this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
-3 points (46.9% liked)

Canada

7134 readers
300 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Regions


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Universities


💵 Finance / Shopping


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social & Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ram@lemmy.ca 56 points 1 year ago (11 children)

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

Speaking of facts

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. ❤️

[–] secret_ninja@feddit.nl 10 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] freeindv@monyet.cc 1 points 1 year ago

The demand for racism and discrimination exceeds the supply, so people have to create it out of thin air

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Didn't someone really waste time writing an article about statements like "falling on deaf ears" being hurtful? There saved everyone a click.

[–] Ransom@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (40 children)

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?

[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (7 children)

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.

[–] Ransom@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Endorkend@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] Ransom@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] Remmock@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Legally speaking, if you didn’t intend to kill them it actually does change the consequences.

[–] Endorkend@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Ransom@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Sir_Osis_of_Liver@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Ransom@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DessertStorms@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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 offence

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (39 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Roundcat@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

BBC, giving a lesson in respect and language? (chuckles queerly)

[–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Ransom@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago

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!

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] nocturne213@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Anyone have a link without the login window blocking the article?

[–] TheLordHumungus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Ya, well.... you know that's just like uh, your opinion man.

load more comments
view more: next ›