Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)RA
Posts
1
Comments
35
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • If you’ve stopped using the r word because it’s offensive, that’s great! Really. Hopefully this discussion (like the linked article) will convince you that there are other terms commonly used that are just as offensive. If you can find alternatives to the r word, then you can also probably find alternatives to “deaf” and “stupid”, for example. Regardless, I appreciate that you’re trying!

  • Intent is actually not everything. Legally speaking, if I run over a person with a car and they die, I can’t get away with it by saying, “well, I didn’t intend to kill them, so there shouldn’t be a consequence”. The impact of that person’s death is greater. It’s not murder, but it’s still manslaughter.

    Ableist language is the same: it still causes harm, but obviously not harm to the body.

  • There’s a difference between intent and impact (which is in and of itself a pretty important concept in antiracism). Basically, impact always trumps intent. If I use a phrase that insults someone else, and I said “I didn’t mean it that way, so you shouldn’t feel insulted”… well, that doesn’t work. It’s a pretty privileged position to say that an ableist expression is value neutral. If somebody is saying that a phrase is not okay with them, why argue? What’s the harm in just going, “Okay, I’ll stop using that phrase”? People don’t generally make up words to get offended at, and certainly don’t write articles (multiple articles, multiple books, multiple YouTube videos…) to try to invent outrage unless they’re trying to discredit this topic. If someone says that your language is harmful or discriminatory, what does it cost you to listen to them and to change the words you use?

  • Being mindful about language also forces us to be more critical of what we’re saying. Using an insult or slur is easy. Needing to avoid it means that we need to use our minds to engage with why we don’t like something, and that can be legitimately enlightening.

  • Language changes. We’ve stopped using some expressions because we’ve realized how hurtful they are — the n word, all sorts of slurs related to being LGBTQ2S+, etc. Here’s one more. Doubling down on this is exactly like arguing that you should still be allowed to use the n word because it’s been used as an “expression” for more than half a century.

  • I just don’t get it. If someone tells me that a word or phrase I’m using is offensive, I’m going to apologize and stop using it. Why is this so hard? Why would people double down on wanting to offend others?

  • If nobody is trying to be offensive, and deaf people (one of whom wrote the linked article) are saying that using “deaf” in this way is offensive, and you continue to use it because you don’t care… you’re being offensive. Is it really so hard to change the language you use?

  • Why is it hard for you to believe? If someone is telling you that the language you’re using is harmful, is your reaction really to say, basically, that you don’t care and you’re going to continue using it?

  • I think that people who are unvaxed shouldn’t get priority for transplants.

    Even so, it’s not inappropriate to call out ableism in any topic. If somebody was racist, or sexist, or discriminatory in any other form, would you say, “Hey, we’re not talking about racism — stop hijacking the conversation”?

    EDIT: For everyone else reading this: This is what people do when they feel uncomfortable with being called out. They deflect, refuse to admit they could be wrong, and stop engaging. That’s actually a fairly normal response. It’s hard to admit that, for example, ableist comments can be as harmful as racist comments. It’s okay to stop talking as long as one doesn’t stop thinking.

  • I wonder if you’d be able to take a step backward and consider that the linked article was written in earnest because it reflects a valid way of looking at the world that you may never have considered before. People disagreeing with you may not actually be trolling, but presenting their own valid beliefs. Look up disability studies, disability justice, and/or crip theory.

  • Disability studies, disability justice, disability theory, crip theory… lots of keywords for you to start googling. The other poster isn’t wrong: prioritizing intelligence and health in a child is the theory behind the practice of eugenics. Yes, these are strong words… but they’re not wrong.

  • I agree that hoping for an intelligent and physically healthy child definitely reflects an ableist worldview. This is basic disability/crip theory.

    For those who are going to argue: wanting an intelligent child is ableist because it implies that people who are intelligent have more worth than people who are not. It’s assigning the value of a person based on a pretty narrow and Western conceptualization of how people think. A person is valuable not because of their intelligence, but because of their existence — all are equally valuable because they’re people, and everyone is equal. The same goes, believe it or not, for physical disabilities, including health. If you disagree, then you think that not all people are equal, which is problematic, as problematic as hoping that your child is straight, or male, or has blonde hair and blue eyes.

  • I had a student do that. Just a post-it note that said “Sorry for the damage :(“. It was a kid that I wouldn’t have expected to play a prank like that, too: very quiet and reserved.