Usage of ableist words

[ChangeAndChance]

So the Dismantle Misogyny page on Facebook has imploded after one of the admins made a post criticizing the misogyny of Rick Santorum by using the term "dumbfuckery": this provoked a shitstorm of angry posters threatening to unlike the page because it "promotes ableism" now. My question for you is whether you think "dumb" still applies as an ableist term in modern society. Apparently, it used to refer to people with mutism but I can honestly say I have never ever EVER heard anyone apart from my grandmother use the term "dumb" to refer to those people. It can't even have connotations to mutism if no one knows that it used to refer to it. However, words like "r*tard" and "gay" are still used constantly as insults and most people DO know their connection to mental disability and homosexuality.

Is all the anger justified and have I just been living under a rock or should we consider dropping some words off of the "overreact on the internet over the use of these" list?

edit: oh would you look at that. the original posts are gone.

edit 2: never mind, only the drama one is gone.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Those angry posters are themselves guilty of dumbfuckery.

[Slippers]

I try not to use oppressive language in my speech if I can for many reasons. Like; if you want to whatever I don't get on peoples cases generally but it's something to be mindful of.

I try not to use words like the aforementioned one. And I don't tend to believe in concepts of "stupidity" anyway.

And in general when it comes to people saying "don't use these words" I think it's most important to listen to the people actually effected by them.

If disabled people are telling you that words are harmful to disabled people you might do well to listen to them.

[RedWorker]

Just take a look at what goes on RevLeft: The people who complain about the word "retard" are the same ones using "moron" to insult others.

First of all, both retard and moron have medical usages, even though one is much more dated and out of usage than the other.

Secondly, both refer to the low intelligence of someone. What, then, is the true difference between calling someone a 'retard', and pointing out that they are of low intelligence? One may be used medically, but in the end both refer to the same concept. I would not use 'retard' myself, because it is so associated with disability today, however.

Insults have ever referred to characteristics of others perceived as weaker or less capable. We don't insult someone by calling them "beautiful".

Therefore, to accept insulting itself is to accept ableism to some degree.

Insulting is a normal and healthy component of human interaction (when overused or in the wrong situations obviously it is bad, but the same applies to anything else). Discrimination is not.

Perhaps only words like "asshole" escape this, because they refer only to the malice of someone - an asshole is one who intentionally causes damages to others.

[Slippers]

Them having "medical uses" is like, a really bad reason to say that a word is okay to use.

And honestly that you think that all insulting has to be shitting on somebodies ability or intelligence suggests to me you have a rather deep hatred of disabled people. That you even think that somebodies ability or lack thereof is a basis to put them down and harm them (verbally or otherwise) suggests that.

I can't stop you from using whatever words you want and frankly, in mixed-company outside of disabled spaces it's so common that I can't be arsed to give much of a shit but it'd do you good to, again, listen to people who say those words harm them. Or more than those words - the context behind those words.

[RedWorker]

You truly unmasked me as the deep hater of disabled people I am.

I, however, fail to see how in my elaboration of a description of the ableism and insulting relationship, in which no position is explicitly advocated and merely certain points are considered, I have declared myself as someone who explicitly seeks disabled people in order to insult them.

Why do some leftists have this tendency to sort everyone out in two boxes, to believe that if someone did not explicitly advocate a certain position, he must believe the exact opposite? (probably applies more to other political groups than leftists but whatever) Just look at the words that have been put in my mouth - "if a word is used for medical disabilities, then it's okay to use it to insult people". The interesting effect here is that the user 'Slippers' here probably means no malice - he or she simply probably believes that is really what I have said.

Now, can something relevant please be said?

[Comrade Jacob]

What a bunch of whiny dumbfuckers.

[Slippers]

You truly unmasked me as the deep hater of disabled people I am.

I, however, fail to see how in my elaboration of a description of the ableism and insulting relationship, in which no position is explicitly advocated and merely certain points are considered, I have declared myself as someone who explicitly seeks disabled people in order to insult them.

Why do some leftists have this tendency to sort everyone out in two boxes, to believe that if someone did not explicitly advocate a certain position, he must believe the exact opposite? (probably applies more to other political groups than leftists but whatever) Just look at the words that have been put in my mouth - "if a word is used for medical disabilities, then it's okay to use it to insult people". The interesting effect here is that the user 'Slippers' here probably means no malice - he or she simply probably believes that is really what I have said.

Now, can something relevant please be said?

The mere fact that you think that all insults necessitate hating on people because of their ability or intelligence suggests that. Yeah; I'm sure you don't believe you do, but if you don't believe that there is a way to insult somebody without telling them that they are "stupid" and therefore bad - I don't know what else that could indicate.

And if you're not saying that it's a-okay to use those words for those reasons (that they have medical uses) then what is it that you are advocating?

[RedWorker]

Most insults rely on pointing out how others are dumb, ugly, weak, other alike concepts and/or variations thereof. This is no mystery, and it is logical. There are some insults that do not match this rule, as I have pointed out, but it is a key concept in the realm of insults. Are you saying that the fulfillment of an anti-ableism position requires throwing away such a key concept in insulting? Is the issue really as simple as this - or is something being missed?

What am I advocating? That I personally do not agree with using words like "retard" to insult others, but if we take the logic of some people to the extreme, all insulting or the concept of insulting itself could be a form of ableism. This suggests to me that this issue isn't as clear as some claim.

What I said about medical uses is merely that if saying "retard" is wrong... then saying "moron" is wrong too. While pointing out that some people who have criticized the former have themselves engaged in the latter. Please make a serious effort to examine what people are saying before coming to conclusions. This isn't a matter of disagreement - this is a matter of outright erroneous interpretation.

[Slippers]

Yes I am saying exactly that. A shocking proposition, maybe, but I assure you that it is quite easy to insult people without resorting to ableism. Like, say, calling someone a fascist. Or a piece of shit.

Much worse than calling somebody mentally disabled - something that ISN'T A BAD THING. That's the key point.

I don't believe in calling people "moron" or "stupid" or any such thing if you're going to do that whatever, the 'r' word is the especially egregious one anyway (along with others - like "cripple", or "spaz"). But if someone who has been hurt by those words tells you not to say those words it's not even like, a matter of ideology so much as a matter of not being a jerk to that person. Even if you find it silly.

I don't think that my logic will make it impossible to insult people. Far from it; I insult people all the time.

Take everything I say with a grain of salt I'm a disabled person but I don't claim to be an expert on these issues.

[motion denied]

Burning questions of our movement.

[Redistribute the Rep]

I think we should popularize Revleft insults, like: liberal, Men's Rights Activist (if you can say that without laughing), petty bourgeois ideologue, and so on.

[Rafiq]

It is above all the infantile nature of these psuedo-leftists - they lack any political vitality or revolutionary substance whatsoever.

Here is a question: What if, rather than actually demonstrating care for ableism, the real outrage was sparked by the violent attack on Santourum? What if the very act of political expression in an offensive manner with connotations of power, action is what really scares them?

[Slippers]

This topic is to be the death of me.


It is above all the infantile nature of these psuedo-leftists - they lack any political vitality or revolutionary substance whatsoever.

Here is a question: What if, rather than actually demonstrating care for ableism, the real outrage was sparked by the violent attack on Santourum? What if the very act of political expression in an offensive manner with connotations of power, action is what really scares them?

Surely if somebody doesn't want to throw disabled people under the bus - SURELY then they have no "revolutionary substance" or "political vitality".

People here must be really boring if they can't imagine a way to insult or criticize somebody without shitting on disabled people but cool.


Burning questions of our movement.

Believe it or not this is important to some people. Myself for example.

[Quail]

It's interesting how the more aware I become of where most insults come from, the less I want to use them. There are so few insults that don't come from throwing some marginalised group of people under the bus, which I suppose makes sense - if those people are accepted to be second-class citizens then of course it is insulting to be compared to them. But to a revolutionary socialist, nobody is a second-class citizen. In which case, the insults that are commonly used don't really work any more.

[willowtooth]

i think it says alot about the seriousness of that site if it "implodes" because one of the leaders of the group called someone dumb

[Thirsty Crow]

So the Dismantle Misogyny page on Facebook has imploded after one of the admins made a post criticizing the misogyny of Rick Santorum by using the term "dumbfuckery": this provoked a shitstorm of angry posters threatening to unlike the page because it "promotes ableism" now.
It doesn't and the charge is ridiculous.

Any ESL speaker could tell with a good deal of certainty that the word "dumb" isn't used in reference to people with disabilities. Instead, it refers to stupid people, Rick Santorum being a valid candidate definitely.

I guess it's a particular activist mentality and sub-culture thing. It's damaging to be sure as it can be understood as a silencing ostracism which is so completely misdirected.


Burning questions of our movement.Actually, I think this is quite symptomatic and indeed important because radical minorty groups can indeed A) work within the class and for the class, but for that it's necessary to B) sort out both the petty internal bullshit like this and work on understanding the underlying problems (prejudice and discrimination of people with disabilities re: rhetoric)

[Cliff Paul]

Generally I try and refrain from using the word retard as an insult. The connection between that word an mental health is a little less ambiguous. Not sure how "dumbfuckery" refers to a mental condition or is 'ableist' though.

[Shinyos]

I see a lot a ableist slurs and mental health ignominy being used here way too often. The negative usage of 'schizophrenic' automatically comes to mind. It's a shame that a site like this that pretends to care about everyone's well being uses mental health stigma so casually and isn't even aware of it. Some things will never change.

[RedWorker]

It's interesting how the more aware I become of where most insults come from, the less I want to use them. There are so few insults that don't come from throwing some marginalised group of people under the bus, which I suppose makes sense - if those people are accepted to be second-class citizens then of course it is insulting to be compared to them. But to a revolutionary socialist, nobody is a second-class citizen. In which case, the insults that are commonly used don't really work any more.

That sounds nice. But let's do a serious analysis here. When someone calls someone else a "retard", it is entirely different to when the term is "faggot" or "nigger", though certain details match. Not that the concept is different in a vacuum, but rather that these terms have completely different interactions with the collective imagination, the network of social constructs at the heart of discrimination.

People who use the word "retard" usually hold no contempt for actually retarded people, do not discriminate disabled people (except through this insult) and probably have no possibility for developing social and/or political views against them.

Are we truly supposed to believe that there's any parallel between calling someone a "dumb asshole" and a "faggot", as if people insulting like that were going to start a fascist crusade putting dumb people as the ultimate enemy, or going to start treating them like immigrants are now? This isn't Lebensunwertes Leben. The social conditions are entirely different. The social meaning is completely different.

That does not, however, mean that there is no discrimination against disabled people. That is a different topic.

"Faggot", "tranny", "nigger", "slut", "dumbfuck". There's one word that does not fit.

[Luís Henrique]

calling somebody mentally disabled - something that ISN'T A BAD THING.

Being mentally disabled is not a bad thing?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I think we should popularize Revleft insults, like: liberal, Men's Rights Activist (if you can say that without laughing), petty bourgeois ideologue, and so on.

We could have a try.

Down with Rick Santorum, that petty bourgeois ideologue!
Rick Santorum is such a Men Rights Activist, why doens't he kill himself!
Rick Santorum, the filthy liberal...

Nah, I don't think these are actually good insults. My money back, please.

Luís Henrique

[Slippers]

Being mentally disabled is not a bad thing?

Luís Henrique

Believe it or not; no, it's not. Earth shattering, I realize.

[Zoop]

Those angry posters are themselves guilty of dumbfuckery.

What a profoundly insightful post.

I despise insults that have palpable connections and associations with the degradation of a particular group. If you're too insensitive to listen to how it affects those who complain about the insult, then you're not worth any consideration. When a flaw of mine is used as an insult, and when those who use the insults fucking know it (and they do), then they can go fuck themselves.

Fuck you and everyone who liked your post.

[BIXX]

What a profoundly insightful post.

I despise insults that have palpable connections and associations with the degradation of a particular group. If you're too insensitive to listen to how it affects those who complain about the insult, then you're not worth any consideration. When a flaw of mine is used as an insult, and when those who use the insults fucking know it (and they do), then they can go fuck themselves.

Fuck you and everyone who liked your post.

Wait I thought that was what an insult was- noticing a flaw (or creating one), and drawing everyone's attention to it. Of course some things are defined as flaws when they shouldn't be but yeah. I thought insults were all about flaws, real or imagined.

[Redistribute the Rep]

We could have a try.

Down with Rick Santorum, that petty bourgeois ideologue!
Rick Santorum is such a Men Rights Activist, why doens't he kill himself!
Rick Santorum, the filthy liberal...

Nah, I don't think these are actually good insults. My money back, please.

Luís Henrique

It works best when used in nonpolitical contexts. It'll catch on

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Fuck you and everyone who liked your post.
How are slurs based on definable, and marginalized, groups comparable to the word in question here?

[Zoop]

How are slurs based on definable, and marginalized, groups comparable to the word in question here?

You're guilty of insensitivity and indifference in the face of justifiable and understandable complaints about certain insults. Either listen to what they have to say, or shut up.

Sigh, even amongst the left you find people who just don't give a shit.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

You're guilty of insensitivity and indifference in the face of justifiable and understandable complaints about certain insults. Either listen to what they have to say, or shut up.
So, can you explain how the word in question is ableist? I'm physically disabled and struggle with mental illness. Don't make assumptions about me.

[Thirsty Crow]

You're guilty of insensitivity and indifference in the face of justifiable and understandable complaints about certain insults. Either listen to what they have to say, or shut up.

Sigh, even amongst the left you find people who just don't give a shit.You mkight want to give this moral high ground play a rest. It's only rarely productive, but that's not the biggest problem really. It's just that certain insults don't carry the connotations some people obviously believe they do. And when I think about it, the aggressive stance you display here might be even bigger a problem since it's a textboox example of what I addressed in my previous post - instances of silencing. You're hardly someone who should tell Danielle to shut up.

EDIT: in light of Quail's argument, I'd highlight that I'm talking about the word "dumbfuckery" and "dumb" exclusively.

[Quail]

That sounds nice. But let's do a serious analysis here. When someone calls someone else a "retard", it is entirely different to when the term is "faggot" or "nigger", though certain details match. Not that the concept is different in a vacuum, but rather that these terms have completely different interactions with the collective imagination, the network of social constructs at the heart of discrimination.

People who use the word "retard" usually hold no contempt for actually retarded people, do not discriminate disabled people (except through this insult) and probably have no possibility for developing social and/or political views against them.


I don't know if things have changed since I was at school (which is where I heard the word "retard" used - my friends now just simply don't use words like that), but kids who were perceived as having mental disabilities were mercilessly bullied. It seems absurd to me to claim that most people use the word "retard" without having any negative beliefs whatsoever about disabled people.

It's also worth noting that disabled people themselves object to the widespread use of "retard" because it hurts them and excludes them. Isn't that reason enough to use a different fucking word?

Another point is that loads of people will defend their use of words like "gay" and "fag" in a derogatory sense, because they supposedly have nothing against gay people... But the fact that queer people can call them out on saying shit like that and instead of just using a different word like a decent human being, they keep on defending themselves shows that at the very least, they don't care about queer people.

[Cliff Paul]

Dumb isn't even associated with mental disabilities like the word retard or moron is. It's first usage in English was as a medical term (which is now outdated) to describe someone who is a mute, hence we get words like "dumbfounded".

[Bee]

Any terminology that insults one's intellect is ablest.

[RedWorker]

It's also worth noting that disabled people themselves object to the widespread use of "retard" because it hurts them and excludes them. Isn't that reason enough to use a different fucking word?


But the fact that queer people can call them out on saying shit like that and instead of just using a different word like a decent human being, they keep on defending themselves shows that at the very least, they don't care about queer people.

But words are put in the mouth of these groups of people far too often. Just look at what's going on this thread - a disabled person is saying almost every insult should stop being used because it is ableist, another disabled person is defending the use of the word "dumbfuck" (and was told to shut up and listen because it was assumed that they are not disabled!). Well, which is it?

The fact is that this culture of worship, and I mean WORSHIP, of the oppressed collective is pathetic, and something that in many instances is opposed by the oppressed collective themselves. Just look at what some pseudo-feminists (such as those who oppose sex workers' rights) do here on RevLeft - the first thing they do when attacking someone else's counter-argument is assuming he is a man and treating him as one, plus adding the comment that he's wrong because he's a man. The people they're replying to could very well be women, queers, non-cis and/or non-heteronormative. And even if they were cis heterosexual men, that is irrelevant, and to reference that has nothing to do with feminism. This travesty of "worship of the oppressed collective" which today is far too frequent has NOTHING to do with opposing discrimination. Of course, a feminist analysis must understand that only women truly have a first-hand experience of sexism. But there is no relationship between this and the phenomena that I mentioned. It does not logically follow.

So people need to drop the whole "oh you're not disabled/a woman so you are wrong" bullshit, because nobody here has an idea what anybody else here is, and even if they did, this kind of attitude has nothing to do with opposing discrimination.

Saying that "the oppressed collective knows what they're talking about and they've told you to do this or stop doing that so do it or stop doing that" is not a replacement for arguments. People here are obviously open to the idea of opposing ableism. So convince them with logical arguments.

[PhoenixAsh]

http://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html?m=1

with alternatives......

[Zoop]

So, can you explain how the word in question is ableist? I'm physically disabled and struggle with mental illness. Don't make assumptions about me.

I don't think you've listened to anything I've said. Let me reiterate, again.

I was criticising your unwillingness to engage with the people who were complaining about certain insults, and how they may be perceived to be degrading to them. You weren't listening to them, and they may have been justified in complaining about certain insults. Listen to what they have to say, rather than dismiss them.

Plus, words and insults change their meanings. The associations surrounding certain words do in fact, change. So, it doesn't matter what an insult once meant; it doesn't matter if ableism had nothing to do with the word at one point. What matters is what associations the word and insult has adopted now, and you can only ascertain this, and understand how it effects people, by listening to those complaining about them. Something you haven't been doing.

[Quail]

It's not "worship" of a marginalised group to be sensitive to those people who ask you not to use a certain word because it's a slur... It's just being a considerate human being. Why is that so hard for some people to understand?

Anyway, the point is, while slurs might not seem like a big deal, in many situations they are. If you're living in a world where everyone, even "revolutionaries," consistently use words which imply they think you're less valuable as a person, you're going to feel excluded and afraid. For example... How many queer kids at my school actually told anyone while they were still at school? Very few, and the fact that "gay," "faggot," "dyke," etc., were consistently used as insults and equated to bad things certainly didn't help that. Now, how is that any different to people consistently using words that imply being disabled is bad?

I'm already bored of this conversation because I've had it so many times. If someone asks you not to use a word because it is a slur against them, just don't be an asshole and use a different word.

[RedWorker]

Nor me nor anyone else (with a brain) is going to stop using a word because they're told to stop using it. People will stop using words when they are presented with logical arguments to stop using them. And so far I see no serious argument for avoiding using words like "idiot" and "dumbass", so I'm not going to avoid them. I will not use words like "retarded", just like I've always been against using it.

[Luís Henrique]

Any terminology that insults one's intellect is ablest.

So we have to pretend that all intellects are equally gifted... including, but not limited to, the "intellect" of Rick Santorum?

Luís Henrique

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Nor me nor anyone else (with a brain) is going to stop using a word because they're told to stop using it. People will stop using words when they are presented with logical arguments to stop using them. And so far I see no serious argument for avoiding using words like "idiot" and "dumbass", so I'm not going to avoid them. I will not use words like "retarded", just like I've always been against using it.

White people have stopped using the word nigger in public for the most part. However, contemporary attitudes amongst whites towards black people obviously reveals that it was not a logical argument that caused this, but rather the word became impolite and sometimes even dangerous to use in public. We can of course question the utility of a shift as superficial as that is, but it seems to disprove your notion of how people stop using words.

If someone asks you to stop using a word and you continue to use it anyhow, it's because you explicitly have no interest in avoiding offense. The reasons for that might vary but it doesn't change the fact that you are actively ignoring their wishes. Over the years I have slowly cut words out of my vocabulary, but I have to be honest that dumb and idiot would be very difficult to drop.

[Left Voice]

The reality is that an awful lot of us still have a lot of 'unlearning' to do with regards to the words we use. There are words that used to be acceptable in the past that are no longer acceptable today because we have greater understanding of the origins of these words and people are beginning to realise that words do have broader implications within society. We cannot pretend that our own 'intended' usage of a words is the most important simply because we do not live in such a bubble.

The aforementioned racist words are good examples. Recognition of ableist words is lagging behind but progress is being made. It has been previously mentioned that once you take out the insults were originally intended as insults to oppressed members of society, then you are left with relatively few usable insults - I guess that's the point, and requires us to better understand the terms that we use, lest we reinforce their discriminatory connotations.

I once called somebody out on the internet for using the term 'retard'. I wasn't trying to make a big deal about it, just passingly mentioned that the term was ableist and somewhat damaged the person's overall point. This person initially seemed confused by what I meant, seemingly not realising that the term 'retarded' is ableist. This person then commented that the forum is intended to be viewed by adults, and adults should be able to cope with such offensive language (as if it is suddenly okay for adults to be discriminatory). This made me realise how little understanding there is regarding ablelist language.

I think we all use some forms of discriminatory language occasionally. I sometimes accidently slip out the word 'twat' before realising I'd just uttered sexist language. But rather than trying to justify our actions as minor irrelevence or 'liberal psudo-leftism', maybe we should just try a little bit harder to not use such terms. It's basic self-correction and recognising when you've done wrong.

[RedWorker]

To "Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages":

If I ignored the wishes of people, I would not participate in this thread and endure the whole attitude of some here in spite of the fact that I've always been open to any arguments that criticize ableist insults.

If someone asks me to adopt a certain pattern of behaviour, or discontinue a certain pattern of behaviour, justified merely by the fact that they want me to do so or that they are the member of a certain collective group, I will have to put the order on hold until it is explained why I should do so, and I find this explanation convincing. It really is that simple.

Of course, many people who use racist terms will not immediately drop them just because logical arguments tell them to. It definitely will be more effective than telling them to "just stop doing it" or "stop doing it, I'm black", though.

[PhoenixAsh]

The daughter of my ex has autism and asperger and has several undiagnosed physical development issues where she is now 12 and looks like she is 6.

Her mental state is duplicitous. While in a lost of levels (especially pertaining to social situations) she still thinks and acts on a substantial lower age level she also speaks 8 languages almost fluently and has a reading level and can make associations and leaps of thought that would make somebody of genius level blush....as well as the capacity for abstract thoughts and rationality that is, frankly,...amazing.

This comes out at entirely random and unexpected moments. So at one point we are playing with dolls and the next she is philosophizing on modern religion.

When she was 5 she was reading Lord of the Rings (by herself) and while that resulted in her wanting to be a Hobbit when she grows up...she not only understood the overall story arc, remembers the different sub plot....but also understood the different languages used ....she also sees connections with real life and can identify with specific situations.

The rest of the time she goes back to live in her own bubble and us unable to tie her own shoes and panics when she is offered a or has to make a choice between several items and simply forgets what she was doing from one moment to the next. And if you are not careful and tell her to do basic stuff like eating and going to the toilet....she forgets that too. Although the eating part is pretty scripted and is only an issue when her prefer ed products are not available.

And the bizarre thing is...at times you can have more adult conversations with her than you can ever have with most adults.

So when she is called a retard or stupid....I do get upset.
And if somebody calls her that I will most definitely object.

The only logical argument that is needed is somebody saying they object to the language you use against them.

[Counterculturalist]

So we have to pretend that all intellects are equally gifted... including, but not limited to, the "intellect" of Rick Santorum?

Luís Henrique

I think the argument is not to pretend that all intellects are equal, but that lack of intellectual prowess shouldn't be used as an insult. So insulting Santorum by calling him "stupid" is problematic because it implies that people with intellectual or cognitive disabilities are less worthy than others. I guess it'd be OK to call him a jerk, or an ignoramus. Not really espousing this view, just trying to clarify it.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

To "Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages":

If I ignored the wishes of people, I would not participate in this thread and endure the whole attitude of some here in spite of the fact that I've always been open to any arguments that criticize ableist insults.

If someone asks me to adopt a certain pattern of behaviour, or discontinue a certain pattern of behaviour, justified merely by the fact that they want me to do so or that they are the member of a certain collective group, I will have to put the order on hold until it is explained why I should do so, and I find this explanation convincing. It really is that simple.

Of course, many people who use racist terms will not immediately drop them just because logical arguments tell them to. It definitely will be more effective than telling them to "just stop doing it" or "stop doing it, I'm black", though.


You might think so, but reality shows otherwise. I've certainly heard white people drop the word nigger when they didn't think anyone who would be offended was around, if they had known otherwise they wouldn't have said it even if I were paying them to. Obviously this situation does nothing for racial equality, I'm just taking issue with the logic you're deploying here. If you're tapping a pencil on a table or something, do you really demand a "logical argument" from someone who asks you to stop? I really doubt it. I'm not saying you have to do anything, but you're jumping through some ridiculous hoops with this.

[RedWorker]

This thread is running in circles. If we are going to make an appeal to ridicule, then how ridiculous is the notion of dropping insults like "idiot" because they contain discrimination?

Asking someone to stop tapping a pencil on a table is obviously not the same as convincing someone of a viewpoint. As if the problem was the offending people by saying the word "retarded" rather than the discriminatory outlook. Offending people is irrelevant. Discrimination and the fight against it is relevant.

So the point here is not to stop someone from doing an offensive action which is likened to tapping a pencil on a table but rather to inform people about the mechanisms of discrimination.

Let us engage in some real arguments. Consider the following:

Insulting someone with words like "jackass", "dickhead", "jerk" and "asshole" usually engages into a kind of submissive insulting; you are admitting that you have become the victim of some intentional malicious actions, and are now projecting your sorrow. An asshole is one who intentionally engages in malicious action - if they are truly malicious, then they will feel rewarded by this label. If they are not intentionally malicious, then you're being rude by calling them that.

Insulting someone with words like "idiot" and "dumbass", on the other hand, constitutes a more aggressive kind of insulting. This kind of insulting has, as a key concept, pointing out aspects of the other person which are considered bad.

Normal and healthy human interaction requires some kind of aggressive insulting. On the other hand, outright discrimination using terms such as "nigger" and "faggot" is not a part of such interaction.

The question, then, is: do words like "idiot" and "dumbass" constitute a sort of ableism?

In my opinion they do not. As I have highlighted in a previous post, it is social constructs which are at the heart of discrimination, it is the interactions that occur in the network of the collective imagination, with the associated aspects to each specific term, that truly form the backbone of discrimination.

For you a "thingythingy" may be something horrible, you may even explain it; if you call someone a "thingythingy", however, he'll just laugh at it. On the other hand, if you call him a "dumbass" or "nigger", he will be offended. Why? Because of the place of these terms in the aforementioned network of social constructs.

Terms like "retarded" may be considered to have an outlook that is against disabled people in this network. But terms such as "dumbass" and "idiot" definitely do not.

That is the reason why, in my opinion, terms such as "dumbass" and "idiot" do not constitute ableism.

Now, to the next point: is any kind of supposed inferiority, such as being of lower intelligence or weaker, a form of disability? And if so is pointing out this supposed inferiority in an insult ableist, even when they do not constitute discriminatory terms in the network of social constructs?

Being of lower intelligence does not by itself constitute any disability. It is the impairment of normal and healthy interaction, through any characteristic (such as lower intelligence), that constitutes disability.

I do not think pointing out the lower intelligence of people is ableism, because it does not necessarily discriminate disabled people, it just points out how bad someone is at processing logical arguments, or how badly someone fails to realize something obvious, or how bad one is at engaging with thought, engaging in broken conclusions.

What are your refutations, or counter-arguments to this?

[Left Voice]

The Rick Santorum debate is a little bit strange, as far as I can see. Surely our issue with him isn't his relative unintellegence, but the fact that he holds obnoxious views? Putting aside the debate around whether or not terms such as 'dumb' are abelist, in terms of political debate his intellegence is almost an irrelevence.

Santorum could be Albert Einstein, but if he still held the same views as he does now then he's still be equally obnoxious. On the other hand, access to formal education was traditionally unavailable to members of the working class and their views were shaped by their experiences. Presumably we don't hold their views in lower regard than, say, an educated reactionary?

[RedWorker]

Perhaps people feel the need to aggressively insult Santorum. An uneducated worker is no dumbass by that alone, but an educated person may still be.

[PhoenixAsh]

The problem is that describing certain political positions as dumb or stupid devaluate these ideas to resulting from lack of intelligence rather than from mechanical and often very intelligent, intentional and comprehensive design. Making it easy to dismiss them rather than have to engage them.

That said...there is a linguistic and intentional difference in using the word dumb to describe an idea rather than a person or group of persons. That statement is dumb hold another value than saying that somebody made the statement because they are dumb.

There is also a language barrier. The word dumb for me doesn't hold the same meaning and connotation it holds for a native speaker. That is because the word translates different from the words we use in Dutch...for example.

The same can be said for certain words within the English language group itself but within different nations. Which is why the English members have distinct opinions on certain words that vary greatly from the experiences of American members

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I was criticising your unwillingness to engage with the people who were complaining about certain insults, and how they may be perceived to be degrading to them. You weren't listening to them, and they may have been justified in complaining about certain insults. Listen to what they have to say, rather than dismiss them.
The people in question weren't even on RevLeft, they were on some FB page, so how I'm supposed to engage with them here is beyond me. And stop fucking lecturing me, when you're not just telling me to shut up.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

another disabled person is defending the use of the word "dumbfuck" (and was told to shut up and listen because it was assumed that they are not disabled!).
I'm not necessarily defending it, I'm just not convinced that it's ableist. It's certainly rude and insulting, but if someone wants to insult a reactionary by using that word, it's not the end of the world. I don't see the word as comparable to retard, nigger, fag, or tranny, and despite asking for clarification, all I've received was condescension and being told to shut up.

[Zoop]

The people in question weren't even on RevLeft, they were on some FB page, so how I'm supposed to engage with them here is beyond me. And stop fucking lecturing me, when you're not just telling me to shut up.

I'm aware they were on some FB page. My point, however, was to urge you to adopt an attitude of concern, and a willingness to listen to them, rather than dismissing them and accusing them of "dumbfuckery." When I talk about engaging with them, I don't necessarily mean communicating with them; I just mean engaging with their lamentations in a sensitive and compassionate manner, by listening to them and considering what they have to say.

This has been my whole point all along, and I am, quite frankly, really bored of blathering on about the same point over and over again.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

This has been my whole point all along, and I am, quite frankly, really bored of blathering on about the same point over and over again.
So take your own advice and shut the fuck up.

[Zoop]

So take your own advice and shut the fuck up.

No, because you've consistently missed my whole point, which I have been hammering away this entire time. You haven't listened to anything I've said, and when I call you out on it, you react like this.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

No, because you've consistently missed my whole point, which I have been hammering away this entire time. You haven't listened to anything I've said, and when I call you out on it, you react like this.
You told me pointedly to shut up, you heaped condescension on me, and now you complain that I won't listen to you? I even asked you to explain how the word in question is ableist so we could discuss it, and you wouldn't. So, really, just shut up yourself.

[Zoop]

You told me pointedly to shut up, you heaped condescension on me, and now you complain that I won't listen to you? I even asked you to explain how the word in question is ableist so we could discuss it, and you wouldn't. So, really, just shut up yourself.

Well, my point wasn't necessarily to discuss whether or not a certain word carried ableist connotations; I was saying that, when people are complaining about certain words, and how they believe it to be associated with ableism, whatever that word may be, we should listen to them and understand how it effects them.
The associations certain words carry change over time, so, a word that had nothing to do with ableism in the past, may have something to do with it now, which is why we need to listen to those complaining about it, to have a greater understanding of contemporary insults, and how it effects people.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Well, my point wasn't necessarily to discuss whether or not a certain word carried ableist connotations; I was saying that, when people are complaining about certain words, and how they believe it to be associated with ableism, whatever that word may be, we should listen to them and understand how it effects them.
When it's a slur against an actual group of people and a member of that group or an ally calls it out, we should listen. I was on the opposite end of this discussion the other day, regarding a gay man who used an anti-trans slur and refused to accept he did anything wrong.

But common insults like "dumbfuck", "asshole", "jackass", etc., seem to belong to a different category than slurs against oppressed or marginalized groups.

[Zoop]

When it's a slur against an actual group of people and a member of that group or an ally calls it out, we should listen. I was on the opposite end of this discussion the other day, regarding a gay man who used an anti-trans slur and refused to accept he did anything wrong.

But common insults like "dumbfuck", "asshole", "jackass", etc., seem to belong to a different category than slurs against oppressed or marginalized groups.

Well, that's true. Those insults, generally, aren't associated with the degradation of a particular group. However, they may begin to be associated with the degradation of a particular group. This could happen gradually, which is why we should listen to those who do think they either do have prejudicial connotations, or are beginning to be associated with some type of prejudice. That's all I'm saying really.
I'm not saying you shouldn't use those common insults; I'm not even saying that they are associated with ableism. I'm just saying that, whenever people are complaining about certain words, we should consider whether or not those complains have any merit, and then act accordingly, according to our conclusions.

[Zoop]

I apologise if I came off as condescending.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I apologise if I came off as condescending.Fair enough. We both got off on the wrong foot in this thread, and I apologize for my part in that.

[Culicarius]

Is this the thread where able-bodied individuals tell us what does and does not constitute ableist language?

Hopefully next week we can get a thread on white people telling black people which words and beliefs are racist and which are not. I imagine we'll have much enlightenment and I hope to see everyone there.

[RedWorker]

Is this the thread where able-bodied individuals tell us what does and does not constitute ableist language?

Hopefully next week we can get a thread on white people telling black people which words and beliefs are racist and which are not. I imagine we'll have much enlightenment and I hope to see everyone there.

This is exactly the stupid attitude I've been describing. Not only is it stupid to judge arguments like this by itself, but in fact you don't know whether anybody here is able-bodied.

Furthermore, it's a strawman. Able-bodied people haven't collectively stated that they are going to tell disabled people what to think. So what's your point?

If this was a thread in which men were reading about some woman's experience with sexism and they were going like "yeah, sweety, you didn't know what was going on there" then this kind of post would make sense. Here it does not.

[Culicarius]

Nah bruh, you've decided that you don't need to change your language because you haven't been presented with the golden truth that's been shat out of Aphrodite's ass and onto a ten page essay which then managed to convince your mighty Logic™ that these words are slurs against a marginalized groups and shouldn't be used. Which is unfortunate if you consider yourself a revolutionary and willingly choose to cling into oppressive language that targets a group already treated like shit in society.

[Dyvyr]

Believe it or not this is important to some people. Myself for example.

Me too. Thanks for your efforts. I'm disabled too. I don't know why it's still acceptable to use words like "stupid" to mean "bad". Decent people have stopped using "gay" to mean "bad". Back when that was still acceptable, the people who did it weren't necessarily anti-gay. It was just a common thing people said, before there was awareness. People who still defend using ableist words to mean "bad", using the same excuse, that the people who do it aren't necessarily anti-disabled, they haven't reached the same level of awareness, when it comes to those words. Posts like yours, help raise awareness, even despite the trolls, who try to make your efforts seem like a big joke. Thanks again.

[RedWorker]

People use "stupid" to mean "stupid" and "stupid" is no disability. It is obviously entirely different to using "gay" as an insult.

[Thirsty Crow]

Nah bruh, you've decided that you don't need to change your language because you haven't been presented with the golden truth that's been shat out of Aphrodite's ass and onto a ten page essay which then managed to convince your mighty Logic™ that these words are slurs against a marginalized groups and shouldn't be used. Which is unfortunate if you consider yourself a revolutionary and willingly choose to cling into oppressive language that targets a group already treated like shit in society.

No, this thread isn't about able-bodied people telling tell people with disabilities that they have no rights whatsoever to speak their mind.

This is a thread where people are challenging the notion that there is an equivalence between Rick Santorum - a fully able-bodied individual - and people with disabilities, particularly those with learning disabilities. It's also a thread for people to defend the uncontroversial idea that some people - fully able-bodied and fully intelligent - are dumb as a result of their attitudes and/or presented reasoning in support of said attitudes. The crucial thing being that the use of words like "retard" and "dumb" is actually different. For one thing, the use of the word "dumb" doesn't imply moral judgement; it's obvious that there is no necessary connection between said attitudes and reasoning and moral integrity. On the other hand, in this world it is unequivocally bad - as in effects produced - to either a) consistently defend your class position with obviously unworkable reasoning (which is tantamount to insulting the intelligence of the recipients of the message) or b) consistently fail to grasp - for one reason or another - the glaring holes in said reasoning.