As a disabled person, I face ableism and ableist language every day. Some people use ableist language without even knowing that it is ableist. I thought it would be good for folks to take a look at the attached BBC article and expand their perspectives a bit.

  • Ransom@lemmy.caOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    If nobody is trying to be offensive, and deaf people (one of whom wrote the linked article) are saying that using “deaf” in this way is offensive, and you continue to use it because you don’t care… you’re being offensive. Is it really so hard to change the language you use?

    • Endorkend@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Intent is everything and if someone is clearly not using a word with the intent to offend you, you being offended is a YOU problem, not a them problem.

      And before you go say shit like able people can’t know how bad it feels.

      1, I’m not “abled”.
      2. I’ve had people call me these words meaning to offend and hurt me. THAT actually does hurt. These words being used without any intention to hurt or offend anyone, doesn’t matter to me at all.

      And sometimes, using those words to offend is perfectly appropriate to express what you want to convey.

      Like how many Americans have absolutely retarded levels of overblown reactions with a word like cunt.

      • Ransom@lemmy.caOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Intent is actually not everything. Legally speaking, if I run over a person with a car and they die, I can’t get away with it by saying, “well, I didn’t intend to kill them, so there shouldn’t be a consequence”. The impact of that person’s death is greater. It’s not murder, but it’s still manslaughter.

        Ableist language is the same: it still causes harm, but obviously not harm to the body.

        • Remmock@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Legally speaking, if you didn’t intend to kill them it actually does change the consequences.

          • Ransom@lemmy.caOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Even if no charges are laid, someone is dead. The intent to kill wasn’t there, but the impact is that someone is dead. It doesn’t matter if a person didn’t mean to kill someone, but again, someone is dead.

            This is why impact matters far more than intent. This is an extreme example, but it still applies in all situations. Someone might want to argue their way out of offending someone else, but the damage has already been done.

        • Endorkend@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          In the valid to the discussion case you said something with no intent to harm or insult anyone and you didn’t harm them, they decided you harmed them.

          In the case of a car accident, you literally fucking killed someone.

          It’s Apples and Oranges, a false equivalence argument that goes straight into the trash.

          • Ransom@lemmy.caOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Both are about impact vs intent. Both are about harm. I’m sorry you can’t see that.

            If I accidentally spill hot coffee on you and say that it was an accident, you’re still going to be upset. You’d be more upset if I said I did it on purpose, but let’s not pretend that being offensive accidentally is okay.