Blind and Visually Impaired Community
↑
6
↓
Opinion | ‘Is That Ableist?’ Good Question. (nytimes.com)
submitted by rkingett
Laser_Lens_4 12 points 1y ago
To those being forced to sign up to read the article, use 10-minute mail to get around the soft paywall, and then go into reader view to get past all the typical news website cruft.
​
I find inaccessible spaces (physical and digital), refusal of access to service animals, and legislated poverty far more offensive than somebody using "blind" to refer to someone or something other than a blind person. It's not completely without merit, but there are bigger fish to fry... like the fact that immunocompromised and disabled people are getting shafted by our governments' collective willingness to pretend that the covid pandemic is over, and remote events and mask-wearing are now a rarity.
​
Also, if we're going by this logic, then we should all stop using "bad" because it has origins in transmisogyny.
​
I find inaccessible spaces (physical and digital), refusal of access to service animals, and legislated poverty far more offensive than somebody using "blind" to refer to someone or something other than a blind person. It's not completely without merit, but there are bigger fish to fry... like the fact that immunocompromised and disabled people are getting shafted by our governments' collective willingness to pretend that the covid pandemic is over, and remote events and mask-wearing are now a rarity.
​
Also, if we're going by this logic, then we should all stop using "bad" because it has origins in transmisogyny.
VicBulbon 8 points 1y ago
Being from a developing non western nation probably gives me quite a different perspective, but simply, I think there are bigger fish to fry, even in developed corners of the world. I personally idolize the generation that got the Americans with Disabilities Act pass much more than the generation that largely contains themselves within Twitter and humanities department dwelling on new buzz words and philosophizing the impracticals. call me an old fart, but like the push for the Civil Rights Act back in the 60s was targeted and practical similar to the A D A, movements like Black Lives Matter and promoting ablism as a concept seem much too incohesive. These people are ultimately well meaning, but at the end of the day, how much differences are they really making to the lives of average blind people by policing language?
rkingett [OP] 1 points 11m ago
They are improving quite a bit. With language improvements, perceptions improve.
EffectiveYak0 2 points 11m ago
Do you have any sources for this claim?
rkingett [OP] 1 points 11m ago
Yes. her book There Plant Eyes traces the history of blindness and more. Read that.
OldManOnFire 7 points 1y ago
Why take offense when none is intended?
rkingett [OP] 1 points 11m ago
Nice try but it's not about taking offense. It's about advancing perceptions of blind people.
Winnmark 1 points 11m ago
But... why?
DrillInstructorJan 4 points 1y ago
I will say what oldman said which is that it literally helps nobody to take offence when nobody means any offence. It's not like life is some sort of game where you have to score purity points. This modern thing where people look for ways to take offence because people will vote it up on social media are not helping anyone. It's a short term thing. The long term is that everyone slowly gets more and more cheesed off.
Is it offensive, who cares, if you don't like someone just avoid them and spend the effort solving real problems.
Sorry this stuff winds me up.
Is it offensive, who cares, if you don't like someone just avoid them and spend the effort solving real problems.
Sorry this stuff winds me up.
rkingett [OP] 2 points 11m ago
Nice try, but the article was about accepting mistakes and doing better without whining about it.
DrillInstructorJan 1 points 11m ago
I guess the first question is where you get off scoring me on how hard you think I'm trying, deciding what isn't and isn't a mistake and admonishing people to do better. Your whole approach to this seems to be to sit there waggling your finger at people when in reality you're no more an authority in this area than anyone else with an opinion.
I wouldn't care if it just made you look touchy and hard to talk to, but it reflects on me as well. If your goal is to help people get along then you could not possibly be getting it more wrong. I wonder what sort of people you hang out or what has happened to you that has led you to this sort of interaction with the rest of society but in the end it is not doing you, me or anyone else any favours.
I wouldn't care if it just made you look touchy and hard to talk to, but it reflects on me as well. If your goal is to help people get along then you could not possibly be getting it more wrong. I wonder what sort of people you hang out or what has happened to you that has led you to this sort of interaction with the rest of society but in the end it is not doing you, me or anyone else any favours.
smarthome_fan 2 points 1y ago
This position has never made sense to me. You...don't care...so much that it winds you up? Why are you so passionate about something you apparently don't care about at all?
I don't mean to sound aggressive, but you doth protest too much. I recall that your belief is that members of minority groups who take offence when they hear/read demeaning language about themselves, are entirely to blame for being "prickly assholes," to quote from my memory your last post on this.
Do you believe it's coincidental that many of our insults and pejorative terms stem from minority groups who struggle in society? Do you believe that's a good thing? In a country where basic human rights are being taken away, I can turn on the television in the US and hear the word "gay" used to mean stupid or funny. There are words for native people that are said to mean "laziness" or unproductive. Do you think that's acceptable? If not, why can you use the r word or "spaz" to refer to stupid or crazy? Why can you use blind and deaf to refer to ignorance, or crippled to mean restricted?
I'm not saying you should scream at bystanders or your buddies at the bar. But should we be promoting this language, when there are a plethora of more honest and meaningful words that can be used? Why not use them? Why not politely encourage people in positions of power to make their language more authentic and inclusive?
I just read about an advocacy group of people with cognitive disabilities who lobbied their local government to stop using the r word in meetings. What's so wrong with that? Is it not horrific that this word has slipped into common usage with our friends?
Did you ever read Harry Potter? Remember when the Ministry wants to discredit Harry? Well, they do it using language don't they? They would just slip him into articles, like if a crazy story is printed they would just add a small phrase "a Potter-worthy story". This shit is real. Language influences how we think of one another.
I don't mean to sound aggressive, but you doth protest too much. I recall that your belief is that members of minority groups who take offence when they hear/read demeaning language about themselves, are entirely to blame for being "prickly assholes," to quote from my memory your last post on this.
Do you believe it's coincidental that many of our insults and pejorative terms stem from minority groups who struggle in society? Do you believe that's a good thing? In a country where basic human rights are being taken away, I can turn on the television in the US and hear the word "gay" used to mean stupid or funny. There are words for native people that are said to mean "laziness" or unproductive. Do you think that's acceptable? If not, why can you use the r word or "spaz" to refer to stupid or crazy? Why can you use blind and deaf to refer to ignorance, or crippled to mean restricted?
I'm not saying you should scream at bystanders or your buddies at the bar. But should we be promoting this language, when there are a plethora of more honest and meaningful words that can be used? Why not use them? Why not politely encourage people in positions of power to make their language more authentic and inclusive?
I just read about an advocacy group of people with cognitive disabilities who lobbied their local government to stop using the r word in meetings. What's so wrong with that? Is it not horrific that this word has slipped into common usage with our friends?
Did you ever read Harry Potter? Remember when the Ministry wants to discredit Harry? Well, they do it using language don't they? They would just slip him into articles, like if a crazy story is printed they would just add a small phrase "a Potter-worthy story". This shit is real. Language influences how we think of one another.
DrillInstructorJan 2 points 11m ago
What you're talking about is the euphemism treadmill. There are a million examples of it. Terms like moron, idiot and retard were all once part of professional mental health language. Now they're just insults. You can spend the rest of your life campaigning against them and even if you succeed in getting people to stop using them, you will find that magically some other terms have grown up to replace them. You cannot make people like you by trying to control the language they use, they'll just use different words for the same sentiment.
In any case this is is not really about people who don't like you or are actually trying to insult you. This is about totally normal and pleasant people who mean you no harm at all. I don't know about you but personally I don't need any other reasons for people to feel awkward around me. If you are risking pissing people off so you can post on social media about what a great language policeman you are, please stop, because you are not helping anyone, even yourself.
In any case this is is not really about people who don't like you or are actually trying to insult you. This is about totally normal and pleasant people who mean you no harm at all. I don't know about you but personally I don't need any other reasons for people to feel awkward around me. If you are risking pissing people off so you can post on social media about what a great language policeman you are, please stop, because you are not helping anyone, even yourself.
rkingett [OP] 2 points 11m ago
The point is to change perceptions about the capabilities of the disabled, not police people's language 24/7.
smarthome_fan 1 points 11m ago
Yes, language evolves with the times, based on how we perceive and treat others in society. If you want to use prejudicial terms that were acceptable a century ago, when society thought of their marginalized people very differently, be my guest. Do you think we treated people with cognitive disabilities differently a century ago, when those terms were more acceptable? Do you think perhaps that means something? You have no right to tell others they can't care about this issue, or can't educate others about it. That's really very arrogant and frankly it harms the community you're a part of.
As I very clearly said, so I'm not sure if you actually bothered to read my comments, I do not believe in calling out people who mean no harm. I don't believe "in being the language police for random civilians. However, I believe that people in power and those for whom a command of the language is important, so journalists, politicians, teachers, etc. should be taught how to appropriately use language to be inclusive and reflect our values and beliefs of, you know, today. Not last century.
Hey if you think calling people idiot and retard is fine then you go right ahead and do it. If it makes you feel good about yourself to promote this language then be my guest. There are lots of things that were done a century ago, that aren't acceptable now. Your argument falls apart pretty fast on those grounds of "well it's always been said".
Also, I thought you didn't care about this issue? If that's the case then why post about it and tell others how to feel?
To be abundantly clear, since you're really hung up on this point, I do not believe in being the language police. I don't think you should call out across the bar or post on social media to get points or karma. However, I think we should generally trend towards being more positive and inclusive and language is a part of that evolution. That means ensuring people in power lead by example.
As I very clearly said, so I'm not sure if you actually bothered to read my comments, I do not believe in calling out people who mean no harm. I don't believe "in being the language police for random civilians. However, I believe that people in power and those for whom a command of the language is important, so journalists, politicians, teachers, etc. should be taught how to appropriately use language to be inclusive and reflect our values and beliefs of, you know, today. Not last century.
Hey if you think calling people idiot and retard is fine then you go right ahead and do it. If it makes you feel good about yourself to promote this language then be my guest. There are lots of things that were done a century ago, that aren't acceptable now. Your argument falls apart pretty fast on those grounds of "well it's always been said".
Also, I thought you didn't care about this issue? If that's the case then why post about it and tell others how to feel?
To be abundantly clear, since you're really hung up on this point, I do not believe in being the language police. I don't think you should call out across the bar or post on social media to get points or karma. However, I think we should generally trend towards being more positive and inclusive and language is a part of that evolution. That means ensuring people in power lead by example.
SiriuslyGranger 2 points 11m ago
Sounds like your typical virtue signaling.
smarthome_fan 2 points 1y ago
Okay, I'm going to give a slightly different perspective here.
Firstly, many people are saying thatyou shouldn’t take offense when well-meaning people are speaking, not trying to offend. That's absolutely true. There's a time to call out offensive language, and when you're just hanging at the bar, or with friends, or ordering your coffee, is probably not an appropriate time.
That said, words do have meaning. And we should try to speak in as inclusive and ernest a fashion as we can.
To give one non-disability related example, our local advocacy group against drunk driving says we shouldn't refer to "car accidents" caused by drunk drivers. Why? Well, because it's not an accident. It's an act of criminal negligence. So calling it "accidental" minimizes the severity of the crime. Instead, we should simply say "crash". Does this mean we should scream at anyone who says "car accident?" Of course not. But people like journalists, teachers, politicians, people who should know and use language correctly, we should make sure they are using the terminology appropriately.
The same goes for language that is demeaning to any other minority group. How often have I seen people refer to female body parts as weak, and male body parts as strong or aggressive? Or language associated with people of colour or non-heterosexual people to mean something negative? The same goes for disability-related language. Why would you want to use "blind" or "deaf" to mean ignorant, stupid, prejudice, or misinformed, when there are a plethora of, frankly, more honest and meaningful terms you could use? Sure, don't jump down other people's throats, but the meaning of the words we speak and write is actually important.
Firstly, many people are saying thatyou shouldn’t take offense when well-meaning people are speaking, not trying to offend. That's absolutely true. There's a time to call out offensive language, and when you're just hanging at the bar, or with friends, or ordering your coffee, is probably not an appropriate time.
That said, words do have meaning. And we should try to speak in as inclusive and ernest a fashion as we can.
To give one non-disability related example, our local advocacy group against drunk driving says we shouldn't refer to "car accidents" caused by drunk drivers. Why? Well, because it's not an accident. It's an act of criminal negligence. So calling it "accidental" minimizes the severity of the crime. Instead, we should simply say "crash". Does this mean we should scream at anyone who says "car accident?" Of course not. But people like journalists, teachers, politicians, people who should know and use language correctly, we should make sure they are using the terminology appropriately.
The same goes for language that is demeaning to any other minority group. How often have I seen people refer to female body parts as weak, and male body parts as strong or aggressive? Or language associated with people of colour or non-heterosexual people to mean something negative? The same goes for disability-related language. Why would you want to use "blind" or "deaf" to mean ignorant, stupid, prejudice, or misinformed, when there are a plethora of, frankly, more honest and meaningful terms you could use? Sure, don't jump down other people's throats, but the meaning of the words we speak and write is actually important.
rkingett [OP] 2 points 11m ago
So much this, but for some reason, people in here genuinely think it's about scoring performative inclusion points from random strangers on the street or with friends.
I've taken a different tactic, though. Instead of saying, that's Ableist, I've just used different words instead and suggested different words without saying the first word is Ableist. I suggest more empowering words and have gotten many sighted people to dramatically lesson their Ableist phrases without any hassles. Plus, now, they all have a bigger vocabulary than people that just reach for Ableist terms.
I've taken a different tactic, though. Instead of saying, that's Ableist, I've just used different words instead and suggested different words without saying the first word is Ableist. I suggest more empowering words and have gotten many sighted people to dramatically lesson their Ableist phrases without any hassles. Plus, now, they all have a bigger vocabulary than people that just reach for Ableist terms.
smarthome_fan 1 points 11m ago
Yep, absolutely. This was never about scoring internet points or karma. Heck, don't say anything if the situation isn't appropriate. But it's all about a general trend towards inclusion.
Why would I want to use language that doesn't literally even mean what I'm trying to express?
Why would I want to use language that doesn't literally even mean what I'm trying to express?
Skriet 2 points 1y ago
I can recommend her book There Plant Eyes
HegemoneMilo 2 points 1y ago
Oh, good! I just ordered it on audible.
HegemoneMilo 1 points 11m ago
There Plant Eyes is really good. Thank you, OP, for the original link that led me to this book.
DontCageMeIn 1 points 11m ago
The link in your post wouldn't allow me to read the article as I've reached my limit of free articles with them.
DannyMTZ956 1 points 11m ago
I’m glad that the article sparked a good conversation.
For my part, once I realized that I made an ablest comment by saying blind, rather than ignorant, I stopped using blind when I intended to say ignorant.
For my part, once I realized that I made an ablest comment by saying blind, rather than ignorant, I stopped using blind when I intended to say ignorant.
rkingett [OP] 1 points 11m ago
I highly recommend Their Plant Eyes. It's so good I read it twice!
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.