Recent comments in /f/bestof

tuesday wrote

so when you say things are d__b you're saying that they're good positive things? you're not using the word to mean something negative? a lack of something based on intellect? because I've really never seen that be the case.

people i know from the D&HOH community especially hate that word. they are not lacking in intellect when they're incapable of using spoken language. but that's what they're called as an insult, the idea that they're lacking is leveraged against them. its a tool of their oppression. but because you don't agree that it harms them, even though they express very clearly that they feel that it does, then you're just going to keep on using it? why do you get to decide what's best for other people?

7

tuesday wrote (edited )

the idea that language influences and reflects the ways that we conceptualize things isn't strictly american and frankly it's frustrating when people dismiss things because they imagine the origin is american. but sure, dismiss what impacted people say because you dislike what you imagine to be the nation of origin. sensible.

5

tuesday wrote (edited )

You made a valid point, i agreed and apologized when i saw it.

i don't paint disabled people as a monolith. i point out several times that it's people who engage in disability activism that have asked that we remove abelist language. i am not speaking for all disabled people and never claimed to.

2

Circe OP wrote

One thing that has become clear to me is that I shouldnt get too much into online discussions until I feel a little better. Fact is I normally try hard to be nice because being nice when you can borders on a core value for me. And I’m glad I didnt come across too bad but I was not trying to be nice here at all.

About the only other thing I’d say right now is if I thought deleting was the answer I would have deleted my entire submission already - this wasn’t the discussion I meant to trigger. I havent because it is part of the site now; to delete it would be to break up the continuity. So unless you really want to delete it for your own reasons, I’d suggest just leaving it all at this point. ☺️

💜💕💜

4

anopenwound wrote (edited )

I respect your points and i often come off very hostile in my comments so thats more of a me thing haha. I didnt think u weren't being nice but i think we're pretty conditioned to fear disagreement and see it as contentious so i try to actively fight that urge in myself. I still feel it tho so i get where ur coming from. Ultimately, i do agree with you that the burden was unnecessarily on tuesday in this situation and i actually disagree with ppl who have tried to agree me or even the points on that thread. I shouldve been more clear abt that. Cuz i dont really agree with ur side of it or the other ppls. But my points definitely played into the favor of that other party or whatever. I am against slurs and dont see language as some offlimits thing we shouldnt engage with. Rather i wanted to point out that our ways of being anti those things often perputate the things we are going against. Cuz when u start falling into ideas of normalcy and normal human traits i think it can erase a lot of aspects of things and perpetuate this idea that normal is good.

Anyways, it brought up interesting points in my head both related and unrelated so i let it spew forth into internet transmissions. Am I rude? Probably too much at times. But i also dont think we need to engage in respectability either. The slur users suck and ill delete my posts if anyone tries to use it to defend that point of view. Also im wrong all the time but ill only know that if i stick my head out and let myself see.

3

Circe OP wrote (edited )

So you dont see how having a conception of what normality is and demanding immediate change and adaption your conception of normality isnt ableist?

Actually, this is a point… that is massively larger than this discussion; it goes across all of Raddle. But I will first say, I do expect certain behavioral changes here almost immediately - this isn’t in person, we have the option to review what we say before we post it. Most of us are guilty of failing to do so sometimes, but that brings us to the second point - I said it before and I’ll say it again, it’s less the original issue than how it is responded to. Show you are trying and that’s generally enough.

In addition, this entire site has a stack of behaviors that simply aren’t tolerated at a social level. Try advocating voting, carnism, or transphobia and see just what sort of reaction you get. The only difference over ableist language - we tend to be nicer about it. And that goes for in-group issues as well - being trans wont let you get away with truscum garbage, and being neuro-atypical isn’t going to let you get away with rampant ablism either. Again, this is really just a variation on the paradox of tolerance, and that fallacy has been explored plenty elsewhere.

Regarding the empathy discussion…. You are right that I was sort of trying to have it both ways; it wasn’t on purpose but there you go. My knee jerk reaction is in fact to defend Tuesday for a simple reason - I felt they were goaded into a comment that was really just a giant distraction. Still it was wrong by my own standards, I apologize for that.

So cards on the table - I still think Tuesday’s main post was the best thing I’ve seen on this, but after that I wish they had just issued a “Warning - ToS violation” statement with a moderator flag and left it at that. But I didn’t want to come out and say this bluntly because I suspected at least one person involved to be… arguing in bad faith, and that is also an accusation which there is no coming back from. So I let myself get caught up in the wrong discussion (arguement, Im afraid). And yet….. the same damn users are using the same damn slurs over and over again, and I’m supposed to get upset at Tuesday over one comment? That is 100% classic miss direction. Fuck that. People can take their polite correction, or we can start another entire dumpster fire over this topic, but I’m not backing down on what I see as the core issue here: Ableist slurs are no more acceptable here than racist slurs or transphobic slurs.

Further cards on the table: I have no more respect for someone who insists that their repeated usage of ableist language is somehow ok than I have for my “I’m not a racist but…” uncle, the people who call me any of a half dozen slurs thinking they are somehow compliments because they want in my pants, or use racial slurs in their password because they think it’s clever. I think it would be ableist to expect anyone to truly instantly change their vocabulary and everyone makes mistakes, but they can make an effort. But when someone argues why these slurs aren’t slurs when they use them it gets my hackles up.

Also where did i speak of disabled people as a monolith? I problematized ur ideas of what disability justice look like. I shared my conception and stated p clearly of that. Its fine if u didnt read that in but im clarifying it now.

Good! I’m not sure, because I never referred to or treated disabled people as a monolith either. But people on this thread absolutely belittled and disregarded what a bunch of disabled people have said/were trying to say. Not just saying there was another side mind you, but straight up denying their experience that slurs perpetuate harm. Well, popular misbeliefs about my psychiatric diagnosis have absolutely caused me real, tangible problems. Ableist language perpetuates this. You wouldn’t accept someone throwing racial slurs around, this is no different. Why does it take someone standing up and saying “yo, this applies to me, please stop throwing slurs around” to make a difference?

Anyway, I actually am sort of sorry about the tone in this post, I generally think being nice and such works better most of the time, and causes me fewer episodes. But I’m sincerely tired of debating wether or not it can be acceptable to casually use slurs here. It isn’t; and I will do what I can to keep it that way. I apologize if I’ve come across as zealous on this topic; it’s because I am. Lettuce had their evil arc, I guess this is mine. ☺️

💜💕💜

Edit: corrected pronouns

7

moonlune wrote (edited )

Yeah not the best of raddle. I guess if you're into escalating conflicts you might find value in the thread. I find the tabooification of words that Americans preach silly but don't care enough to comment on it again in the future.

1

anopenwound wrote (edited )

"No, we aren’t even shitting on someone for (initially) using hurtful language. Not speaking for anyone else but I absolutely will shit on people who have had their hurtful behavior (language) explained, and then just try to justify their continued same behavior. Do you see the difference here? It’s not the original issue that is a big problem, it’s the response to having it pointed out."

So you dont see how having a conception of what normality is and demanding immediate change and adaption to your conception of normality isnt ableist? Thats my issue with it all. You are coming from a perspective that enables conceptions of normality and uplifts attacks on people who cant keep up with your conception of that. And idrc abt TOS, its not that serious. U can ban me if u disagree but my point is never abt TOS. And i am critical of your ability or the TOS's ability to be an authority on ableist language ngl. I gave my perspectige and labeled it as such, i did not defer to some seperate set of rules which really have no bearing on how i conduct my speech and if you only choose to conduct urself based on rules, why are u an anarchist?

Still, you try to act as if the empathy thing is both valid and invalid. You want to take a side that protects urself while also not denigrating tuesday. If u can agree its harmful and not use it in ur case why are u so invested in doing it for tuesday? Oh because u cant speak for them? But u could speak for smookey? And i do extend that courtesy, point to one ableist thing ive said. Exactly. I am here to defend someone who faced ableist rhetoric over their supposed inability to comply. So dont say im continuing to use any language to be cute when i have not even said any of it once. But yes continue to accuse me of trying to be cute and whatever to invalidate my argument. And u still continue to uplift empathy as some essential and normal thing, i wont even engage with that because u fail to see how thats problematic.

Also where did i speak of disabled people as a monolith? I problematized ur ideas of what disability justice look like. I shared my conception and stated p clearly of that. Its fine if u didnt read that in but im clarifying it now.

Ultimately, its not that serious. My issue is that this idea of lacking empathy is somehow abnormal and weird and should be shut down is ableist and not helpful. Also, that we need to agitate against conceptions of normality (even a tos), which i can do without breaking ur rules as demonstrated. Idrc abt the abliest language. I agree, have u seen me say it? But i dont agree with attacks on someone for lacking socalled empathy cuz they dont fit ur conception of normality, particualrly one that centers anglophones. I do agree that language is hurtful and thats why i attacked the point of empathy. So dont make one claim of language valid and this not. And if i dont make sense idc, demanding i make sense is ableist muhhaha

−3

Circe OP wrote

Well to start with, I wouldn’t have brought up the bit about empathy. Not that I disagreed mind you, just it’s hard to move forward from there in a discussion. But since it has been raised I’ll attempt to address it from my perspective.

That completely demonized someone for what u see as a less than savory use of the english language

This would absolutely make sense if it had been an initial response. As it is there was a fair bit of explanation ahead of that explaning why this language choice is an issue. And even if it’s not what I would have said at the time, continuing to attempt to justify the use of said language afterwards does show a lack of empathy on this topic. This isn’t abstract; you say you are disabled but so are a lot of other people here, and some of them have said this is hurtful. Failure to at least consider this absolutely shows a lack of empathy on this topic. (That said, empathy is helpful but not necessary - see below)

So i really dont think its some positive anti-ableist thing to shit on someone for not fitting ur conceptions of how a person should be.

No, we aren’t even shitting on someone for (initially) using hurtful language. Not speaking for anyone else but I absolutely will shit on people who have had their hurtful behavior (language) explained, and then just try to justify their continued same behavior. Do you see the difference here? It’s not the original issue that is a big problem, it’s the response to having it pointed out.

Maybe dont use empathy as an insult

Actually I don’t think they technically used it as an insult (Do you see how frustrating that is? Denying it was an insult is true and very misleading. Almost like the non-insult uses of other words.)

But seriously, I can’t speak for anyone else but I will be more cautious of my use of the term in future conversations. Just because I don’t want to cause harm. So…. Why is it such a big deal to extend the same courtesy to other bits of language?

After all, none of this changes the original point. Ableist language is a problem, against the ToS and hurtful. Continuing to use it after this is pointed out doesn’t say a lot for a person. Making clever arguments about why you are right and it isn’t harmful doesn’t actually impress anyone.

dont use disabled ppl as a monolith to defend that

I dont think I saw this, but it would be a fair demand. How about you promise to not to pretend to speak for all disabled people? And maybe even believe other disabled people when they say certain behaviors are harmful, at least to them? Because defending ableist language is straight up denying what a lot of people with disabilities have been telling us for years.

Considering that these are the exact sort of talking points usually used to hijack and derail discussions of ablism, sexism, racism, etc. I find this argument to be full of red flags. Frankly, the paradox of tolerance is sophomoric - even if someone does have a mental condition that blocked empathy, this community is not going to allow them to go around indefinitely using ableist language here. (And empathy helps one to understand why the rules exist, but isn’t actually necessary to grasp their function.) The reasons have been explained. If someone is still having a problem with that and is unwilling to let it go they can take it up with the community as a whole on meta or find themselves slowly banned from the forums they repeatedly offend in - not as some sort of punishment or shaming, but in an attempt to keep the space safe for others.

There is no mystical moral creed involved here, it’s just the ToS and the experiences that shaped them. It’s really as simple as: Ableist language is hurtful and this community has decided not to enable it. Tuesday - and others - are doing a courtesy when they explain why; they aren’t actually obligated to say anything more than “Tos violation, deleted.” You may feel this is inappropriate, unfair, etc., but it is also unfair to expect random internet strangers just trying to keep their forums going to spend hours rehashing the same questions. The fact that Tuesday gave us one of the best explanations I’ve ever seen was a gift, and I for one am taking it as such.

💜💕💜

7

grub wrote

responding to: "So i really dont think its some positive anti-ableist thing to shit on someone for not fitting ur conceptions of how a person should be"

agreed, it's ableist at its core to assume a picture in your head for what a "normal" person should be (in this case, having a certain amount of empathy). it also felt like a personal attack on Smookey to me (who i never saw a personal attack from).

3

anopenwound wrote (edited )

"I honestly hope that you find a way to develop some empathy." Is the primary thing i replied to.

I laid out my critiques in my comment. An attack on someone like that claiming they have no empathy is actually ableist imo. That sort of condemnation is used against neurodivergent ppl for not fitting in or getting it. This is furthered by the anglo-centrism (you and tuesday both are english natives no?) That completely demonized someone for what u see as a less than savory use of the english language. So i really dont think its some positive anti-ableist thing to shit on someone for not fitting ur conceptions of how a person should be. Maybe dont use empathy as an insult and attack when ppl straight up struggle with that shit. And dont use disabled ppl as a monolith to defend that - a disabled person invested in disability liberation.

5

Circe OP wrote

Ok o wrote a very bitey response that ws probably over the top. I decided instead I’m going to post a simple question:

What exactly did Tuesday say that you felt was a personal attack? Because all I’m talking about here is their explanation of the harm of ableist language, and I see no personal attack there at all.

💜💕💜

5

anopenwound wrote (edited )

Honestly, i find the way it was handled kind of ableist too. I see someone getting personally shit on for not having the same opinion. And its kind of abelist to so quickly demonize someone for not picking up on an idea fast enough. Esp when we dont know their background at all. I also find this discussions to be so anglo-centric and often times just denigrate ppl who dont have the same grasp on the nuances of english language. So many personal attacks for really no reason. Including an attack on empathy, which is something used against neurodivergent people for not fitting in or getting something. Wild how ableist rhetoric is uplifted as being against ableism. Also so much flattening of disability in that thread and painting disabled people as a monolith.

5

ziq OP wrote

Reply to comment by mima in Shut up about 'dual power', tool by ziq

realized a lot of the old threads are shredded from people deleting their accounts, so need to start posting archives of them. sadly this one was shredded before it got archived

7

Lettuce wrote (edited )

Yeah I wrote a long ass letter to someone about how even in prison one is surrounding by life that doesn't respect the guards authority. From the cockroaches and rats who don't care about the barbwire or guards. The birds who fly over the walls. The grass who will grow unkept and untidy once the authority of the mower stops. Ect. I wrote like 4 pages on this topic. Tho that is almost certainly going into the prison censors bin so whatever. I'm not mad

Edit: I think it's an immensely comforting thing to believe bc most life eon earth lives in a way where they can't build up negative systems like humans. Very few animals have any respect for laws, moral sensibility, societal values, shaem, straightness, race ect. They live with relatively minimal hierarchy and often live their lives uncaring to hierarchy itself so they are constantly in conflict with it.

Which I find very enjoyable way to view the world. A place where almost any where there are allies crossing boarders and breaking laws to live their life in a free and joyful way from plant to animal to fungus.

Bc there aren't a ton of life that is Fighting for the things I'm opposed to. Their existence is a threat to it. And society largely programs one to be alienated by being blind to how many allies and xomplices are out there fuckin shit up every day.

5