind of time zone agnostic. 3. Seriously, pick a mafia game you can reply to, or start your own. A little harder to start your own school.

My point on the dictionary is the definition of "discrimination". Unjust treatment is discrimination, not what happens in the norm. Here's another example: stairs are far more helpful for able-bodied people than the physically disabled but they are not "ableist".

Yes, but principally they are the same; the "host" using more effort in order to help some of the "participants" that are not as privileged as the majority. Choice is not all that relevant in questioning the morals of the "host".

If I look like I am taking this personally it is because I don't like people being oversensitive, and act like they have a right to criticise others for acting what is in the norm for it.

Having only stairs sure is, though! Look, no one's saying STAIRS CAN'T EXIST. If you're running a public place, though, then yes, you damn well should have a ramp or an elevator, which should be available for people who need it (which means encouraging people to take the stairs and not policing everyone who doesn't, because you have no way of knowing who has difficulties with stairs) and have made sure that you didn't miss a single step somewhere that's automatic for you to walk over. Last I checked the ADA doesn't say you only need to add accommodations if you're intentionally being unjust. Last I checked the main way to get out of following the ADA after someone sues you (this shit doesn't get enforced proactively) is to prove it'd cause significant financial hardship, and the thing is, if you keep accessibility in mind ahead of time, it probably won't. It's a lot easier to plan space for ramps and elevators and 32" wide doorways than to remodel after someone brings up that it's an issue.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the 'host' comment. If you're running a public space, you have an obligation to either make it so the public can access it or make it clear who can't. If you're doing something like excluding someone who uses a wheelchair from PE because it's too hard for you to select activities they can participate in, or you aren't making sure the d/Deaf kids at your hearing school get a comprehensive education and that includes the stuff that doesn't directly include the teachers, you are doing a shitty job running a public space. And since those involve schools, you would be fucking up someone's right to an education because doing the Right Thing is, what, too hard?

Expecting people to be treated like people who deserve respect isn't 'being oversensitive'.

 

[Phantom]

I'm sensing mountains being made out of mole hills.

If someone is offended by something someone says, ok then they ahve a right to notify staff. Otherwise, removing all language that in the history of the world has potential to be insulting is being overdramatic.

If I started reporting every post I see that said something was crazy or stupid, I'd get a warning for using the report function incorrectly. Would I not?

 

[ultraviolet]

Yes, but principally they are the same; the "host" using more effort in order to help some of the "participants" that are not as privileged as the majority. Choice is not all that relevant in questioning the morals of the "host".

Yes it is! Because you can just pick a mafia game that does suit you! People who are disabled usually can't just pick another school or mode of transport or travel route or shopping centre. Comparing your situation with mafia to how the disabled have to deal with everything all the time on a daily basis is ludicrous and I hope later you realise how hyperbolic you're being.

Based on what you're saying, making a mafia host stay up later because they've extended the vote time is also discriminatory. You're not making any sense. Discrimination isn't just 'things are a bit unfair for me'. It's when people are actually, you know, oppressed. Nobody is oppressing you in mafia!! Nobody is intentionally making your life harder or saying things that upset you because they don't give a fuck!

If I look like I am taking this personally it is because I don't like people being oversensitive, and act like they have a right to criticise others for acting what is in the norm for it.

What is actually gained by going 'you're being too oversensitive'? Are you okay with the fact that something you might say could have deep, harsh, emotional responses in someone even though you don't mean it? Would you rather make tiny adjustments to your vocabulary so you don't unintentionally hurt a bunch of people on this forum or just go 'eh it's YOUR FAULT you have this problem so I don't care' and do it anyway??

'it's the norm' isn't really an acceptable excuse to make other people upset because you just don't feel like changing. Homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. etc. etc. used to be and mostly still are the norm in a lot of places! It's not as though everyone here is criticising you personally (well at least they weren't before you showed up), they're just asking people generally if they wouldn't use certain words because it makes them feel really really bad. And you're criticising them for that. So I don't get why you're acting like you have it so hard??

 

[yiran]

Humans are self-serving, which is where the supposed discrimination comes from. However, I believe that acting normally should not be classified under discrimination.

We're at an impasse, because I do in fact believe that people are intentionally making my life harder by refusing to make adjustments. Oh and the reason I really don't like this is because people here seem to act under the impression that they are more open that the general population (correct me if I'm wrong), while they're not really accepting of my stance.

(I still don't get what is wrong with dictionaries, by the way.)

 

[shy ♡]

I don't make any pretenses of being accepting towards bigotry.

 

[Tarvos]

I'm sensing mountains being made out of mole hills.

If someone is offended by something someone says, ok then they ahve a right to notify staff. Otherwise, removing all language that in the history of the world has potential to be =insulting is being overdramatic.

If I started reporting every post I see that said something was crazy or stupid, I'd get a warning for using the report function incorrectly. Would I not?

I sense this forum might be an exception to that rule, Phantom

 

[Phantom]

I sense this forum might be an exception to that rule, Phantom

Not really!

If I have a supposed legit claim to report someone because they said that their 'VHS player was stupid' and that as a intellectually disabled individual I felt offended, or if they said that they say 'homework is dumb' and I am actually incapable of speaking, what would their response be? What if I were to report every time someone used a word that could be potentially offensive?

There are mods here that give infractions/warnings for misuse of the report button.

I saw a post that was calling someone a 'cunt' outright (and not even in the CC). Shouldn't that be removed? Surely there are some here who feel insulted by it? That find the use of the word demeaning?

Do you see how it doesn't work?