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.

  • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you’re offended by the phrase falling on deaf ears, which is very much just an expression, then you need to go outside more. Nobody is trying to offend deaf people with that phrase.

    • RansomOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      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.

        • RansomOP
          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.

          • 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.

            • RansomOP
              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.

            • RansomOP
              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.

        • Guns4Gnus
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So, “You aren’t abled”

          You are just a smug prick.

          Gotcha.

    • DessertStorms@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’re being deliberately obtuse and wilfully ignorant if that’s what you took from the article.
      And not that you care, but it isn’t about offence

    • MapleEngineer@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’re trolls from Hexbear. They like to label us as ableist and bigots because it makes them feel superior.

      • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I have no idea what hexbear even is. I don’t disagree with everything in the article, just think saying phrases like falling in deaf ears, or a dumb decision, is way extreme on the scale of this is problematic language.

    • Guns4Gnus
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      So, deaf people say “Please don’t say that,” and you are the smug asshole that says “How the fuck will they know what I say, they’re fucking deaf. Open season on insults boys!”

      • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, I’m saying there is nuance to phrases like this. There are multiple meanings to the word deaf. Jesus, it’s like talking to a brick wall sometimes.