Ableist: Educate me?

[thistlechaser]

At risk of not being PC, this ableist thing rubs me the wrong way. I'm in no way saying it's okay to push "differently abled" people down stairs, but when normal words can't be used in ways defined by their official definitions, it really gets under my skin.

In a post on a LJ comm, someone complained about something being "lame":

It's kind of lame. And boring.

Cue the shitstorm of "Using 'lame' in this context is ableist." comments.

From the Merriam Webster online dictionary on lame:

Definition of LAME
1
a : having a body part and especially a limb so disabled as to impair freedom of movement b : marked by stiffness and soreness [a lame shoulder]
2
: lacking needful or desirable substance : weak, ineffectual [a lame excuse]
3
slang : not being in the know : square
4
a : inferior [a lame school]

Slang, yes, but it is there. I have major issues with people not being supposed to use 'crazy' or 'insane', too. As in "95 degrees in the middle of December? That's so insane!".

It doesn't help that this whole ableist thing seemed to crop up overnight.

Am I being too sensitive about this? Or are crazy/lame/insane words now the same as saying 'nigger' or 'faggot'?

As a side note, I suddenly understand my mother. She just doesn't understand that homophobia isn't okay. Maybe this ableist stuff is generational, too! Younger folks are probably rolling their eyes at me. :P

Comments

[kaiz.livejournal.com]

Well, okay, here's my take on this, and I'm honestly not trying to be snarky or lecturing so I apologize in advance if it comes across that way…

Making an appeal to dictionary definitions is pretty fraught when it comes to highly charged words. I mean, while a dictionary might theoretically support your position, it's how the word is used in a social setting and what effect it has that really matters.

In other words, if a whole bunch of people are telling you that a word is offensive to them, what do you really gain by insisting "but the dictionary says…" other than pissing them off and/or alienating them?

Plus, words change meanings all the time. So next update, the new dictionary definition might indeed say, lame: inferior: weak, ineffectual; slang: not being in the know, now considered pejorative in which case are you now going to stop using lame just because an authority is finally backing up those annoyed people?

Why would it take an appeal to some distant authority to make you change your mind when you have real people letting you know right now that how you're using the word is hurtful to them and/or furthers stereotypes about their group? (It seems pretty clear to me why a group of people wouldn't want to be considered weak, ineffectual, not in the know, or lacking in needful substance!)

I get that it can be irritating to have to monitor your speech and remove words and usages from your everyday lexicon that have become comfortable. People were/are certainly annoyed about getting called out for using "lady doctor", "chairman", "fireman", and "that's so gay" instead of "doctor", "chairperson/chair", "firefighter", "that's silly/uncool/whatever". But of course words have power, and so why continue to perpetuate bigotry or ignorance, etc. when just altering how you use a few of them can make the world a better place for members of a group who could really use the support?

I don't think that it's a question of over-sensitivity on your part. But more that because you're not the intended target of the put-down, it isn't immediately obvious to you that people who are the target are being affected. Like a straight person saying, "that's so gay". It's not immediately apparent why that expression can really sting, but boy howdy can it sting if you're gay!

Also, I guess I'm not seeing how this has popped up over night. I think maybe people are more outspoken about it now in fannish circles, but discussions about ablism have been going on for a long while, both on- and off-line.

Finally, I don't think that it's all that useful to try to compare/contrast the degree of offensiveness of different, er, offensive terms! If disabled folks have asked that people to change how they use lame/insane/crazy/etc., I don't see that it matters if those words are exactly as offensive to them as faggot is to gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Well, okay, here's my take on this, and I'm honestly not trying to be snarky or lecturing so I apologize in advance if it comes across that way…

You didn't, no worries.

Making an appeal to dictionary definitions is pretty fraught when it comes to highly charged words.

Agreed. It being dictionary-approved wasn't my only reason for questioning this, just the easiest to explain. I like words. I like learning new words. I like old words. I like words no one uses anymore. I don't like losing words (though I'd agree it's necessary sometimes, like nigger, faggot, that level of thing).

In other words, if a whole bunch of people are telling you that a word is offensive to them, what do you really gain by insisting "but the dictionary says…" other than pissing them off and/or alienating them?

My issue with that is, especially online, you'd be hard pressed to find any topic that a bunch of people aren't offended by. If I posted in the wrong place about my desire to have a hamburger for lunch, I'd get ripped apart. If unmarried me posted about wanting to sleep with some guy or woman, there would be tons of people raging about my actions. Someone somewhere will always be offended by something. Should we adjust ourselves for every one of those people? (I'd like to offend as few people as possible, but such things must be done within reason. Which of course leads to the question of what is reasonable.)

And, related to that, seven of the eight people who have commented thus far to this post are not offended by 'lame'. So which group do I listen to?

People were/are certainly annoyed about getting called out for using "lady doctor",

Huh! I've never heard "lady doctor" get used. If I had, I would assume they meant "lady parts doctor" (gynecologist).

But more that because you're not the intended target of the put-down, it isn't immediately obvious to you that people who are the target are being affected. Like a straight person saying, "that's so gay". It's not immediately apparent why that expression can really sting, but boy howdy can it sting if you're gay!

Disagreed on this. I'm not gay (proof that gay people don't just decide to be gay on their own!), but I rage at the whole 'gay meaning bad' slang. Same with racist stuff. I don't think you need to be that target group to understand.

Also, I guess I'm not seeing how this has popped up over night. I think maybe people are more outspoken about it now in fannish circles

Yeah, that's where I've started to encounter it, fannish circles, so it seems to me like it popped up overnight. After I made this post, I spent some time googling, and found that it started back in the 80s.

Finally, I don't think that it's all that useful to try to compare/contrast the degree of offensiveness of different, er, offensive terms! If disabled folks have asked that people to change how they use lame/insane/crazy/etc., I don't see that it matters if those words are exactly as offensive to them as faggot is to gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.

This is basically what Kirby said below. I personally don't use "lame" as slang (like he said, it seems like something some teenage girl might use), though I do use crazy/insane.

Thanks for the comment!

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

I've observed it going on for about ... hm, 3-4 years now.

Personally, unlike being peeved at using "gay" to mean "annoying/irritating/ridiculous," I haven't fully accepted the lame/crazy thing yet. But I do try and be aware of how I'm using the language. If I don't /need/ to use "lame," then why not try something else?

Given as I /am/ crazy (mentally ill), I try and use it primarily for, well, people who are mentally ill. There's plenty of words that imply the same thing one usually uses crazy for. (Wacky, say.)

I don't make a big deal out of it, and I still forget sometimes, but it's not a major crime if I do, after all. It pervades the language.

[wow-hazmat.livejournal.com]

Seconding Julian.

Personally, I don't find "lame" and "crazy" to be offensive, but other people do, and honestly those two words aren't important enough to me to take a stand for them. I'll use another word or, if I slip, I'll apologize.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Sounds very reasonable. Thanks!

[avocado-love.livejournal.com]

I think it's lame. ;D

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

That was my thought on it, too. :P

[veloxe.livejournal.com]

It's hard to really speak on that seeing as how I'm not disabled (and it's the first time I've heard the word albeist). I mean, I've never really thought much of how people use "lame" (other then that I immediately consider the user to have the mental state of a certain subset of teenage girls, you know the ones).

But in that context, I don't think it's ableist. I'm sure for a disabled person it could probably sting to hear people using the word a bunch but in that situation the context clearly points towards it being the 2nd definition as opposed to the 1st. Of course if we wanted to go down another level we could say even the second definition is ableist since its origin is probably a description of the disabled as being lacking in some way, or not at the same level as more abled humans.

I don't know. I'm just not going to worry about it. I don't use "lame" and I generally try not to judge discriminate against people (other then the stupid ones). In the even that I use a word and someone says "Hey, that's *blank*ist!" then I'll probably try to alter my speech patterns (assuming the whole thing isn't just stupid). There are so many ways to offend everything that exists (and even things that don't exist) that if I attempted to go ahead and auto-censor myself I don't think I'd be allowed to use any words anymore.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

I mean, I've never really thought much of how people use "lame" (other then that I immediately consider the user to have the mental state of a certain subset of teenage girls, you know the ones).

Same. More than potentially offensive language, to me it says more about the mental state of the speaker.

I'm more worried ('worried' being too strong of a word, really) about my using insane/crazy for things. I don't want to offend folks, but I also don't like not being able to use perfectly fine words.

There are so many ways to offend everything that exists (and even things that don't exist) that if I attempted to go ahead and auto-censor myself I don't think I'd be allowed to use any words anymore.

We could make hand signals at each other... except so many of those are offensive. :P

[veloxe.livejournal.com]

We could make hand signals at each other... except so many of those are offensive. :P

Oh my god, have you gone mad? People choosing to use hand signals to talk to each other instead of talking? There are people who would kill for the ability to speak, we'd be belittling them! (This isn't a shot at the mute community but more of a point about the whole, can't throw a stone without offending someone.)

I'm more worried ('worried' being too strong of a word, really) about my using insane/crazy for things. I don't want to offend folks, but I also don't like not being able to use perfectly fine words.

Concerned, but I wouldn't really be worried about insane/crazy too much. There has been a rather concerted effort to take what used to be called insane or crazy and give every version of mental illness or learning disability (which might have been interpreted as "insane" back in the day) a proper name (or 2, or 3, or 12, seriously people...). As such I think crazy/insane has taken on even a bigger changed meaning then other words discussed.

Like how gay is becoming synonymous with icky or bad (this still being the most charged of the 3 in this example), lame has almost finished becoming synonymous with lacking or not up to par (still can result in backlash as the word is still partially charge in the social mind), and then crazy/insane (which has basically been discharged and doesn't return backlash from pretty much anyone).

I think it just comes down to situation. Like, if I'm talking to a one legged man, I won't make jokes about one legged men in an ass kicking contest. It's similar to how I alter my speak to remove swearing when children are around. Same general idea, if I'm around disabled people (or any group really) I just try to censor out any charged words or subjects to avoid offending everyone.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

I think it just comes down to situation. Like, if I'm talking to a one legged man, I won't make jokes about one legged men in an ass kicking contest.

Dude needs to get a sense of humor! :|

(But more seriously, yeah, makes sense!)

[sahn.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't use those words to describe people. I would definitely not use words like lame or crazy or insane or retarded to insult someone. But I will use those words (and others) to describe inanimate things. For example, I would say that the word "ableist" is retarded. Cue shitstorm. My point is the target of the word matters a lot, and there's a very big difference between using those words to describe some thing and using them to describe someone.

Also, my thought to someone saying "that's offensive" is "who are you to presume to be able to speak for that group of people?" If someone says instead, "I'm offended." Then I'll listen.

[sahn.livejournal.com]

That second point is that I think some people use being politically correct to assert their superiority, as if to say "I'm holier than thou", rather than out of genuine empathy to any specific person or group of people. And if that's the case, I'd rather not give them the satisfaction.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

That's the feeling I get from this whole ableist movement. It feels like the bandwagon of the day. (Goggle tells me it's actually been around since the 80s though, so it's just that it's starting to pick up steam online.)

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Agreed on all of this. I'm also concerned with how it would expand. If we can't use those words today, how soon will things like 'stupid' be offensive? OH NOS, THINK OF THE STUPID PEOPLE! THEY HAVE FEELINGS, TOO!

Slippery slope.

[veloxe.livejournal.com]

Hey stupid people have rights you know! They have the right to go the hell away. I plan to go down fighting if that ever becomes the case. I'm all for tolerance but stupid is as stupid does.

[trickofthedark.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's about age. My sister-in-law is 11 years younger than me and I spent several years trying to convince her that her use of the word 'gay' as a synonym for 'icky' (in front of me who has a gay brother) was insulting and annoying.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Ugh! Good luck, I hope you can make her understand.

[giftofarthas.livejournal.com]

I kinda think things are going too far these days. I have a mental illness myself, but I don't balk at the word 'crazy' or 'insane' being used colloquially . (Not that my experiences should be the sum and total of everyone's.)

I do, however, take offense when someone uses 'retarded' or 'gay' as insults, because those are far more charged words. 'Lame' and 'insane' aren't as attached, at least they aren't in my view, to people who are disabled or mentally ill.

When I hear someone say 'that's so gay' I think of gay people. If I hear 'that's retarded' I get the picture of someone with mental handicaps in my brain. And I am then bothered by it.

If I hear 'lame' or 'insane', there is no cognitive mental pairing. And I'm really starting to get concerned about all this 'you can't say that' going around.

I do agree that dictionary references probably aren't the best defense tactic, that's been used many times to discredit people trying to ask others not to use 'rape' so casually.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Agreed, on all of this.

I do agree that dictionary references probably aren't the best defense tactic, that's been used many times to discredit people trying to ask others not to use 'rape' so casually.

EEEK! I hadn't known about that! Thankfully my circle of online friends includes no one who would use it that way, so I've never heard (and it pains me to continue to type this sentence) people who would argue pro-using 'rape' casually. Ugh!

[socksofjello.livejournal.com]

Kaiz has already expressed my opinion on the topic.

Personally, I wish people would stop using the phrase "politically correct". It was created by social regressives specifically to belittle the arguments of rights activists who are trying to change the way minorities are viewed and treated in media and by society. I can't say how many times I've seen people use "oh, I'm not PC" as an excuse when called out on using bigoted language.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Huh! I hadn't thought about the source of "politically correct" (though I did suspect it likely had right wing origins and briefly pondered if there were a better way of phrasing things, then I got lazy and used the politically correct "shortcut").

Thanks for the info on it!

[socksofjello.livejournal.com]

It's basically been an intellectually lazy method of shutting down conversation on these topics for years, yeah.

Also, to respond to a common concern you've expressed in the other comment threads:

[i]Someone somewhere will always be offended by something. Should we adjust ourselves for every one of those people?[/i]

Of course you can't know everything that might offend any particular person, and different groups are bothered by different things; the thing is, it's arguing from bad faith to imply we don't [i]already[/i] constantly adjust our language and attitudes in response to who we're speaking with.

There's no shame in being rebuked for using a word you were unaware others find charged. Most people understand you aren't psychic. If someone is offended by something, there's no harm in apologizing and making a mental note to avoid mentioning or using it around them. It's a matter of respect.

[socksofjello.livejournal.com]

Oh goddamnit. :|

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Meep?

[socksofjello.livejournal.com]

Do you know how many fingers I've already had to cut off for using BBcode on LJ? D:

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Oh! I didn't even notice.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

it's arguing from bad faith to imply we don't [i]already[/i] constantly adjust our language and attitudes in response to who we're speaking with.

Hrm. I guess you're right. I'd like to think I speak the same way to everyone, but I guess in truth that's not right.

Good point on the last paragraph, too!

[kirbyk.livejournal.com]

I'm, like a lot of people here, of two minds on the subject.

On the one hand, there's intent. Does saying "That's gay!" to mean that's bad intend to say that being gay is bad? I'd argue yes. "That's lame!" and "That's crazy!" don't, nearly as strongly. And they've been slang for a long time, whereas "That's gay!" seemed to rise up as a backlash against gay rights. The speaker isn't implying that actual lame people suck, or actual people with mental illnesses suck. (And crazy is even trickier, because some mental illnesses _do_ suck to be around.)

On the other hand, intent isn't everything. If someone in a wheelchair is hurt by 'lame', how hard is it for me to choose a different word? There may not be intent before, too, but now that you know that some people find it insulting, if you keep doing it, you can't say that you didn't mean to offend anymore.

Which isn't to say that I support not using words to mean what they actually mean. Eliminating slang for 'bad' is fine. Calling a horse 'lame' that failed to finish a race because of a leg injury, calling Osama bin Laden "crazy" because his actions betray a thought process that does not logically compute, calling Neil Patrick Harris gay because he's expressed desire to sleep with men, these are all uses to be kept. On the other hand, words like 'retard', 'faggot', 'nigger', etc, are so broken and charged, they should be dropped altogether. (If someone wants to make a case to move a word from list A to list B, I'd listen.)

I generally find that it costs so little to adjust personal vocabulary, and arguing against it makes you look like such a jerk in some people's eyes, it's the easiest and nicest solution.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

And they've been slang for a long time, whereas "That's gay!" seemed to rise up as a backlash against gay rights.

That's a good point in all this.

On the other hand, intent isn't everything. If someone in a wheelchair is hurt by 'lame', how hard is it for me to choose a different word?

I wish there weren't so many sides to this. I agree with that. Yet, there's always someone who will be offended by something. But I don't want to offend anyone if possible! But that leads to what Vel said, at that point I'd just stop using words altogether. So then let's be reasonable about what we're willing to change so as not to offend people... now let's get everyone to agree what 'reasonable' is!

. On the other hand, words like 'retard', 'faggot', 'nigger', etc, are so broken and charged, they should be dropped altogether.

Agreed. I wrote in a comment above that I like words and I don't like losing use of them, but for words like those I would happily make an exception.

Thanks for the comment!

[sahn.livejournal.com]

"On the other hand, words like 'retard', 'faggot', 'nigger', etc, are so broken and charged, they should be dropped altogether."

I think "homophobe" should be added to that list. That word has become charged with as much contempt as any of the others in that list.

[kirbyk.livejournal.com]

Hmm, that's a challenging statement. Or, to draw an equivalency, the word 'racist'. Nobody in 2011 wants to be called a racist, and it's a big accusation.

On the other hand, I think there's a distinction between words that attack a bad behavior, and words that attack for being in a minority. Being black, gay, transgendered, left-handed, mentally challenged, and such are innate. Being racist, anti-gay, anti-semetic, ableist, sexist, and such are just not. They're behaviors and mindsets that society would be better off without.

Of course, while most people in modern society generally agree that we shouldn't pick on people for things they can't change, there's a serious disagreement about whether being gay is on the innate list, or on the behavior society would be better without list. I can respect the consistency of people who are anti-gay and classify it as the latter; however, I don't think they have a serious knowledge of actual scientific studies, which have been pretty universal in discrediting that premise. (And doubly so for Trans.)

And so for me, no. I don't really like the word homophobia (it's not a fear like arachophobia), but it's the word we have. And someone who is anti-gay is not, in my mind, someone who is being persecuted for an innate fact of their being, but instead is a bully who is persecuting others for an innate fact, and they are the only one in the relationship who can change for the better.

[sahn.livejournal.com]

"Of course, while most people in modern society generally agree that we shouldn't pick on people for things they can't change."

It's also generally agreed that we shouldn't pick on people for their beliefs. If "homophobe" is going to be defined as a person who actively persecutes homosexuals and is used to attack specific bad behavior, it shouldn't be used as a pejorative term for religious people in general. And if it is going to be used as a pejorative term for religious people in general, then you're going to offend a whole lot of people.

[penwyn.livejournal.com]

I think people are approaching it the wrong way. Instead of being offended, I think the groups in question should take those words for themselves. It's a hell of a lot more effective than spewing sand from one's vagina at someone who offends them.

For example, I am close to a lot of gay and bisexual individuals (and I'm included in that number). This group of people says 'faggot' and 'That's the gayest thing ever' more than any group I've ever come into contact with. The words just don't have the same meaning they used to, summed up quite efficiently by the South Park episode where they assign the word 'faggot' to Harley Davidson riders and it catches on.

Instead of letting words hurt them, people should use them to empower themselves.

...Or just stop being so goddamned sensitive. Whatever happened to sticks-and-stones? We can watch videos on the internet of shit like the Pain Olympics but someone says that something is lame or gay or whatever and a shitstorm ensues. That's the reason I don't frequent LJ groups anymore.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

For example, I am close to a lot of gay and bisexual individuals (and I'm included in that number). This group of people says 'faggot' and 'That's the gayest thing ever' more than any group I've ever come into contact with.

Can't agree with that (though I guess you know that since we've had this conversation before). Anyone overhearing them wouldn't know that they're gay, thus it's "okay" (if it is). It could be used as further proof that it's okay for anyone to say it. Not to mention, the people who don't like it used that way.

I do agree that words can sometimes be given more power than they should, though.

[kaelash.livejournal.com]

Randomly, people who are gay using gay as an insult or calling each other faggots really annoys me on the same level of people of (insert race here) calling themselves (insert that racial slur here). A trend lately has been other white people sidling up and being all like 'hey cracker what's happenin'!?' and I just look at them like wtf you did NOT just call me that. :|

Just because you are a particular sexual/ethnic/social group DOES NOT make public slinging of the slurs around okay. Private? Man, go for it. Call yourselves the worst thing you can imagine. I just prefer to opt out of it unless I'm being horribly sarcastic with close friends that know it's not serious.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

Randomly, people who are gay using gay as an insult or calling each other faggots really annoys me on the same level of people of (insert race here) calling themselves (insert that racial slur here).

Agreed.

A trend lately has been other white people sidling up and being all like 'hey cracker what's happenin'!?' and I just look at them like wtf you did NOT just call me that. :|

...Seriously? Gah, I hadn't heard people were doing that. I suppose it's in response to the whole "nigga" (ugh, I hate even typing it -- if you must use the word, at least spell it right!) thing.

[peppygrowlithe.livejournal.com]

I've never heard of people jumping down somebody's throat because they used the word 'lame'. That's insane!

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

I see what you did there!

...and I love you for it.

[itsbacon.livejournal.com]

kaiz, socks, and kirbyk have already expressed many points that I agree with.

I'd also like to add that I think the use of potentially ableist/homophobic/sexist language is very rarely a black-and-white thing, where some words are never or always OK to use in this or that context. A word can be used oppressively, reclamatively, ironically, etc., sometimes all at the same time. A speaker's meaning can be quite fluid, and she can evoke multiple paradigms at once.

</incomprehensible rambling%gt;

Basically, my philosophy is that... It's not a matter of people Using Bad Words or Using Those Words Wrong, in which those who have erred have clearly racked up sin points and those who are calling them out are holy and spotless. Instead, I think that whenever we use one of those words like "lame" or "gay," our use will always be more or less oppressive. People should be aware of that and be cautious when their use slides too far to the "more oppressive" end of the scale. It's definitely not a matter of banning words but of being aware of which and how words can be problematic and need to be used with care.

I think that as we become more aware of the hidden hurtfulness of various words (consider alongside "gay" and "retarded" words like "gypped" and "mongoloid") we have to re-learn how to use them by trial and error. Some people will err on the overly-sensitive side and cry for censorship; other people will be defensive and conservative. And I think it's impossible to objectively arbitrate and say something like "No, Joebob is in the right here, as he has 86.2% ability to use 'jewed' reclamatively." There's no such way to measure that! So instead of trying to "win" or to always use language correctly, I think we just have to be careful and attentive and always keep learning.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

kaiz, socks, and kirbyk have already expressed many points that I agree with.

Somehow I agree with almost every comment posted here, even though some of them are conflicting!

I like the sliding scale idea. Going into this debate, I had wrongly thought I was speaking the same way to everyone (being honestly myself no matter who I was talking to), but that turned out to be wrong. I don't talk to a customer the same way I would a little kid. So if we adjust for that, I guess we can adjust for this, too.

So instead of trying to "win" or to always use language correctly, I think we just have to be careful and attentive and always keep learning.

Another good point. I worry a lot about doing things wrong, but in a case like this, we really can't know what exactly is right/wrong, not without being a psychic!

<3

[priestpluswolf.livejournal.com]

I am 'differently abled'.

No, scratch that. I'm a goddamn GIMP. I gimp around, I need crutches, I need walkers, sometimes I need a wheelchair. I am not 'differently abled', I'm a cripple. There is no shame in being a gimp, I don't need to be told I'm special in some other way to feel good about myself, and I sure as hell don't need special phrases invented for me to soothe my poor battered ego.

And this is coming from someone who hasn't had a steady job for years because as soon as I roll into the interview or with crutches or a walker suddenly they find some other reason to not hire me. And the endless people who think since I can't walk I can't think either.

But fuck this 'lame is abelist!' shit. Seriously, fuck it with a dried corncob. People are these days going OUT OF THEIR WAY to find things to get indignantly, self-righteously angry about. I can let the protests against 'retard' or 'gay' slide, as most of the time this actually makes sense - though I admit I use retarded to describe things I feel are mentally deficient all the time. But 'lame'? 'Insane'?

These people need to stop whining on the internets about how these words are so wrong and actually get out there and do something about it if they care so much.*



* I'm sure some do. But I can almost guarantee you 90+% of them just sit in front of their computers whining online because internet has no consequences for what you say or do, because people can't hit you through the monitor. It feels good to work up a good 'justified rage' at the ignorant peons out there, so people do it. It's the new form of camaraderie.

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

People are these days going OUT OF THEIR WAY to find things to get indignantly, self-righteously angry about.

That was the feeling I got in this case. It was the bandwagon of the day, and everyone hopped on.

. I can let the protests against 'retard' or 'gay' slide, as most of the time this actually makes sense - though I admit I use retarded to describe things I feel are mentally deficient all the time. But 'lame'? 'Insane'?

I protest about using gay incorrectly. The whole 'retard' thing doesn't bother me in the least, but it's not a word I'd ever use as slang, so I respect not using it in an indirect way.

Lame? Insane? Crazy? Those I have a lot more trouble with. (I wouldn't use 'lame' as slang either, so it falls into the same grouping as 'retard'.)

I don't want to stop using insane/crazy, but I suspect I've now become so hyperaware of them, that I might avoid them without realizing it.

These people need to stop whining on the internets about how these words are so wrong and actually get out there and do something about it if they care so much.*

* I'm sure some do. But I can almost guarantee you 90+% of them just sit in front of their computers whining...

Agree, to both parts!

[kaelash.livejournal.com]

priestpluswolf pretty much nailed my feelings on it. I think getting -over- sensitive to common, publicly accepted slang is not remotely close to say, racial slurs.

Mildly off topic, but I admit I waffle on the 'omg gay' thing because I can just ignore it and chalk it up to the fact the person is an ignorant buffoon and go on my merry way. Often I have fun baiting them, but say it's in a heroic or just a dungeon... If they're pulling their weight, I'll just put them on ignore instead of votekicking. They waited in the queue just as long as anyone else (assuming they're DPS, which most of the time they are) and I'm not willing to lower myself to that level of douchbaggery when being liberal with the /ignore function gives me the same level of silence and the promise of never seeing them again.

Back on the 'ableist' (wtf, really) topic: I figure slang is kinna like swearing. There's different levels. Different people are sensitive to different levels. Like saying damn in public usually doesn't get a look. Shit might get a few disapproving looks, and fuck is considered extremely abrasive in a public setting.

Now, if someone asks me nicely to not use a particular way of phrasing or slang or curse word, I'll try to avoid it in the future -around them-, like I avoid saying fuck in public. Like saying lame around someone that can't walk might rub them the wrong way, but then again, I know physically lame people who have absolutely no problem with it (see above post!).

It's not being politically correct, if we're gonna use that term. It's about being polite. I'm gonna be me and what's comfortable for me, but if someone says they're not comfortable with it, I'll usually tone it down around them in the future.

[kaelash.livejournal.com]

WAT IS THIS I can't edit to fix my typos! :| LAME.

*flee*

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE. :D

[thistle-chaser.livejournal.com]

I think getting -over- sensitive to common, publicly accepted slang is not remotely close to say, racial slurs.

That's my opinion on it. I don't disagree with everyone else though, even though their opinions disagree. Somehow I agree on three disagreeing opinions! This has become more confusing than it started out to be.

I'm not sure about the 'omg gay' thing in dungeons, but I don't run them, so hey!

Back on the 'ableist' (wtf, really) topic: I figure slang is kinna like swearing. There's different levels. Different people are sensitive to different levels

That seems reasonable to me.

Like saying lame around someone that can't walk might rub them the wrong way, but then again, I know physically lame people who have absolutely no problem with it (see above post!).

There's an element to this debate that I didn't even bring up in my original post. At work the other day, my boss was talking about a big dog. She started to say "It's really fa--" and caught herself, adjusting to some other word instead of saying 'fat' around fat me. I would have much much rather she just say it, it hurt a whole lot more to have her so clearly avoid the word. Would cripple folks feel the same about 'lame'?

[priestpluswolf.livejournal.com]

See above; not all of us are hurt by it. Some don't even remotely care like myself, some are indifferent. Some do care.