let's not dance this dance

[meiface]

I am in a bad mood today (being a Liverpool fan = despair, but even if we're relegated I'd rather be a Red than anything else ♥), so here are a few things I might've let pass without comment before but am going to bring up now. (Please don't think my concern is any less sincere just because I also happen to be in a bad mood

Comments

[reddwarfer]

I do have a question (I'm not debating the validity of your opinion on the matter), but what sort of expression do you find that expresses the same thing as "that's so lame/retarded/insane" but isn't offensive?

Even if the current language is problematic (and I understand the standpoint, esp in regards to retarded), it's hard to change if you don't have something to change it to...

[meiface]

I think the first article I linked to addresses that a little bit - often when people say "that's so lame" they really mean "that's so uncool" or "that's really stupid" or "that kind of behavior is some kind of substandard" (which is why it's problematic because it's equating lame with a lower value). Similarly, "that's retarded" could easily be substituted for "that was a really dumb move" or "wow that guy is a total asshole" (depending on the context of each situation, of course) - there are a lot of ways to say what we mean without taking the ableist language shortcut. If we see something unbelievable, maybe we should say, "Holy crap, that's totally unbelievable" instead of "Holy crap, that's insane!"

It's definitely hard to check these things because they have gotten so ingrained into modern language, but I guess I also don't think it hurts us to try? Especially if we know that it is harmful and hurtful to other people.

eta: edited for missing words. go me!

[reddwarfer]

But one can argue that dumb is also albeist language, as it means the inability to speak. (I realise that it's offensive in that context, too, but that's originally how it was used)

And as for insane, it depends on context for me. Sometimes the thing you're remarking on is something outside the realm of what you consider "sane" like...I may say, it's insane, but I started talking to my dad again. (Insane because my dad continually hurts me, but I keep forgiving him)

[meiface]

This is true! I think it's another point of debate for a lot of people (inclding people with disabilities). I don't claim to be an expert on these issues, as I've only grown more aware of ableism and its associated problems recently. So I may not have any definitive answers for you, but there's a lot of great resources on the internet if you just search "ableist language" that might answer some questions you may have.

I guess I would say the thing about "insane" is that it implies that sanity is superior to insanity which, well, seems logical at first, until you start questioning how people/society defines "insane". Does it mean anyone with a mental illness or disability is no longer sane? Because then we're saying people without mental disabilities are inherently superior to people with mental disabilities, which is what ableism is. That only "sane" people are truly "whole" and live a fulfilling worthwhile life, etc etc.

[reddwarfer]

I have both physical and mental limitations myself...I'm not really bothered by casual phrases that no longer really have any side to it. I'm more focused on the stuff that has legal or societal implications, personally. If people say something's batshit nuts, I don't blink...even if I'm considered that way. If people say something's lame, even though I need a cane to walk now, I just shrug. That's me. I don't use retarded, though, in my speech. (I try not to use lame, but that's only in deference to those who I know it bothers.

My question was more derived from a larger issue I have with correction without substitution. I'm all for correction, but chiding without guidance doesn't really help, in my experience. People learn they're wrong, but they're left floundering on how to redirect their behaviour.

[meiface]

I guess it comes down to the fact that not all people are going to agree when something's harmful or not. For instance, not all women find certain actions or words sexist; not all Asians are going to find certain racial slurs necessarily hurtful to them. But if any of them do? I don't think it costs me that much to just be more careful about my language.

Also, I see your point about chiding versus guidance! This was more of a rant post than a 101 post, but I am happy to link to things or talk about my experiences/opinions in the comments.

(Then there's also the slightly problematic issue of the teaching role, but in this case I don't think applies because I am happy to have discussions/conversations.)

[reddwarfer]

Oh, I certainly agree that we should be more circumspect in our language choices. I don't actually have a problem with changing the way we use language. As both someone in a few of these groups (and as someone who wants to support others) I think we need to have a solution or at least be prepared to discuss solutions

[meiface]

haha I also agree with you that the teaching role idea is not perfect! For instance, some people just don't know that they're being ignorant or hurtful and if you don't "teach" them (or at least tell them), they're never going to bother to go educate themselves. And, like you said, if they do try - they still don't know what the good sources are and so on.

There's no perfect way to do this, I think. Still, trying to educate ourselves is better than not, in my opinion, and maybe sometimes that means asking someone questions. And if they're willing to answer - great! But if they don't want to, it's not their obligation either. Honestly, a lot of what I've learned is to just shut up and listen - that way I can hear the varying opinions and really learn from people have the experience and eventually start participating in dialogue myself. At no point do we (anyone) reach a pinnacle of understanding everything; it's a constant learning process for everyone.