53
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2023
53 points (100.0% liked)
Chat
7498 readers
41 users here now
Relaxed section for discussion and debate that doesn't fit anywhere else. Whether it's advice, how your week is going, a link that's at the back of your mind, or something like that, it can likely go here.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Hm... I'd actually disagree with that conclusion? I think what the author is saying there is that ableism isn't simply a matter of the words being used. A statement that treats disabled people as subhuman isn't okay because it avoids using these words - it's still ableist.
From the beginning of the article (emphasis mine):
Not everyone has the ability to be mindful of how certain language originated in ableism and this reinforces it. But for those of us who can, it's a good idea to try.
Hmm I wonder if I may have shot past the more straightforward way to parse it.
I'm coming from a stance where "don't do it as soon as you know it's ableist" is voiceless rule, so that significantly colors how I'm interpreting it.
That response was more me being like "oh wow this is essentially saying ignorance is an excuse for using ableist language" (caveats run amok here like "only when there are no known other words" as well as "strictly only when one isn't employing a shitty stereotype when referring to whoever they're referring to")
Admittedly, I can see how that is still a less than desirable takeaway, but all I'm trying to say is I 100% agree with what you've written.
Tldr; thank you for the clarification! Full agree and this is mostly just me trying to figure out where some disconnect is