I find using the kind of language that gets labeled as "abelist "is a crutch that rarely helps a person's writing. It tends to be vague and emotional and often a poor fit for the situation. To take an example from downthread (sorry Slaw):
"I'm just going to say it: I think deaf parents who refuse to get their children cochlear implants ar…
I find using the kind of language that gets labeled as "abelist "is a crutch that rarely helps a person's writing. It tends to be vague and emotional and often a poor fit for the situation. To take an example from downthread (sorry Slaw):
"I'm just going to say it: I think deaf parents who refuse to get their children cochlear implants are insane and borderline child abusers."
Obviously Slaw doesn't think they are actually out of touch with consensus reality, but what is meant to be put across by 'insane' here? A stupidity-and-wrongness slurry plus strong censure? To my mind, the point of the word is mainly to be a vehicle for that negative judgment, and it adds little beyond that; replacing "insane" with "bad" wouldn't substantively change the message. Consider alternatives:
-I think deaf parents who refuse to get their children cochlear implants are borderline child abusers.
or
-I think deaf parents who refuse to get their children cochlear implants are incredibly selfish and borderline child abusers.
I think either of these is stronger than the original, and the second (example of the kind of you think you might say instead) is both stronger and more informative.
Rarely do I stumble on one of these terms used well. The reason that using this kind of language can be damaging is not at all unrelated to its poor suitability to good writing, but a lot of people are already making the former point.
I find using the kind of language that gets labeled as "abelist "is a crutch that rarely helps a person's writing. It tends to be vague and emotional and often a poor fit for the situation. To take an example from downthread (sorry Slaw):
"I'm just going to say it: I think deaf parents who refuse to get their children cochlear implants are insane and borderline child abusers."
Obviously Slaw doesn't think they are actually out of touch with consensus reality, but what is meant to be put across by 'insane' here? A stupidity-and-wrongness slurry plus strong censure? To my mind, the point of the word is mainly to be a vehicle for that negative judgment, and it adds little beyond that; replacing "insane" with "bad" wouldn't substantively change the message. Consider alternatives:
-I think deaf parents who refuse to get their children cochlear implants are borderline child abusers.
or
-I think deaf parents who refuse to get their children cochlear implants are incredibly selfish and borderline child abusers.
I think either of these is stronger than the original, and the second (example of the kind of you think you might say instead) is both stronger and more informative.
Rarely do I stumble on one of these terms used well. The reason that using this kind of language can be damaging is not at all unrelated to its poor suitability to good writing, but a lot of people are already making the former point.