this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2026
50 points (96.3% liked)
effort
7606 readers
79 users here now
Welcome to c/effort, the home of effort posts! This is a space where you can write on an topic, as long as it reflects real time and effort to put together.
Rules
Posts are text-only. No images or videos.
2.While the topic can be on anything, posts still require “effort”. While there isn’t a minimum word limit or anything, generally this means it’s longer than most other posts and there’s also that the expectation that your posts required real effort to write up.
“Master” posts that have a lot of links are welcomed.
No copypastas
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't know exactly what you're talking about in this instance, but it's uphill getting communities to make progress because they want overly-pat solutions like forbidden words* and standpoint epistemology where you are liable to need to actively tokenize yourself to not be brushed off, when there are much deeper issues of social attitudes that are ableist. It's kind of difficult to explain how so very much of how everyday conversation is framed is ableist, especially since I'm not an expert in psychology or social work or anything and only know what I've experienced or can infer.
I really need to sleep at the moment so I'll just link to an arbitrarily-chosen old comment I wrote on the subject. I should mention that while I express pessimism on this topic, a number of users have been supportive and I really appreciate them, though you should assume they disavow everything else I've ever said unless stated otherwise. Some people have reputations to uphold, or so I understand, but even Bordiga could make a good point now and again.
I apologize if it comes off as me just hijacking your post for a soapbox I've gotten on like a dozen times already, but my purpose in talking about this is that I'm trying to address the "reactionary vibes" issue in a way that is more clearly-defined (albeit incomplete!) for the purpose of coming to a constructive solution. While I sometimes have trouble conveying something to a specific person, I usually have an easy time at least figuring out how to express something in a way that makes sense to me, but this is something where I still struggle to articulate it even to myself and I know the feeling of being stuck with a "vibe" that you can't account for.
*Not that forbidding words is bad, we should do that, I'm talking about conversation excessively revolving around such matters or, maybe more to the point, stopping there.
To me, it's not so much language that bothers me as much as when I see people say borderline eugenics shit about neurodivergent people or throw them under the bus to be more 'normie' friendly (I hate that word but I couldn't think of a better word than normie)
As I try to explain in the linked comment, I agree that people seem to only talk about problems in e.g. vocabulary and then ignoring real underlying ideological issues.
If you're talking about the "be normal" mantras and so on, I also agree that those are unconstructive and really obnoxious to be lectured on by fans of podcasters and streamers repeating dictums of people who are rich and beloved. Obviously it's important to any socialist to learn how to communicate effectively and come off as reasonable, etc., but "be normal" is not actually a good description of what is desirable for socialists and ends up frequently being a term of abuse for marginalized people who were violently excluded from "normalcy" and receive yet more abuse for having been subjected to that exclusion (just, you know, as an example . . . ).
People sometimes use "neurotypical", but it has basically the same problem, that no one is truly normal or typical, because it's an artificial construct used for othering and people are all so different in many ways. I use it to mean: people who can adapt to societies expectations and norms without much effort. So they might still be very different with very different stuff going on in their brains, but they share this privilege to slightly different degrees. Obviously it has to be context dependent for the society at that place and time.
I don't think neurotypical works here because it's not about someone's neurology or mental health in this case, but their acculturation to mainstream society, which includes people who are neurodivergent and excludes some who are neurotypical.
Yes, I see your point. We might need a better word. "Neurotypical" has the work "neuro" in it, but in the way I tried to use it, it's not about what's going on in your brain at all. Or it might, but only indirectly. Or rather, some people use it in that way (like I did), others in a more biological way. I think we need a word for that "acculturation to mainstream society in a mental health adjacent way" and I definitely know, that some people actively use "neurotypical" for that. But I totally see the problem with the conflict with how others use it and also the potential for confusion.
I think the conventional phrasing for that is "well-adjusted," which as a poorly-adjusted person I have no problem with using, but you might not feel the same way.
Yes, I get how it fits, but it's so positively connotated and the opposite so negatively, that I would still hesitate to use it for me or somebody else. I guess, "poorly-adjusted" could be reclaimed in a positive way maybe. Like many other words. I mean being well-adjusted to a capitalist society is kind of suspicious anyway. Chomsky is well adjusted, Parenti wasn't (in a way, since he struggled to find employment).