As a disabled person, I face ableism and ableist language every day. Some people use ableist language without even knowing that it is ableist. I thought it would be good for folks to take a look at the attached BBC article and expand their perspectives a bit.
But the fact is, discussions about the negative effect of a word such as “dumb” – a term originally denoting a deaf person who did not use speech, but which now functions as slang for something brutish, uninteresting or of low intelligence
dumb (adj.)
Old English dumb, of persons, “mute, silent, refraining from speaking or unable to speak,” from Proto-Germanic *dumbaz “dumb, dull,” which is perhaps from PIE *dheubh- “confusion, stupefaction, dizziness,”Now, as for actual discussion to be had, unfortunately our language is entirely coded in slights towards different groups of people. In calling someone “a sinister villain who’s a part of a cabal”, I’ve called them a left (handed) farmer who is Jewish.
At some point we do need to accept that these negative words, which are at their fundamentals, slights to certain groups of people, have taken on a new meaning, and that their misuse as slights against those people only really applies contextually. I do think that terms like “stupid” and “idiot” have achieved that level of shift.
Feel free to disagree with me of course, I’m not here to tell you you or your experience is wrong, and I’m more than happy to have an actual discussion on this. ❤️
I agree with you. In fact I had no idea dumb used to mean “a deaf person”. This word has a new meaning. This is obviously besides the fact that the word dumb is demeaning in today’s definition, so there’s that.
Agreed, but for words like that to make such a shift, there was a period where the words were still super offensive and used anyways. And if we are more enlightened now, we should have less of these words going forward. Like I think we’ve largely stopped such a transformation of the word “retard(ed)”.
I personally have completely nixed the R word from my vocabulary. I agree that there was a time when some terms were super offensive, or the history of a term is one leaded in negative use towards marginalized peoples. I’m just not convinced that these terms in particular are ones I need to care about.
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!
This isn’t a new discussion I’ve seen, and it’s something I’ve dealt with internally myself. It’s also not as though this is a final answer. I do try to evade these words where I can, but generally I don’t think they’re harmful enough for me to “swear off” so to speak, if that makes sense? I’m not so dull as to say it’s “a personal choice” - that stuff’s just a cop-out for choosing the worst options, but I think that simply suggesting that some people may be offended by certain terms is enough to lend people to change their biases in terminology; or at least it is for me haha
Thanks for the good natured response. I appreciate that in this thread, given how intense some people seem to be.
I’m autistic, and so I come off pretty blunt sometimes. I am really passionate about disability justice, but blasting people just hardens their position and makes them unwilling to listen. I’m glad that you weren’t offended! :)
I totally getcha, 150%. It’s hard too to distinguish between someone steadfast about a cause from someone who’s just using a cause as a means to bully. I often fall into that category of indistinction myself, so I can completely relate.
Would you consider this from another perspective — if you accept that people should be able to determine what they are called/named, a corollary is to avoid using descriptors for them, or idiomatic expressions, that they say they are finding contribute to systematic bias against them? Or that they find demeaning and experience as micro aggressions?
If you are open to listening to those most affected, it wouldn’t make sense to ask the hearing, for example, whether expressions like ‘falling on deaf ears’ or ‘dumb’ are harm-free.
The Deaf have let us know that these words are still harmful. As one of the most isolated and marginalized communities North America, should their concern about language not be enough to give hearing people pause?
English doesn’t have a the equivalent of L’Academie Française to arbitrate accepted language and usage. So, it becomes an evolving societal conversation of usage.
Surely then, it’s on all of us to listen to those who are saying how old names and expressions, that have negative connotations, are harming them?
You seem to be making the case, on the other hand that, able people should be exempt from considering how our word-choices impact others as long as we feel an expression has fallen into such common usage that it has become disconnected from its origin, and can only cause harm when used in a context that evokes its original meaning.
Or, your position is that if someone doesn’t don’t see the problem, it isn’t one. Interestingly enough, this is almost exactly one of the generally accepted definitions of privilege - not perceiving something is a problem if it’s not a problem for you personally.
Not on a soapbox, just really quite surprised at the implicit assumptions your response and that of others. The number of downvotes OP has received suggests this community is less civil than I had thought.
Would you consider this from another perspective — if you accept that people should be able to determine what they are called/named, a corollary is to avoid using descriptors for them, or idiomatic expressions, that they say they are finding contribute to systematic bias against them? Or that they find demeaning and experience as micro aggressions?
The premise here doesn’t apply. People I use these terms to refer to, I deny their freedom to be called as they wish. Instead I tend to call them nazis, pieces of shit, fascists, and the like.
The Deaf have let us know that these words are still harmful. As one of the most isolated and marginalized communities North America, should their concern about language not be enough to give hearing people pause?
However, if I accept your premise, I don’t see how “allowing others to be referred to as they wish” leads into a conclusion of “allowing others to dictate how I speak of others”. This is non-sequiteur.
I’m no stranger to listening to the marginalized, and, like most people, experience discrimination and have slurs I don’t want others to use, so I already do understand accepting that some terms are unacceptable, but it’s a matter of the barometer.
English doesn’t have a the equivalent of L’Academie Française to arbitrate accepted language and usage. So, it becomes an evolving societal conversation of usage.
Most languages are like this. The reason L’Academie Française exists is merely to marginalize and suppress “improper French”, which before WWI was dozens of languages across the country. Paris French was standardized and languages were destroyed.
Surely then, it’s on all of us to listen to those who are saying how old names and expressions, that have negative connotations, are harming them?
Agreed completely. Some good examples are the N word, the R word, the T word, the gay F word. These are all abject slurs that continue to be used to harm people today. Beyond that, I’m gonna use examples from my own communities for obvious reasons of comfort, and respect; terms like fairy, sissy, transsexual, gay, and homosexual all have various degrees of harm behind them. They often are used to capture caricatures of people like me and apply any negativity from those words unto me. Depending on the context, these words are undoubtedly offensive, but in other contexts, are inoffensive. Of course none of these hit the same notes as “dumb” does for the deaf community, as “dumb” is used colloquially as a term to insult, either seriously or jokingly, so I can’t directly relate in this regard. If I had experience of people referring to deaf people as “dumb” in my lifetime, my perspective would also be different, but that’s not my reality.^This may come down to privilege, but it is also the reality within which I live. I cannot deny my reality without getting actual context of it; beyond simple, theoretical whataboutisms.
Surely then, it’s on all of us to listen to those who are saying how old names and expressions, that have negative connotations, are harming them?
It is on all of us to do this, yes. It’s not on us to accept anything any marginalized person says ever without question. That’s an improper ask.
You seem to be making the case, on the other hand that, able people should be exempt from considering how our word-choices impact others as long as we feel an expression has fallen into such common usage that it has become disconnected from its origin, and can only cause harm when used in a context that evokes its original meaning.
Yes. A decent example for this, with a term that impacts me, is an abbreviation for a transmission.
Or, your position is that if someone doesn’t don’t see the problem, it isn’t one. Interestingly enough, this is almost exactly one of the generally accepted definitions of privilege - not perceiving something is a problem if it’s not a problem for you personally.
No, I definitely agree that people are blind to problems that are surrounding by them. I disagree that this is a definition of privilege though, as I am no less privileged for believing it to be a problem. I don’t lose my linguistic privilege simply because I acknowledge, and to the best of my ability make efforts to see the problems that impact the people who don’t speak the common language of my region. If this is an accepted definition of privilege, it’s an entirely bad one.
The number of downvotes OP has received suggests this community is less civil than I had thought.
It’s an unpopular opinion generally anywhere online, and people dislike being told what they should say or not; they often perceive it as radicalism and paint radicalism with a broad, negative brush. If OP posted this in a community that was specifically tailored to the deaf or the disabled, you’d definitely see a different reaction.
I hope that I come off as good faith to you. I’m trying to be thoughtful and reasonable in my responses. In other comments I have mentioned where I personally stand on these terms. I have no desire to “combat” people with bad faith arguments like many people in this thread seem to be, and legitimately just want to find some understanding. I’m sure I said some shit wrong in this post but I don’t really feel like revising the whole thing to make sure everything in it is perfect. Forgive me if I said something wrong, or even entirely out of my ass.
Now, as for actual discussion to be had, unfortunately our language is entirely coded in slights towards different groups of people. In calling someone “a sinister villain who’s a part of a cabal”, I’ve called them a left handed
if left handed people were still marginalised your comparison might be valid, but they aren’t so it isn’t.
At some point we do need to accept that these negative words, which are at their fundamentals, slights to certain groups of people, have taken on a new meaning, and that their misuse as slights against those people only really applies contextually.
No we don’t, especially since no, they haven’t
I do think that terms like “stupid” and “idiot” have achieved that level of shift.
you would be wrong
https://thebodyisnotanapology.com/magazine/stupid-is-an-ableist-slur-breaking-down-defenses-around-ableist-language-liberating-our-words/I’m not here to tell you you or your experience is wrong,
yet that’s exactly what you are doing.
You should be able to remove a few words from your vocabulary to reduce harm to already marginalised people, without arguing about it or trying to “logic” your way out of it. It isn’t a big ask, but rather the very bare minimum.
Uh, I’d rather good faith discussion instead, actually.
Just noticed you’re using kbin.social. Checks out.
Just noticed you’re using kbin.social. Checks out.
Not the person you were talking to but wait… why… I thought kbin was one of the more chill instances? Have we got a bad reputation in your neck of the woods?
It’s a personal observation I’ve noticed, I go into more detail here if you’re curious.
Thanks, perspective’s a strange thing, to me it always feels like the bad faithers are from the biggest instances but that’s just because of the size of them.
The theory we joined kbin over politics surprises me. I joined because I found the interface so much easier to use than lemmy, and also it has a lot of features like the ability to block domains or instances by myself, and the cool interfacing with mastodon. We also turned out to have a cool dev and transparent finances which is nice.
I think some of us who joined kbin before we federated are kind of in a bit of a diy small magazines vibe and don’t really mix it up as much.
Although we can see the names of people who upvote and downvote us, Kbin doesn’t seem to federate all downvotes, so I guess we can be kind of oblivious to disapproval from outsiders.
wrt not federating all downvotes, you sure that’s not because the commenter or poster is from an instance that disables downvotes? If they disable downvotes, then all downvotes will only be localized to your instance (i.e. every downvote you’ll see on that comment/post is from kbin.social users, and me, lemmy.ca users)
No, there’s definitely more to it than that. I don’t fully understand, but to give you an example, @ram, here are screenshots of how your comment about kbin above looks to me:
From visiting your instance, not signed in
From my test account at lemmy.world
(All sorted by old). As you can see, the voting is very different viewed from kbin.
I’m not defending the other guy, but what’s wrong with kbin?
I just notice time and time again that kbin.social is populated by users who act in bad faith. I assume it has something to do with people repulsed by communists tending to stay away from lemmy instances due to the M-L association. Of course, kbin.social is the biggest instance of its software, but it’s a trend I keep noticing.
Nothing inherently, it’s an open instance with almost no rules regarding discourse though so you will find a lot of trolls and bad faith comments coming from kbin.
Does kbin.social have some kind of reputation or something? I’m not defending the commenter BTW.
I’ve never noticed us having one before, I think (hope) it’s just that one person.
deleted by creator
Ad hominem only applies when using an attack on a person as an argument. This person’s clearly not behaving in good faith, so why are they entitled to a good faith reply?
I agree with you, but why are you disparaging kbin? Plenty of good discussion here, and a good community.
I agree with the use of disabilities like blindness and deafness as metaphors for something negative is a hurtful practice.
On the other hand, for words that have a very archaic meaning to refer to someone’s condition (that subsequently is replaced with a different definition in common usage), I think it is best if people let go of such old definitions. People should not allow themselves to consider such usage as a slight upon them, unless such phrase was used specifically as a slur against that person.
And that goes for any kind of word. For example, if I use the terms master/slave in a discussion about computer hardware, it’s clear I’m not talking about any enslaved population. To make a fuss about that, to me, is people making things their problem and quite silly.
The demand for racism and discrimination exceeds the supply, so people have to create it out of thin air
Didn’t someone really waste time writing an article about statements like “falling on deaf ears” being hurtful? There saved everyone a click.
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?
If you’re offended by the phrase falling on deaf ears, which is very much just an expression, then you need to go outside more. Nobody is trying to offend deaf people with that phrase.
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?
Intent is everything and if someone is clearly not using a word with the intent to offend you, you being offended is a YOU problem, not a them problem.
And before you go say shit like able people can’t know how bad it feels.
1, I’m not “abled”.
2. I’ve had people call me these words meaning to offend and hurt me. THAT actually does hurt. These words being used without any intention to hurt or offend anyone, doesn’t matter to me at all.And sometimes, using those words to offend is perfectly appropriate to express what you want to convey.
Like how many Americans have absolutely retarded levels of overblown reactions with a word like cunt.
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.
Legally speaking, if you didn’t intend to kill them it actually does change the consequences.
There are a lot of two vehicle, or pedestrian, traffic fatalities that don’t result in manslaughter charges.
https://globalnews.ca/news/8973010/man-lying-in-road-hit-car-killed-comox-valley-rcmp/
To date, no charges have been laid.
Intent is huge.
Even if no charges are laid, someone is dead. The intent to kill wasn’t there, but the impact is that someone is dead. It doesn’t matter if a person didn’t mean to kill someone, but again, someone is dead.
This is why impact matters far more than intent. This is an extreme example, but it still applies in all situations. Someone might want to argue their way out of offending someone else, but the damage has already been done.
In the valid to the discussion case you said something with no intent to harm or insult anyone and you didn’t harm them, they decided you harmed them.
In the case of a car accident, you literally fucking killed someone.
It’s Apples and Oranges, a false equivalence argument that goes straight into the trash.
Both are about impact vs intent. Both are about harm. I’m sorry you can’t see that.
If I accidentally spill hot coffee on you and say that it was an accident, you’re still going to be upset. You’d be more upset if I said I did it on purpose, but let’s not pretend that being offensive accidentally is okay.
So, “You aren’t abled”
You are just a smug prick.
Gotcha.
You’re being deliberately obtuse and wilfully ignorant if that’s what you took from the article.
And not that you care, but it isn’t about offenceSo, deaf people say “Please don’t say that,” and you are the smug asshole that says “How the fuck will they know what I say, they’re fucking deaf. Open season on insults boys!”
No, I’m saying there is nuance to phrases like this. There are multiple meanings to the word deaf. Jesus, it’s like talking to a brick wall sometimes.
That’s fine but answer the question.
That’s exactly the mentality they have.
Any thought that goes contrary to them being perfect turns them into petulant brats that allow them to justify having a hissy fit against the left.
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?
In an interpersonal (small group or 1 to 1) context, sure, I agree, if you know someone finds something offensive and you keep saying it, you are kinda being a dick (at the least) even if you don’t think you are being offensive.
But beyond that… what you are saying is not is just not practical or reasonable. You can’t realistically stop using every word or phrase that someone somewhere finds offensive.
We live in a time where everyone is offended by everything and everyone defaults to the righteous victim role (and this is not some veiled criticism of the left, the (American) left gets criticized for this all the time, but in my experience the right can be even worse (more easily offended, more fragile, more eager to play the victim, e.g. ‘war on christmas’, ‘christians are an oppressed minority’ and all that bullshit).
My opinion is that you should not change your language because someone else is offended by it. You should listen when someone else is offended, try to understand, and be considerate. If you come to understand that what you said was innapropriate due to that conversation then change your language, but if you don’t agree, don’t change your language just be more considerate around that person because they are sensitive to it.
It’s really not that many words. If you google ableist terms, you’ll find maybe what, ten? I think it’s reasonable to stop using ten words. What you’re saying by refusing to do so is that you don’t think that some people or groups deserve respect.
Nobody is asking you to protest, or to write letters, change your diet, change what you do with your free time, change your job… Just stop using a few words. Hell, I’d be happy if you just considered cutting some words out of your vocabulary. If you’re at least willing to think about it, I think that’s reasonable. :)
People love having someone to feel superior to, that’s all it is. Some want to keep their oppressive language especially when they find out it’s harmful to others.
How is the phrase falling on deaf ears oppressive. Am I living in opposite world now where that’s a slur people use to try to intimidate someone?
Dude, I’m about as left leaning as it gets. The mental illness comments mentioned in the article, sure, that’s kind of problematic. But statements that are literally just expressions that have been used for probably half a century or more like “falling on deaf ears”. Gimme a break. Find something actually a problem to focus on, like the climate crisis, or the Assault on trans rights in the U.S.
I’m about as left leaning as it gets.
not proudly flaunting ableism and refusing to listen to people with the actual lived experience, the way you are, you’re not.
Find something actually a problem to focus on
in other words: fuck disabled people
Yeah, definitely didn’t say ‘fuck disabled people’. This is literally a made up problem.
Is using racist language a “made-up problem”? If not, how is racist language different from ableist language?
Most racist language is intended to offend and minimize others. It doesn’t come from ignorance, just maliciousness.
Most ableist language is based on ignorance of people who are “not able” in some way. Like saying “everyone can do X” when some people are not for various reasons.
People who are affected are trying to tell you it’s not a made up problem. It is your ego and aversion to criticism and personal development that is telling you otherwise.
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.
“If you’re comparing the badness of two words, and you won’t even say one of them? That’s the worse word.”
I admit I didn’t read the article, but I can say that with the phrase in question of “fall on deaf ears”, it’s a complicated situation. The phrase is poetic in nature and I’m hesitant to try and erase this particular phrase from modern day. I have fear that there will be an over correction towards being non offensive and that creativity as a result will suffer. As someone who has a fondness for poetic expression, this feels like a “throwing the baby out with the bath water” type of situation.
But what’s great about this is finding new and creative ways to express yourself! “My points fell on rocky ground” — Biblical allusion. “They believed me as if I were Cassandra” - Greek. “My words fell on them like the sun under an umbrella.” If you want to keep the synecdoche, “Their ears weren’t ready to hear me”. There’s opportunities to be really creative and poetic if you’re interested in language as rhetoric!
Colloquially, nobody will blink at “They refused to listen” or “It was like I was talking to a tree”.
Not even sort of the same thing. The n word is a racist term people use to intimidate people. Falling on deaf ears is an expression used with a specific meaning. Now if it was intended as an intimidation tactic or something to make people fearful for their life or insult them that’d be different. This is neither of those things.
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?
Yeah, whatever dude. I have more important things to do than worry about phrases such as falling on deaf ears, which is one of the main phrases I take issue with in this waste of time article.
I think it all depends on context and wether the person is trying to be mean or condescending. If a person is deaf and I say he’s deaf, I’m not being condescending, I’m simply stating a fact. With all due respect to your opinion, if we follow your logic we will quickly run out of words.
Have you heard the expression “white lies and black truths”? The intent behind “simply stating a fact” can indeed be hurtful.
But I really don’t think we’re going to run out of words. There’s at least a half million in English, and even counting obscure ableist terms, we’re talking about maybe thirty. Pretty small percentage.
It’s ableists like you who are why articles like this are needed.
BBC, giving a lesson in respect and language? (chuckles queerly)
The article is by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Nović
But what’s the platform?
They run nginx.
I mean, what’s the platform this article is on? What site is the article on? If this story was hosted on fox news, people would be sceptical right off the bat.
The site linked is BBC, BBC has a history within the past three years of transphobia. Therefore any message about respect for others is undermined by the fact that the host doesn’t consider certain groups of people worthy of respect.
The platform that hosts your content matters to your messaging.
Sorry for the trolling.
Yes, it’s tainted, but this article was good and written by somebody who knows what they are talking about.
Many platforms have the full spectrum of good and bad content. We should continue to speak up about the bad ones, but if we cancel all the platforms we’ll not be able to reach a lot of people.
It’s a personal decision. Plenty of siblings still fight the good fight on Xitter :p
I don’t feel that I can describe the… pride of being unique to people who haven’t felt it. It feels so natural that of course a non-disabled person would want to maximize their fitness and freedom and essentially not have the same concerns and certainly not have a community over an innate quality of themselves.
Asking people to remove these phrases is asking them to be mindful of their communication, asking them to be considerate and empathetic. And it’s so easy to slip back in, I was raised on these phrases.
But I will tell you the journey is rewarding. It’s opened me up to friendship with people who would write me off if I did use this language, people who wouldn’t share their perspective on life if I hadn’t put the effort in. That discomfort with talking to disabled people that I felt as a teen? That’s gone. I see mentally and physically disabled people as human, with all the same ability to show me or teach me something as anyone else. It feels great, like a weight off of my shoulders.
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.
Yeah. I’ve seen so much discourse over use of the R-slur. To some, it was obvious long ago. But few of us are so gifted with that foresight, and I stopped using it… last year!
Trying hard to remove “crazy” from my vocabulary, but I hear it so fucking often it’s turning out to be really hard. But I find it’s a pretty lazy word to use, anyway.
deleted by creator
Neither my nationality (I’m not American) nor my politics (I’m not liberal) have anything to do with this. The fact that I’m disabled means that this is a matter near and dear to my heart, and I can indeed be worried about more than one thing at a time (the eroding of trans rights in my own country, for example). It’s not privileged to want to discuss the impact of language.
Anyone have a link without the login window blocking the article?
Ya, well… you know that’s just like uh, your opinion man.
