Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
qwints said:
Ableism is prejudice or discrimination against people with disabilities. The most common examples online tend to be the use of clinical or formerly clinical terms for disabled people to disparage people. (e.g. calling someone one disagrees with "retarded")
Click to expand...

Or calling a murderer "insane", 'cuz apparently Ceepolk et al do not approve of people using the term "insane" (or idiot?) in a colloquial fashion (i.e non-clinical).

As it is, I do not understand why calling a murderer insane is ableism. But... on A+ it sure is.
 
The problem is the incorrect belief that people with mental illness are necessarily dangerous or violent, or lumping all mental illness together, especially when that's combined with othering.

While it's true that implying someone must be mentally ill to have done something doesn't imply that all mentally ill people will do that thing, it still reinforces the problematic association. Thus colloquially speculating on the mental health of a murdered can be harmful.
 
qwints said:
The problem is the incorrect belief that people with mental illness are necessarily dangerous or violent, or lumping all mental illness together, especially when that's combined with othering.

While it's true that implying someone must be mentally ill to have done something doesn't imply that all mentally ill people will do that thing, it still reinforces the problematic association. Thus colloquially speculating on the mental health of a murdered can be harmful.
Click to expand...

Why do you assume that someone saying a murderer is insane is lumping all mentally ill people together?

Why do we have to qualify every single word we use in order to not be considered ableist, sexist, or whatever other ist is now the latest poking point from the land of A+?

How can anyone possibly hope to have a meaningful conversation about anything if we have to constantly watch our use of every single word and check it with the latest list of "bad" words in A+ land?

They seem to be far more concerned with the individual words someone uses than the message that the person is trying to convey.
 
qwints said:
The problem is the incorrect belief that people with mental illness are necessarily dangerous or violent, or lumping all mental illness together, especially when that's combined with othering.
Click to expand...

Yes but, at least in Sweden, it is not a common mix-up; i.e that mental-illness is translatable to violence. The prejudice here is that people with a mental illness are unpredictable and unintelligent, which while not of a dominant influence still rears its ugly head.

While it's true that implying someone must be mentally ill to have done something doesn't imply that all mentally ill people will do that thing, it still reinforces the problematic association. Thus colloquially speculating on the mental health of a murdered can be harmful.
Click to expand...

I agree with the first part, but I do not understand how it can be harmful to use the word insane to describe a murderer, for example. Human languages are frought with colloquial and pop-cultural uses of clinical and technical terms/words. It is a tone of colouring. Naturally, I am not objecting against a critical view on whether a given 'usage' is appropriate or not in general. Such discussions are and should be had. There is still very little reason, as I am able to see, behind condemning the use of 'insane' on a murdering lunatic (oops, did it again) of being an ableism.

Some do take it too far, and it happens 'here and there' (certainly on A+).
 
It is a good and noble thing to fight against social stigma, against people being branded as substandard because of their abilities, skin color or sexual orientation.*

But trying to extend that kind of thinking to situations where stigma and discrimination are explicitly not happening, on the basis that it might, at some future point, influence its happening, is just retarded.


*Which makes me curious: what's A+'s take on pedophilia? Do they break out the torches with the rest of society, or defend it with the same fervor they do TranCisFoo?
 
Kochanski said:
Why do we have to qualify every single word we use in order to not be considered ableist, sexist, or whatever other ist is now the latest poking point from the land of A+?

How can anyone possibly hope to have a meaningful conversation about anything if we have to constantly watch our use of every single word and check it with the latest list of "bad" words in A+ land?

They seem to be far more concerned with the individual words someone uses than the message that the person is trying to convey.
Click to expand...

The idea is that if you can control language, you can control thought. The rules of the game on this are about as make-it-up-as-you-go-along as they get.

Example ?

Check this one out. At the end of the thread, global moderator SubMor notes that referring to one's "tender feelings" may be taken as sexist. He no doubt wrote that with underwear on his head and pencils jammed up his nose in a desperate attempt to "other" the referrer and let him know he wasn't up to A+ standards.

There's a trick though. You just have to find the acceptable groups to target then you're away with all the stereotyping language your want as evidenced in this post by the lovely Kaissaine.

White able dreadlocked vegan trust fund babies were the ones spreading the spurious data & the flat lies, were the ones burning pro fluoride signs (yes, really), all while riding around town with their bikes with strobes on them (See point a. No one in PDX gives any ***** about being ableist) hollering about OUR PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS.
Click to expand...

Link

For some strange reason I have an overwhelming urge to spend the day discriminating against hippies. ;)
 
Beelzebuddy said:
*Which makes me curious: what's A+'s take on pedophilia? Do they break out the torches with the rest of society, or defend it with the same fervor they do TranCisFoo?
Click to expand...

They'd probably go with pedophilia is rape because children, due to their age, are incapable of giving informed consent.
 
Kochanski said:
Why do you assume that someone saying a murderer is insane is lumping all mentally ill people together?
Click to expand...

I don't - the criticism is about the effects of colloquially speculating about mental health, not about the speaker's intent.

Kochanski said:
Why do we have to qualify every single word we use in order to not be considered ableist, sexist, or whatever other ist is now the latest poking point from the land of A+?
Click to expand...

I'm glad you care enough about what posters at atheismplus think to notice. Some posters at atheismplus fail to adequately distinguish between criticizing problematic language, harmful policies, and personal bigotry. The short answer is because systemic discrimination is ingrained in our culture, and lots of "normal" language and ideas have problems.

Kochanski said:
How can anyone possibly hope to have a meaningful conversation about anything if we have to constantly watch our use of every single word and check it with the latest list of "bad" words in A+ land?
Click to expand...

I find it possible. When an issue comes up, I'll try to avoid using the objectionable word and move on. If I feel the need to discuss whether the word is "bad" or not, I'll start a new thread.

Kochanski said:
They seem to be far more concerned with the individual words someone uses than the message that the person is trying to convey.
Click to expand...

A fair point, and it certainly hinders discussion with people who don't share the basic beliefs of atheismplus in the forum
 
qwints said:
I find it possible. When an issue comes up, I'll try to avoid using the objectionable word and move on. If I feel the need to discuss whether the word is "bad" or not, I'll start a new thread.
Click to expand...

I do not believe that words by themselves, disconnected from intent, are harmful. This idea seems to me to be fairly exclusively North American.

Certainly in my country there are no words that are as laden with taboo as some words are in North America. I refer to the words that you don't even type when referencing them; the ...-words. I am not aware of any Dutch word that cannot be said on daytime television. I believe the UK also doesn't have taboo words to anywhere near the same extent as does the U.S.

When I see the effect that the evolution of acceptable terms for coloured people in the U.S. has had, this reinforces my impression. It was never the words that were harmful; it was the intentions behind them. If the latter remain, then which words are used matters not one whit.

Is this belief in the power of individual words regardless of context or intent, truly just a North American thing? I'd like people from other countries to weigh in, please.
 
qwints said:
I don't - the criticism is about the effects of colloquially speculating about mental health, not about the speaker's intent.
Click to expand...

Why would speculating about mental health of murder have a negative effect on anything? It seems to me that in speculating on mental health of a murderer, people are trying to wrap their brains around the notion that someone could harm someone else. In some ways it is a charitable position to take, saying that there must be an illness involved that would cause the person to murder someone. It does not mean that there is a belief that all mentally ill individuals are murderers or are likely to cause harm.

qwints said:
I'm glad you care enough about what posters at atheismplus think to notice. Some posters at atheismplus fail to adequately distinguish between criticizing problematic language, harmful policies, and personal bigotry. The short answer is because systemic discrimination is ingrained in our culture, and lots of "normal" language and ideas have problems.
Click to expand...

I don't buy that there is a systemic discrimination ingrained in our culture. Which culture are you speaking of anyway? There are many cultures, even within a specific location there are many cultures. To just shut down on the words people can use because particular individuals see them as problematic is failing to acknowledge that especially on the internet you are dealing with people from all over the world from many different cultures.

qwints said:
I find it possible. When an issue comes up, I'll try to avoid using the objectionable word and move on. If I feel the need to discuss whether the word is "bad" or not, I'll start a new thread.
Click to expand...

That is very limiting.


qwints said:
A fair point, and it certainly hinders discussion with people who don't share the basic beliefs of atheismplus in the forum
Click to expand...

It hinders discussions even with people who might share some of the beliefs and goals of people on the A+ forums. If you can't have an open discussion of things what is the point of a forum?
 
qwints said:
Kochanski said:
How can anyone possibly hope to have a meaningful conversation about anything if we have to constantly watch our use of every single word and check it with the latest list of "bad" words in A+ land?
Click to expand...


I find it possible.
Click to expand...


If one grants that it's possible, the next question is, is it worth it? Does the outcome warrant the effort? Are you willing to jettison a perfectly cromulent word because someone -- not even necessarily the person you're speaking to, but someone overhearing you -- might be upset because of the way the word has previously been used by other people in other contexts? I have yet to hear a convincing argument that I should.
 
Quinn said:
If one grants that it's possible, the next question is, is it worth it? Does the outcome warrant the effort? Are you willing to jettison a perfectly cromulent word because someone -- not even necessarily the person you're speaking to, but someone overhearing you -- might be upset because of the way the word has previously been used by other people in other contexts? I have yet to hear a convincing argument that I should.
Click to expand...
I feel that wordal cromulence is an intrisic value to be cherished and revered.
 
Have a look at this thread: Amanda Marcotte's ableism (TW ableism)

Setar said:
IME the atheist community on a whole -- even the "progressive" bits for the most part -- loves their ableism and hates it when people tell them to stop calling ignorant people morons =/
Click to expand...

Kassiane said:
She's been ableist before.

And she gives no ****s.

Amanda Marcotte is a terrible bigoted human being, just like much of atheism.

(hi I am in a terrible mood but I would stand by this one at all times)
Click to expand...

Catherine said:
Unfortunately it does seem that the SJ blindspot for most people is ableism, Until relatively recently I always thought it was transphobia but that's partially as it is what I experienced, now I actively look for ableism I see it everywhere...
Click to expand...

Would it be a mistake by me to think that their ableists are as fictional as the burgeouse of the communists and the statists of the libertarians?
 
Humes fork said:
Would it be a mistake by me to think that their ableists are as fictional as the burgeouse of the communists and the statists of the libertarians?
Click to expand...

Thanks for not including patriarchy, rape culture, or male privilege there. If you had, I might have had to have a lie-down for a few days.
 
Humes fork said:
Have a look at this thread: Amanda Marcotte's ableism (TW ableism)

Would it be a mistake by me to think that their ableists are as fictional as the burgeouse of the communists and the statists of the libertarians?
Click to expand...

These seem like privileged spoiled brats who avoid worthwhile targets for their SJ warfare and go to battle on the most frivolous fronts.

"Moron" as a psychologist's term for mental retardation is obsolete and is now purely a colloquial, disparaging term for "Someone who lacks one shred of intellectual curiosity" (Urban Dictionary). Use of the word today this way would not do a shred of tangible social injustice.

A+ activists need to pick their battles more intelligently. There are people being beheaded in the street right now in the name of a nonexistent god, and this is what they get all worked up about?

I think they are trying to one-up each other in an effort to prove who's the greatest SJW by identifying smaller and smaller targets.
 
Humes fork said:
Would it be a mistake by me to think that their ableists are as fictional as the burgeouse of the communists and the statists of the libertarians?
Click to expand...


Clearly that's your privilege showing. Had you done your homework, you would know that calling someone a moron or idiot is horribly oppressive and ableist, but calling them a doofus or ****wad is peachy, and anyone who doesn't recognize the difference is supporting the status quo/patriarchy/rape culture/etc.

ETA: I typed the above before Loerntz's response came in. Sorry for not including a trigger warning!
 
Last edited:
I'm going to have to do a bit of a post and run, as I'm working very long hours this weekend, but I'll try to get back to any replies, should any arise, around Tuesday/Wednesday time. So...

I think that it's true that there are certain things ingrained in society which can, in a very small and generalised way, contribute to a culture which views certain things in certain ways. For example - there are men out there who hold doors open for women. It's "manners" to do so, you see, and it's how men should behave. Or, for another example, the idea that you shouldn't hit women. Personally, I hold doors open for people, and I don't think you should hit anybody (with certain caveats allowing for unusual circumstances).

And I think there is a good argument to be made that both of the points of view above do contribute in a small way to a culture which can infantalise women. However, I don't think that it's any kind of direct, linear effect. The real world is far more messy and fuzzy round the edges than that. And I think that things such as that are far more symptomatic of attitudes within society than they are causal of such attitudes within society. And the relationship between the two need not be strong. We now live in a time which has become progressively more accepting of gay people. Yet we also live in a time in which kids at school use the word "gay" to indicate that something is worthless. You'd have thought the opposite would be true, were it more than a tenuous link between the two in either direction.

I, personally, don't like the use of the word "retarded" to describe people. It's not something I'm on a big crusade about, or anything, but I do think that it's common courtesy to not make a habit of using terms which are hurtful to people (be they part of some kind of minority or not). Which is kind of paradoxical to me as I do like edgy and near-the-knuckle humour and will sometimes laugh at something purely because I think it's an out-of-order thing to say. I also think that everybody will have a different threshold to everybody else when it comes to what they deem acceptable. I think most people would agree that someone taking offence at the word "niggardly" needs to receive a copy of a dictionary with a decent etymology section, rather than an apology.

But, specifically, I'd say that you shouldn't use the word "retard" or "retarded" unless you'll equally happily use the word "******" (or "Paki" or "Chink", or whatever offensive racial epithet describes an ethnic group you don't belong to) under the same circumstances. You may disagree.

And, my final tired and rambling thought for the day is that it's ironic that the two examples of negative traits in society were ones which pointed to and normalised the infantalisation of women, given that from what I've seen FtB, A+, Rebecca Watson, etc. thrive on the infantalisation of women.
 
I quite agree Sqeegee. I don't like the word retard as an insult either although I must say I have found myself using it on occasion and I dislike myself a little more each time I realise it.

That's because when person A calls person B a retard, they are comparing them to someone with mental retardation as if this were not only a bad thing for that person, but something which makes that person lesser.

All caveats about relative ability etc. aside, I do not think that mentally retarded people are lesser than me, I think they are just as much people as I am and don't find it appropriate to use as an insult for that reason.

When person A calls person B a moron on the other hand, they are almost certainly not calling that person mentally deficient in the classical sense associated with retardation. They are instead calling the person an idiot. I do not find this objectionable. I struggle to understand how anyone who accepts that language evolves (caveats about technical language notwithstanding) can claim that they think moron refers to mental retardation outside of arcane medical literature. Anyone who does not accept that language evolves is beyond hope.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom