Blind and Visually Impaired Community
↑
7
↓
Jonathan Mosen writes about language that harms the Disabled. (stuff.co.nz)
submitted by rkingett
[deleted] 13 points 1y ago
[deleted]
keefklaar 4 points 1y ago
> any article on this subject that doesn't even mention phrases like "differently abled" are a waste of words.
>
>
While I don't like that phrase the one that really grinds my gears is "handycapable"
George Carlin did a great bit about how language for unpleasant reality is gradually changed to remove any mention of unpleasantness in the first place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psMrA78qygM
>
>
While I don't like that phrase the one that really grinds my gears is "handycapable"
George Carlin did a great bit about how language for unpleasant reality is gradually changed to remove any mention of unpleasantness in the first place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psMrA78qygM
smarthome_fan 4 points 1y ago
Well, I think you hit the nail on the head. I don't consider my blindness an "unpleasant reality". This is why I am all in favour of this type of language going away and shifting towards a more literal model. Language may seem inconsequential, but it has a great amount of meaning and influence over our behaviour. So if I don't want to be treated like I'm impaired, or challenged, or less of a person than anyone else, which I don't, then why on Earth would I want language that refers to me as such or uses my disability in a negative metaphorical way?
DrillInstructorJan 1 points 1y ago
The problem is that you are listing being impaired or challenged right alongside being less of a person, which is crazy. I don't think it's very hard to get that not having great sight is an impairment and it is a challenge, that's just the reality of it, but you're making a leap across the grand canyon to the idea that this automatically makes everyone assume you're less of a person. I don't very often find that and honestly I have to wonder who you're hanging out with.
If you want a literal answer, language uses blindness in a negative metaphorical way because not being able to see is a negative but good grief you are over interpreting that.
If you want a literal answer, language uses blindness in a negative metaphorical way because not being able to see is a negative but good grief you are over interpreting that.
smarthome_fan 3 points 1y ago
Okay, so positive disability-related language clearly isn't your thing, so I'm not really sure where to go from here.
As a note, the general trend is to use language that is literal and doesn't impose your personal assumptions about the person's disability onto your choice of phrasing.
Examples:
* Say "wheelchair user" instead of "wheelchair-bound" or "confined to a wheelchair". The reason is that while you may personally feel like being in a wheelchair is confining or immobilizing, someone who's been in a chair since birth may not. They might see it as merely a personal mobility device.
* Say "blind" or "partially sighted" or "partially blind" instead of "visually impaired" or "visually challenged". Again, I get that you think blindness is a challenge or an impairment, but others may not. Frankly, I see negative attitudes surrounding disabilities as the biggest impairment I face in the world. And our choice of language absolutely reflects our attitudes and beliefs about people, culture, and disabilities.
We don't use the r word to refer to someone acting ignorantly or stupid. We shouldn't use feminine words or slurs related to sexual orientation to speak about people or events in a patronizing way. We shouldn't be using sexist or racial stereotypes to refer to negative qualities. Likewise, we shouldn't be using ndisability related terminology to refer to ignorance, stupidity, or cluelessness.
I'm honestly not sure what's difficult to understand about this. You seem to think using negative disability language is fine, but other language about people's protected classes isn't fine? Not entirely sure where you're going, so I don't want to assume.
As a note, the general trend is to use language that is literal and doesn't impose your personal assumptions about the person's disability onto your choice of phrasing.
Examples:
* Say "wheelchair user" instead of "wheelchair-bound" or "confined to a wheelchair". The reason is that while you may personally feel like being in a wheelchair is confining or immobilizing, someone who's been in a chair since birth may not. They might see it as merely a personal mobility device.
* Say "blind" or "partially sighted" or "partially blind" instead of "visually impaired" or "visually challenged". Again, I get that you think blindness is a challenge or an impairment, but others may not. Frankly, I see negative attitudes surrounding disabilities as the biggest impairment I face in the world. And our choice of language absolutely reflects our attitudes and beliefs about people, culture, and disabilities.
We don't use the r word to refer to someone acting ignorantly or stupid. We shouldn't use feminine words or slurs related to sexual orientation to speak about people or events in a patronizing way. We shouldn't be using sexist or racial stereotypes to refer to negative qualities. Likewise, we shouldn't be using ndisability related terminology to refer to ignorance, stupidity, or cluelessness.
I'm honestly not sure what's difficult to understand about this. You seem to think using negative disability language is fine, but other language about people's protected classes isn't fine? Not entirely sure where you're going, so I don't want to assume.
smarthome_fan 0 points 1y ago
Here's another way of looking at this.
Everything in life comes with blessings, and challenges, and everything in between. As an example, having kids is probably one of the greatest challenges in life: financially, emotionally, maybe even health and mobility-wise. It restricts what you can do in a way and puts your life in a certain box. Frankly, being a parent seems more challenging to me than being blind, because I've been blind since birth.
Now, would we refer to a parent as "impaired by children" or "challenged person?" How about a woman, who faces greater barriers in our society than a man does because of the patriarchy?Would we call her "gender impaired?" What about a single person? Should we call somebody who doesn't want to be single "trapped in a life of solitude" or "relationship impaired?" How about someone who actually wants to be single?
Of course not. These sound ridiculous don't they? But as society is still highly ableist we tend to refer to disabilities in this fashion, even though an impairment may not be what defines my identity. Furthermore we metaphorically use this terminology to describe negative things we don't like in the world. So software with a restriction we don't like is called crippled. A person who isn't thinking rationally is called blind.
Words and language carry a deep level of symbolism and meaning about how inclusive our society is. It may not be the most important thing in the world, and we don't have to become the language police (and we shouldn't), but making our language more inclusive, and saying what we truly mean rather than falling back on harmful stereotypes, is absolutely a worthy goal.
It's dismissive to say others shouldn't care about this, aren't allowed to be invested in the issue, or simply have too much time on their hands.
Everything in life comes with blessings, and challenges, and everything in between. As an example, having kids is probably one of the greatest challenges in life: financially, emotionally, maybe even health and mobility-wise. It restricts what you can do in a way and puts your life in a certain box. Frankly, being a parent seems more challenging to me than being blind, because I've been blind since birth.
Now, would we refer to a parent as "impaired by children" or "challenged person?" How about a woman, who faces greater barriers in our society than a man does because of the patriarchy?Would we call her "gender impaired?" What about a single person? Should we call somebody who doesn't want to be single "trapped in a life of solitude" or "relationship impaired?" How about someone who actually wants to be single?
Of course not. These sound ridiculous don't they? But as society is still highly ableist we tend to refer to disabilities in this fashion, even though an impairment may not be what defines my identity. Furthermore we metaphorically use this terminology to describe negative things we don't like in the world. So software with a restriction we don't like is called crippled. A person who isn't thinking rationally is called blind.
Words and language carry a deep level of symbolism and meaning about how inclusive our society is. It may not be the most important thing in the world, and we don't have to become the language police (and we shouldn't), but making our language more inclusive, and saying what we truly mean rather than falling back on harmful stereotypes, is absolutely a worthy goal.
It's dismissive to say others shouldn't care about this, aren't allowed to be invested in the issue, or simply have too much time on their hands.
DrillInstructorJan 8 points 1y ago
I'm going to keep saying it, if you have time to worry about this stuff you aren't working hard enough, and not working hard will mess up your life way worse than someone using these terms you don't like. Yes, it's figurative. That means it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Take it from someone who has been on both sides of this, nobody means a thing by it, and by reacting to it like this we end up looking like touchy prickly assholes around whom everyone should walk on eggshells and that is not what I want, and I suspect it is not what you want either.
Take it from someone who has been on both sides of this, nobody means a thing by it, and by reacting to it like this we end up looking like touchy prickly assholes around whom everyone should walk on eggshells and that is not what I want, and I suspect it is not what you want either.
redmarus 4 points 1y ago
It's very easy for bad actors to make us come across as unreasonable, especially when they are working to prevent us from achieving reasonable goals (in Johnathan Mosen's case, an end to predatory disability employment agencies tht take advantage of legal subminimum wages for disabled people).
rkingett [OP] 2 points 1y ago
Great, so I can call you handicapable any time I want?
smarthome_fan 1 points 1y ago
I mean, by this logic it seems like you're saying we should be able to use whatever language we want even if it carries harmful stereotypes about other minority groups. And it also seems like you'd have those minority groups called out for expressing distaste about that language but not call out the people using it. That's not the world I want to live in.
This does not mean we have to become the language police, or take offense when our peers or family use these terms. But we should be educating professionals (journalists, lawyers, etc.) on appropriate terms to be using.
At the end of the day it depends on how you want to be perceived. You may not believe it but words carry incredible meaning.
I'm also not particularly sold on the idea that we just shouldn't worry about it as there are bigger things to worry about. Inclusion and diversity are more important than ever these days and clearly whatever we've been doing in the past, isn't working. Language is most certainly a part of that.
Presumably you wouldn't use figurative language referencing other protected classes, like religion or race?
This does not mean we have to become the language police, or take offense when our peers or family use these terms. But we should be educating professionals (journalists, lawyers, etc.) on appropriate terms to be using.
At the end of the day it depends on how you want to be perceived. You may not believe it but words carry incredible meaning.
I'm also not particularly sold on the idea that we just shouldn't worry about it as there are bigger things to worry about. Inclusion and diversity are more important than ever these days and clearly whatever we've been doing in the past, isn't working. Language is most certainly a part of that.
Presumably you wouldn't use figurative language referencing other protected classes, like religion or race?
DrillInstructorJan 2 points 1y ago
No, it doesn't seem like I'm saying we should be able to use whatever language we like. I didn't say anything like that. You just made it up. I don't mind discussing this with you but it isn't very helpful when you do that.
There's all kinds of things to say about this, but the bottom line is that you cannot stop anyone being mean by controlling what words they use, even if you can find a way to do that. They just find new words.
What matters is what is in people's heads and in their hearts. If someone is being mean, criticising their choice of words is not going to change that. And if someone is being nice, criticising them for how they speak is a really good way to start them being mean.
I know it feels good when you get to call someone out on their use of language. You feel like you've achieved something. You feel like you're special and you know something they don't. The problem is you have to be really careful that you aren't just looking for reasons to take offence so you can get that feeling. In the long run you might scare people off talking to us at all, which is not good for you or me.
There's all kinds of things to say about this, but the bottom line is that you cannot stop anyone being mean by controlling what words they use, even if you can find a way to do that. They just find new words.
What matters is what is in people's heads and in their hearts. If someone is being mean, criticising their choice of words is not going to change that. And if someone is being nice, criticising them for how they speak is a really good way to start them being mean.
I know it feels good when you get to call someone out on their use of language. You feel like you've achieved something. You feel like you're special and you know something they don't. The problem is you have to be really careful that you aren't just looking for reasons to take offence so you can get that feeling. In the long run you might scare people off talking to us at all, which is not good for you or me.
smarthome_fan 2 points 1y ago
> No, it doesn't seem like I'm saying we should be able to use whatever language we like. I didn't say anything like that. You just made it up. I don't mind discussing this with you but it isn't very helpful when you do that.
My apologies for misinterpreting what you said.
This is what I responded to:
>if you have time to worry about this stuff you aren't working hard enough, and not working hard will mess up your life way worse than someone using these terms you don't like. Yes, it's figurative. That means it doesn't mean what you think it means.
> Take it from someone who has been on both sides of this, nobody means a thing by it, and by reacting to it like this we end up looking like touchy prickly assholes around whom everyone should walk on eggshells and that is not what I want, and I suspect it is not what you want either.
What I get from this is:
1. You're saying people can use whatever terms they like to refer to me or my disability, even if we as a society have deemed them to be unacceptable, and I just have to assume that their intentions are good, and I'm not allowed to encourage others to think about the meaning of the words they use.
2. If I do choose to educate someone about the meaning behind their choice of words, it's me who's the jerk, and while I'm not allowed to be offended about their language, they're allowed to be offended by me calling them out.
This definitely seems to imply a very high tolerance for allowing people to use whatever language they want with impunity.
> What matters is what is in people's heads and in their hearts. If someone is being mean, criticising their choice of words is not going to change that. And if someone is being nice, criticising them for how they speak is a really good way to start them being mean.
You're right. And I'm not advocating being the language police. If I'm on a date and my date unintentionally uses problematic disability-related language, of course I am not going to call them out on it. On the other hand, I believe in educating professionals on appropriate language to use. Journalists, lawyers, police officers, doctors and other medical professionals. People in positions of power whose language trickles down to others. Because at the end of the day, our words do translate into meaning. If we use the term blind to mean ignorant or stupid, then our society clearly doesn't have a great attitude towards that disability. Just like how it would be offensive to use feminine words like woman or female to refer to weakness, ickiness,or in a patronizing way.
> I know it feels good when you get to call someone out on their use of language. You feel like you've achieved something. You feel like you're special and you know something they don't.
Well I can't speak for others but I find this extremely condescending and untrue. I never call anyone out for a sense of personal accomlishment. And I absolutely hate doing it. I will only do so when I feel like a relationship of mutual trust is established between the two of us. And even then, I usually feel embarrassed
My apologies for misinterpreting what you said.
This is what I responded to:
>if you have time to worry about this stuff you aren't working hard enough, and not working hard will mess up your life way worse than someone using these terms you don't like. Yes, it's figurative. That means it doesn't mean what you think it means.
> Take it from someone who has been on both sides of this, nobody means a thing by it, and by reacting to it like this we end up looking like touchy prickly assholes around whom everyone should walk on eggshells and that is not what I want, and I suspect it is not what you want either.
What I get from this is:
1. You're saying people can use whatever terms they like to refer to me or my disability, even if we as a society have deemed them to be unacceptable, and I just have to assume that their intentions are good, and I'm not allowed to encourage others to think about the meaning of the words they use.
2. If I do choose to educate someone about the meaning behind their choice of words, it's me who's the jerk, and while I'm not allowed to be offended about their language, they're allowed to be offended by me calling them out.
This definitely seems to imply a very high tolerance for allowing people to use whatever language they want with impunity.
> What matters is what is in people's heads and in their hearts. If someone is being mean, criticising their choice of words is not going to change that. And if someone is being nice, criticising them for how they speak is a really good way to start them being mean.
You're right. And I'm not advocating being the language police. If I'm on a date and my date unintentionally uses problematic disability-related language, of course I am not going to call them out on it. On the other hand, I believe in educating professionals on appropriate language to use. Journalists, lawyers, police officers, doctors and other medical professionals. People in positions of power whose language trickles down to others. Because at the end of the day, our words do translate into meaning. If we use the term blind to mean ignorant or stupid, then our society clearly doesn't have a great attitude towards that disability. Just like how it would be offensive to use feminine words like woman or female to refer to weakness, ickiness,or in a patronizing way.
> I know it feels good when you get to call someone out on their use of language. You feel like you've achieved something. You feel like you're special and you know something they don't.
Well I can't speak for others but I find this extremely condescending and untrue. I never call anyone out for a sense of personal accomlishment. And I absolutely hate doing it. I will only do so when I feel like a relationship of mutual trust is established between the two of us. And even then, I usually feel embarrassed
bradley22 1 points 1y ago
I couldn’t agree more.
redmarus 8 points 1y ago
So I read this article and this guy works for a disability employment agency in New Zealand, which upon further research, allows for employers to apply for "minimum wage exemption" for disabled employees, effectively giving a legal avenue for disabled people to be paid subminimum wage, especially if the employee has an advocate who might argue for it (like an employment agency).
I find that people who spend a lot of time talking about how common phrases are ableist often have ulterior motives when it comes to keeping the topic of ableism frivolous and centered on individual responsibility.
I find that people who spend a lot of time talking about how common phrases are ableist often have ulterior motives when it comes to keeping the topic of ableism frivolous and centered on individual responsibility.
smarthome_fan 3 points 1y ago
Okay, so there's a lot to unpack here.
Firstly, I absolutely agree that it would be better if we lived in a world where nobody needed to think of wage subsidies for people with disabilities.
However, you say that this is a way to pay people with disabilities less than minimum wage. This is incorrect. The point of a wage subsidy is for the government to influence the market by giving employers an incentive to hire employees with diverse abilities. Not-for-profit organizations may use this as a tool to still have more funding available to them, or to hire somebody they may not have been able to hire otherwise. For-profit companies may use these to offsetthe perceived extra onboarding work or other workplace accommodations. Or just as an extra push to make the hire.
It's certainly better than other models. In the USA I believe there is a loophole where people with disabilities can be paid next to nothing and organizations like Goodwillhave placed people into appalling working conditions. In other countries, like the one I live in, this would not be legal. Wage subsidies, often temporary ones, are available, but the practical upshot is I would take home the same pay as my non-disabled peers.
So, I think the last thing we want to do is start claiming wage subsidies are a negative thing, even if it may not feel the greatest to get one, especially if it's from a for-profit company.
Firstly, I absolutely agree that it would be better if we lived in a world where nobody needed to think of wage subsidies for people with disabilities.
However, you say that this is a way to pay people with disabilities less than minimum wage. This is incorrect. The point of a wage subsidy is for the government to influence the market by giving employers an incentive to hire employees with diverse abilities. Not-for-profit organizations may use this as a tool to still have more funding available to them, or to hire somebody they may not have been able to hire otherwise. For-profit companies may use these to offsetthe perceived extra onboarding work or other workplace accommodations. Or just as an extra push to make the hire.
It's certainly better than other models. In the USA I believe there is a loophole where people with disabilities can be paid next to nothing and organizations like Goodwillhave placed people into appalling working conditions. In other countries, like the one I live in, this would not be legal. Wage subsidies, often temporary ones, are available, but the practical upshot is I would take home the same pay as my non-disabled peers.
So, I think the last thing we want to do is start claiming wage subsidies are a negative thing, even if it may not feel the greatest to get one, especially if it's from a for-profit company.
redmarus 1 points 1y ago
I fail to see how this results in disabled people not making subminimum wage even temporarily, or how it could possibly be construed as a good thing.
smarthome_fan 3 points 1y ago
So, let's say you are working at a store and they pay all employees $20 an hour. Let's say with a wage subsidy, an employer temporarily receives 30% of your wage from the government.
You, personally, would still receive $20 an hour, just like everybody else in that store. Your company gets an incentive for hiring you, and I totally get that this sucks for us. Why couldn't they just hire you without needing an incentive? Why couldn't they just give you whatever extra money they receive? I absolutely get that.
But, do consider the following:
1. At no point do you, personally, ever receive less than minimum wage. In my example above, you'll still take home $20 an hour.
2. Let's say you work for a blindness not-for-profit. That company could decide to take the money they get from staff wage subsidies and invest it back into the services they provide. From their standpoint, it's a win-win. You still get paid the same, plus the employer has additional money to invest into their technology services, their library, or whatever that organization does.
3. It's a heck of a better hiring model than you find in a lot of places. In the USA, they could literally send you home with next to nothing an hour, because unless something's changed, there's a loophole where they can hire you for less than minimum wage and get away with it. As I said, where I live, you have to pay everyone at least minimum wage. But, the government may provide temporary wage subsidies for hiring me which act as an economic inducement for my employer.
Like I said, I absolutely get why this doesn't feel great for us. But I think a first step is to improve disability services to an acceptable level, and reduce those horrible unemployment statistics, plus make sure you are being sent home with the same amount of money that your sighted peer next to you is getting. Yes, some of that money may come from the government, but at least you can like eat and have a shot at financial freedom and get compensated for the time you're investing in that employer.
You, personally, would still receive $20 an hour, just like everybody else in that store. Your company gets an incentive for hiring you, and I totally get that this sucks for us. Why couldn't they just hire you without needing an incentive? Why couldn't they just give you whatever extra money they receive? I absolutely get that.
But, do consider the following:
1. At no point do you, personally, ever receive less than minimum wage. In my example above, you'll still take home $20 an hour.
2. Let's say you work for a blindness not-for-profit. That company could decide to take the money they get from staff wage subsidies and invest it back into the services they provide. From their standpoint, it's a win-win. You still get paid the same, plus the employer has additional money to invest into their technology services, their library, or whatever that organization does.
3. It's a heck of a better hiring model than you find in a lot of places. In the USA, they could literally send you home with next to nothing an hour, because unless something's changed, there's a loophole where they can hire you for less than minimum wage and get away with it. As I said, where I live, you have to pay everyone at least minimum wage. But, the government may provide temporary wage subsidies for hiring me which act as an economic inducement for my employer.
Like I said, I absolutely get why this doesn't feel great for us. But I think a first step is to improve disability services to an acceptable level, and reduce those horrible unemployment statistics, plus make sure you are being sent home with the same amount of money that your sighted peer next to you is getting. Yes, some of that money may come from the government, but at least you can like eat and have a shot at financial freedom and get compensated for the time you're investing in that employer.
redmarus 3 points 1y ago
That's not what this says :/
https://www.employment.govt.nz/hours-and-wages/pay/minimum-wage/minimum-wage-exemptions/
https://www.employment.govt.nz/hours-and-wages/pay/minimum-wage/minimum-wage-exemptions/
[deleted] 1 points 1y ago
[deleted]
AllHarlowsEve 6 points 1y ago
It's so nice that I'm not the only one who thinks he's a windbag.
nadmaximus 5 points 1y ago
"a one-legged man in a butt-kicking contest", generally used as a metaphor...is that ableist? It actually is quite difficult for one-legged men to kick someone in the butt, due to the mechanics of having only one leg. On top of this, it acknowledges and is empathetic with the constraints associated with one-leggedness, in the context of gluteal combat. And, the butt-kicking contest is not exclusionary, either. This is not some kind of special butt-kicking contest just for people with one leg - this guy is doing his best, right there in the mix with all the two-legged kickers. But we know it's hard.
On the other hand, the proverb "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king", seems like a VERY ableist thing to say.
On the other hand, the proverb "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king", seems like a VERY ableist thing to say.
MostlyBlindGamer 5 points 1y ago
Bow before me and my one barely functioning eye.
That was a funny and insightful take on these expressions.
That was a funny and insightful take on these expressions.
Tarnagona 4 points 1y ago
I like this way of articulating the problem. Not all phrases referencing disability are ableist by default, but some definitely are.
I read an article a while ago that claimed people should avoid phrases like “blind spot” and “blind sided”, but like, *everyone* has a literal blind spot, and I’m fairly sure everyone has the experience of being caught off guard by missing something in their peripheral vision. The idea of avoiding any phrase containing the word “blind” is just as ridiculous as people trying to avoid sight words around us.
However, “the blind leading the blind” feels kind of ableist, that one about the one-eyed man being king feels ableist. I’m even not sure how I feel about “love is blind”.
Language is, by no means the worst problem we face, and I wouldn’t even call myself offended by ableist turns of phrase (more, uncomfortable, but also recognizing that people aren’t out to offend me). It is, however, interesting to look at our language, and examine the assumptions that are built in to some of our idioms.
I read an article a while ago that claimed people should avoid phrases like “blind spot” and “blind sided”, but like, *everyone* has a literal blind spot, and I’m fairly sure everyone has the experience of being caught off guard by missing something in their peripheral vision. The idea of avoiding any phrase containing the word “blind” is just as ridiculous as people trying to avoid sight words around us.
However, “the blind leading the blind” feels kind of ableist, that one about the one-eyed man being king feels ableist. I’m even not sure how I feel about “love is blind”.
Language is, by no means the worst problem we face, and I wouldn’t even call myself offended by ableist turns of phrase (more, uncomfortable, but also recognizing that people aren’t out to offend me). It is, however, interesting to look at our language, and examine the assumptions that are built in to some of our idioms.
smarthome_fan 3 points 1y ago
We all have a literal blind spot, but I think the problem is when we associate blindness with ignorance, or cluelessness, or a lack of morals.
For example, when we say someone is blinded by their own pride, or blinded to global issues, etc. etc. that's deeply problematic.
It's problematic for the same reason we would avoid associating language about race, cognitive disability, sexual orientation, physical disability, etc. with ignorance or a lack of moral strength. It is intended to be demeaning.
For example, when we say someone is blinded by their own pride, or blinded to global issues, etc. etc. that's deeply problematic.
It's problematic for the same reason we would avoid associating language about race, cognitive disability, sexual orientation, physical disability, etc. with ignorance or a lack of moral strength. It is intended to be demeaning.
AllHarlowsEve 2 points 1y ago
I don't find it demeaning at all to acknowledge that there are things I can't see and am thus unaware of. That's the point in blinds pot or blindsided. It's not a dig on us to point out what our literal disability is.
smarthome_fan 3 points 1y ago
So you're probably aware, but when people talk about being blinded by rage, or that love is blind, or that many people have a metaphorical blind spot, we're not literally talking about the disability of blindness.
We are associating blindness with negative qualities, like stupidity, or arrogance, or ignorance. We're essentially saying that someone is acting so cluelessly, or arrogantly, or ignorantly, they must be blind.
If you think about it, our language has been full of these kinds of prejudice expressions against various groups of people, which are gradually being removed from every day acceptability because they're horrible. It's not too long ago that I could watch a sitcom and a character who was acting silly would be called a slur associated with homosexuality. You will frequently hear software with restrictions that people don't like called crippled. We have all probably heard lots of racist expressions associated with dishonesty or thievery.
It's time our society stops tolerating any and all language that uses another's race, religion, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender, or any other characteristic associated with their membership in a protected class, in a negative way. I do not have a problem with society calling me blind, because I literally am. But I have a problem with the term blindness being associated with ignorance or stupidity or dishonesty or any other qualities that we don't like.
We are associating blindness with negative qualities, like stupidity, or arrogance, or ignorance. We're essentially saying that someone is acting so cluelessly, or arrogantly, or ignorantly, they must be blind.
If you think about it, our language has been full of these kinds of prejudice expressions against various groups of people, which are gradually being removed from every day acceptability because they're horrible. It's not too long ago that I could watch a sitcom and a character who was acting silly would be called a slur associated with homosexuality. You will frequently hear software with restrictions that people don't like called crippled. We have all probably heard lots of racist expressions associated with dishonesty or thievery.
It's time our society stops tolerating any and all language that uses another's race, religion, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender, or any other characteristic associated with their membership in a protected class, in a negative way. I do not have a problem with society calling me blind, because I literally am. But I have a problem with the term blindness being associated with ignorance or stupidity or dishonesty or any other qualities that we don't like.
retrolental_morose 3 points 1y ago
I admire him taking a stand, but "the blind leading the blind", "deaf ears" etc seem to me to be a part of society's fabric. I can't deny that people may not want to use them in 30, 50, a hundred years because of the impact they have on others, but for the time being, I'm sure there are bigger issues. perhaps that's me being shortsighted - oh, can I say that?
OldManOnFire 2 points 1y ago
Like the old proverb says, he who takes offense where none is intended is a fool.
BenandGracie 2 points 1y ago
I stopped listening to his podcast because of this crap. Someone should explain to him that his opinion means exactly nothing. I honestly can’t figure out why people still listen to him.
This nonprofit website is run by volunteers.
Please contribute if you can. Thank you!
Our mission is to provide everyone with access to large-
scale community websites for the good of humanity.
Without ads, without tracking, without greed.
scale community websites for the good of humanity.
Without ads, without tracking, without greed.
©2023 HumbleCat Inc • HumbleCat is a 501(c)3 nonprofit based in Michigan, USA.