Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Disablist language and deletions

182 replies

BOFtastic · 17/03/2014 01:43

Sort of on the back of another thread, I've noticed recent deletions of the word 'moron' as disablist.

I''ve done some googling. It was used among a couple of other older terms, idiot and imbecile, by Henry H. Goddard, a psychologist at the turn of the 19th century to grade people of "low intelligence", and it was taken up to justify eugenics. So distasteful, yes.

Is it just that Goddard actually coined 'moron', and the other terms were pre-existing? Goddard himself disavowed it shortly afterwards, and it hasn't been in use medically for a very long time. I very much doubt that people who use the word are directly referring to learning disability- the word in that sense is long-obsolete. Much like the word 'cretin', which has a similar history.

Language changes, we all know that.

The issue gets more clear-cut, I think, when similarly-originated terms are used as insults separate to their initial meaning. It is NOT ok- regardless of the speaker's meaning and motivation- to, for example, use 'gay' to mean 'pathetic', because it is still primarily used to refer to people's sexual orientation, and making the word an insult is demeaning to them. Also words like 'retard', because alongside its general use, it is still used to abuse and insult people with learning disabilities.

That, in my opinion, should be the rule of thumb: if the initial meaning is long obsolete, fine; if it still gets used in a discriminatory sense about actually-existing groups of marginalised and oppressed people, not fine.

So after thinking about it, I don't think I agree that the word 'moron' should be deleted as disablist language.

So what do people think?

OP posts:
Nerfmother · 19/03/2014 19:25

For me, socially disabled is a horrible term. Why use 'disabled' as part of an insult, when you could be kind and say 'socially awkward' or unkind and say 'socially inept' ?

Nerfmother · 19/03/2014 19:22

Or 'damn' if we're being picky Grin

I sort of agree with bof. I was concerned about the bit about words which no longer have their original meaning and are only used as insults, because then you would be able to use 'spaz' or 'mong' which are awful words, but I can see that's been covered. Phew. I can go back to agreeing.

limitedperiodonly · 19/03/2014 19:21

But your argument was that it was fine to use 'social cripple' because the person you were referring to was NT

In certain circumstances, yes.

I don't find it offensive to refer to someone who is being deliberately socially offensive in that way.

In fact, I find it challenging for them to confront that.

You do find it offensive.

Both our views are allowed.

I'm the only one who keeps explaining my position.

Owllady · 19/03/2014 19:15

I have a child with sld and agree with the op and tbqh j have enough shit on my plate day to day to start getting huffy about the use of moron

AladdinKingOfThieves · 19/03/2014 19:11

haha I wish I had kept it- Damn all those rules of spelling etiquette :)

Goblinchild · 19/03/2014 19:07
Grin I thought you were going for that pre-Johnson, damm your orthodox spelling rules touch.
AladdinKingOfThieves · 19/03/2014 19:04

Goblinchild- Nope spelling is not my forte Thanks :)

Goblinchild · 19/03/2014 18:57

Did you mean to spell your name like that Aladdin?
Yes, many words change over time and there are words that in the past were mortal insults that go without a raised eyebrow now. Likewise there are words that are beginning to have the original meaning forgotten, and the boundaries blurred.
But there are vulnerable people who are disadvantaged by the use of certain words as insults in the general population, and who may be distressed. It's a matter of being reasonable and flexible about the language used.

Hypothetical example. DS is able, but has Aspergers.
The child of unmarried parents is a bastard. It's in the dictionary as a definition.
He would need it clearly explaining to him why the word isn't acceptable to be used in that sense any longer, and then if he used it to insult someone, he would argue that as the child of unmarried parents, he wasn't insulting but describing his opponent.
Language, archaic, defunct and inaccurate is still a weapon that can hurt others. Why use certain, loaded words at all?

PlentyOfPubeGardens · 19/03/2014 18:55

BOF I think your a) and b) sound sensible.

PlentyOfPubeGardens · 19/03/2014 18:54

But your argument was that it was fine to use 'social cripple' because the person you were referring to was NT Confused

Original poster
BOFtastic · 19/03/2014 18:53

Just to be clear, I am NOT trying to tell anybody what they should or shouldn't find offensive.

Anybody would be free to tell another poster that they dislike their terminology, and say why they think it's unacceptable to describe people in any particular way.

I just think that we need a deletion policy which is comes from consensus and is consistent and objective, rather than one based on individual posters reporting words that offend them personally.

OP posts:
AladdinKingOfTheives · 19/03/2014 18:46

I agree with you language moves on at a stable rate- Pejoration can occur on previously fine words, FYI little know fact- Gay used to be slang for prostitution in Victorian london. Just like some words are ameliorated, it is just silly for people to pick out insults unless someone has directly made someone with special needs. That is not what moron and imbecile are referred to anymore. Much like "Merry Andrew" used to be a huge insult in the Victorian era.

limitedperiodonly · 19/03/2014 18:46

So do you also think it's ok to call someone the R word as long as they don't have a learning disability? What about 'mong' - is that OK as long as you're talking about someone who doesn't have DS?

No, I don't.

And where did I say that?

I thought I covered it when I said this:

I find the words Idiot, Imbecile, Moron and Cretin acceptable. But I respect anyone's right to find them offensive.

and this:

I find some other terms of abuse related to mental or physical disability abhorrent too, but I'm not going to list them.

If you wanted me to list them, then yes, retard and mong would be on my list of abhorrent terms which I'd never use. I didn't think it was necessary to list them or other words because I was trying to talk while not being deliberately offensive or provocative.

I'm not going to unless you specifically ask. And if you did, I think that would say more about you than it says about me. Provocative and offensive, actually.

This is a debate. Some words need to be used. But we don't need to make accusations.

At the end of it I hope we will reach a consensus and I will abide by it.

Original poster
BOFtastic · 19/03/2014 18:36

There will always be words which some people find offensive and others don't. Always.

But if we are trying to come up with a coherent rule of thumb for what gets deleted on mumsnet, my suggestion would be delete insults as disablist when

a) they are terms currently, or very recently, used in an ordinary descriptive sense about people with disabilities, because they are converting that description into something pejorative; and

b) they are terms which get used in an unpleasant way by rude or bigoted people to directly demean and belittle people with disabilities. While we still have nasty people who bang on the school bus yelling 'mong', 'spaz' 'or 'retard' (for example), then it doesn't matter if the poster on mumsnet isn't using it to refer to disability. Regardless of their intent, they are still cruel words which serve to oppress and insult the disabled.

Words which have fallen into disuse to refer to disabled people altogether and now only get used in a general sense, should not be deleted, in my opinion, even though some people may find them offensive or choose for themselves to avoid those terms.

OP posts:
PlentyOfPubeGardens · 19/03/2014 18:20

As I explained, I use the term 'socially disabled' and 'social cripple' to describe an NT person who was being deliberately obtuse or offensive and never to describe a person who has special needs.

So do you also think it's ok to call someone the R word as long as they don't have a learning disability? What about 'mong' - is that OK as long as you're talking about someone who doesn't have DS?

PolterGoose · 19/03/2014 18:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

limitedperiodonly · 19/03/2014 18:16

Simple? Simpleton?

I'm not saying these terms are right. But I want to use them and this is a debate.

I have plenty of mirrors goblin. What do you mean? Because I think I've been plain.

Say what you think is wrong with my view and I will explain. We might not agree, we probably won't, but it would be more helpful if we avoided trickiness.

limitedperiodonly · 19/03/2014 18:06

In my life socially disabled equates to autism.

Isn't that interesting? Because in my life, it doesn't.

I find the use of the word autistic as a term of abuse abhorrent.

As I explained, I use the term 'socially disabled' and 'social cripple' to describe an NT person who was being deliberately obtuse or offensive and never to describe a person who has special needs.

I would ask you to note that. I have no right to make you accept it though.

I find some other terms of abuse related to mental or physical disability abhorrent too, but I'm not going to list them.

However, I find the words Idiot, Imbecile, Moron and Cretin acceptable. But I respect anyone's right to find them offensive.

But I do ask them to explain why, rather than saying that they find them 'disablist'.

Shall we ban mad, madness, crazy, lunatic, loon, loony, mental, mentalist, special, speshul, retarded, retard, backward?

There are some words there that I'd use and some I wouldn't, but it's not up to me, or to you to shut it down.

It's a debate which will lead to a policy.

I'll stick to that.

But can we talk about it?

Original poster
BOFtastic · 19/03/2014 18:02

To reply to limitedperiodonly, I do find the term 'socially-disabled' unacceptable, precisely because there are real actually existing people who are oppressed and marginalised who are regularly referred to as disabled, or having social impairments. I don't think we should be converting non-pejorative descriptive words which apply to people with disabilities into words used to criticise anybody.

OP posts:
ImAThrillseekerHoney · 19/03/2014 18:01

X-post with rara

ImAThrillseekerHoney · 19/03/2014 18:00

Tangentially, I struggle in particular with mental-health-based insults. For personal reasons I am a bit sensitive on this one, but there are times when you really need to tell an OP that what they are suggesting is profoundly lacking in rationality. Maybe we just need to switch en masse to "Are you on glue?" If anyone crops up to say that they're hugely offended by that because their brother is struggling with a solvent abuse problem then we can move onto something else.

RaRaTheNoisyLion · 19/03/2014 17:57

What about 'loon', 'insane', 'crazy', 'mentally unstable', 'idiot' etc.

Original poster
BOFtastic · 19/03/2014 17:53

What about 'dunce', 'halfwit', 'nitwit', 'dullard'?

None of them in current use to refer to people with learning disabilities, but all originally referred to specific intellectual impairment. Now they are only applied to neurotypical people acting in a way we think is daft...

Daft? Is that ok? Soft?

OP posts:
OneStepCloser · 19/03/2014 17:51

Sorry, what does socially disabled mean?

For me moron can stay back in the 1980s playground, I think it may have been used then but I don't know anyone who uses it now.

OwlCapone · 19/03/2014 17:50

What is a suitable replacement for the word idiot? How else do you describe someone who is being really stupid?

Swipe left for the next trending thread