> Another complains that ableist language gives words like "deaf" a "negative connotation."
'The deaf' seem like the most glaring ... 'problematic' (?) kinda-counter-example to this post. (I basically agree with the normative claims in the post.) AFAIK, they kinda _are_ a 'real community'.
I think it would be better for people _to_ use 're…
> Another complains that ableist language gives words like "deaf" a "negative connotation."
'The deaf' seem like the most glaring ... 'problematic' (?) kinda-counter-example to this post. (I basically agree with the normative claims in the post.) AFAIK, they kinda _are_ a 'real community'.
I think it would be better for people _to_ use 'retarded'. Once you've noticed the 'euphemism treadmill', how could you not want to get off it?
If we refuse to get off of the euphemism treadmill, then we should expect a never-ending cycle of choosing a new euphemism, trying to police casual language usage of that term, and eventually giving up (e.g. when children pick up on that the current euphemism makes a _great_ insult), and then starting the cycle over. I just can't escape my extreme skepticism that this does anything at all. Surely everyone involved knows it's really bullshit?
That it is morally bad to denigrate someone for a disability for which they're not culpable (or even then) just seems like an independent fact from what words people use to put each other down. Running on the euphemism treadmill seems so nakedly performative and yet another example of 'magical word thinking'.
Counterpoint: OCD and autistic are pretty specific diagnoses, but have caught on as informal adjectives for supposedly-related personality types. At that point, it's an issue of morals, not vocabulary: a decent person shouldn't say she's "kinda OCD about my calendar." I also like specificity, but it's not perfect.
I think there's a difference between phrases that incorporate the literal meaning of the word (in "deaf ears" the word deaf is used to mean "can't hear") and using a disability word to mean "bad" (e.g. "That's so lame" or "That's retarded.")
In that case, a replacement wouldn't be a "euphemism" because people weren't thinking of the actual meanings in the first place.
It just seems inevitable that people, out of cruelty or even attempted humor, will use the same words for real disabilities to describe people without them.
It's also inevitable that the meaning of words will become whatever the relevant community of language users understands them to mean. Because of that, it's not clear that there _are_ any "actual meanings in the first place". Language is inescapably social – there are no meanings independent of particular people in particular contexts.
I would not have predicted that anyone is upset by "That's so lame.". I understand the logic now that you've pointed it out, but I just don't think it's of any utility to follow that logic to its inevitable conclusion. I'm not sure even 'bad' would survive!
I don't think what I wrote has anything to do with "pomo", but I can understand why you or others might think that. I think "pomo" is making a much stronger claim, e.g. that _reality_ is itself social; not just language.
But you're, sadly, probably right about the futility of encouraging people to jump off the euphemism treadmill!
I think it might still be possible to 'jump off' the euphemism treadmill even while accepting that language changes. It sure seems like the euphemism treadmill is the consequence of deliberate 'prescriptivist' changes; not 'organic' change like slang.
I also think there's a kind of 'art' in, e.g. 'tracking prototypes', that prevents "the relational nature and inherent uncertainty of language" from _perfectly_ unmooring one from _any_ connection to an underlying reality. In practice, even 'pomo fanatics' are probably almost entirely 'practical' and unremarkable when using language outside of academic or 'intellectual' circles.
> Another complains that ableist language gives words like "deaf" a "negative connotation."
'The deaf' seem like the most glaring ... 'problematic' (?) kinda-counter-example to this post. (I basically agree with the normative claims in the post.) AFAIK, they kinda _are_ a 'real community'.
I think it would be better for people _to_ use 'retarded'. Once you've noticed the 'euphemism treadmill', how could you not want to get off it?
If we refuse to get off of the euphemism treadmill, then we should expect a never-ending cycle of choosing a new euphemism, trying to police casual language usage of that term, and eventually giving up (e.g. when children pick up on that the current euphemism makes a _great_ insult), and then starting the cycle over. I just can't escape my extreme skepticism that this does anything at all. Surely everyone involved knows it's really bullshit?
That it is morally bad to denigrate someone for a disability for which they're not culpable (or even then) just seems like an independent fact from what words people use to put each other down. Running on the euphemism treadmill seems so nakedly performative and yet another example of 'magical word thinking'.
Counterpoint: OCD and autistic are pretty specific diagnoses, but have caught on as informal adjectives for supposedly-related personality types. At that point, it's an issue of morals, not vocabulary: a decent person shouldn't say she's "kinda OCD about my calendar." I also like specificity, but it's not perfect.
I think there's a difference between phrases that incorporate the literal meaning of the word (in "deaf ears" the word deaf is used to mean "can't hear") and using a disability word to mean "bad" (e.g. "That's so lame" or "That's retarded.")
In that case, a replacement wouldn't be a "euphemism" because people weren't thinking of the actual meanings in the first place.
But disability _is_ bad!
It just seems inevitable that people, out of cruelty or even attempted humor, will use the same words for real disabilities to describe people without them.
It's also inevitable that the meaning of words will become whatever the relevant community of language users understands them to mean. Because of that, it's not clear that there _are_ any "actual meanings in the first place". Language is inescapably social – there are no meanings independent of particular people in particular contexts.
I would not have predicted that anyone is upset by "That's so lame.". I understand the logic now that you've pointed it out, but I just don't think it's of any utility to follow that logic to its inevitable conclusion. I'm not sure even 'bad' would survive!
I don't think what I wrote has anything to do with "pomo", but I can understand why you or others might think that. I think "pomo" is making a much stronger claim, e.g. that _reality_ is itself social; not just language.
But you're, sadly, probably right about the futility of encouraging people to jump off the euphemism treadmill!
Those are good points!
I think it might still be possible to 'jump off' the euphemism treadmill even while accepting that language changes. It sure seems like the euphemism treadmill is the consequence of deliberate 'prescriptivist' changes; not 'organic' change like slang.
I also think there's a kind of 'art' in, e.g. 'tracking prototypes', that prevents "the relational nature and inherent uncertainty of language" from _perfectly_ unmooring one from _any_ connection to an underlying reality. In practice, even 'pomo fanatics' are probably almost entirely 'practical' and unremarkable when using language outside of academic or 'intellectual' circles.