Disablist language and deletions

[BOFtastic]

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?

PolterGoose I didn't insult or confront her to her face. Not because I'm a nice person but because there'd have been no point. She has behavioural issues and wouldn't or couldn't understand.

It wasn't that I didn't want to hurt her feelings. I didn't want to make mine worse.

But am I not allowed to let off steam about her behaviour? Which was pretty fucking appalling.

'wanker'

Why call a NT person 'socially disabled' to highlight their character flaws though?

Why use the word disabled in such a negative way?

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

You are using a current term [disabled] for a person who has no choice and isn't 'deliberately' anything, as/in a perjorative, to describe someone who in your opinion chooses to be an arsehole [why can't we just call an arsehole an arsehole BTW? arseholes can't be offended can they]

You say you would never use the term to describe a person with special needs, which is odd IMO, as in some cases it would be perfectly acceptable to call someone with autism 'socially disabled'

This is entirely the problem with things like this, words/terms with legitimate and non offensive meaning, get highjacked to be used as insults towards people that are arseholes.

Re Moron, using that word isn't something Ive given much thought towards, the song about Gordon from the 70s rings a bell and I know the historical meaning, but it isn't really a word Ive ever used. But I have read about it on MN and can understand why some find it offensive.

I agree with the OP, not much else to add!

Thanks for this thread Bof.

There are people who we find abhorrent because of their deeply stupid unintelligent vile prejudiced behaviour. What word do we use to describe them? I don't agree that arse is adequate. I think of arse as being perfect for someone who is alright really but is just being a bit of a numpty on specific occasions. Arse isn't insulting enough.

The word I would like to see banned from Mumsnet and everywhere else is bitch.

Why is arsehole inadequate?

I think it is a great word personally.

I find it interesting [and sad TBH] that the 'strong' words deemed 'bad' enough to be directed at arseholes are disability related. There are parallels with the misogynistic terms there IMO.

I just agree with Bof because she is one of the most intelligent, measured and rational posters on Mumsnet.

This is a really tricky one to negotiate. There are a whole range of words which I would never use, including ones like moron, cretin, and plenty of others which I don't even want to write. I discourage my dc not to use any of these words and I try to explain why. I realise some of the terms were medical in origin but a lot of people don't and therefore use them in a discriminatory way. When you hear some of these words being used in a disablist sense, you don't often get the chance to say "well, you know, that word used to be frowned on, but now that it's passed into everyday parlance I guess I don't mind you using it".

I don't even know what I'm trying to say - just maybe that, or me, personally, certain words, regardless of their origin, are to be steered well clear of.

Yes, Upandatem- I'm sure lots of people feel that way. But we can't really have a functioning discussion site if we delete everything derogatory about anyone or anything even though nethuns try their best.

Again, is like to stress that I believe people are perfectly entitled to not use words from personal preference, and to feel able to challenge others if they want to. I can't tell anyone what should offend them.

This is about what mumsnet should delete as disablist though, and what objective criteria they should use. Clearly, a policy which deletes anything somebody dislikes if they can make a case (however tenuous) is simply not workable as a policy.

It's nice to be nice, yes. But I don't think it's nice to be deleted for NOT being nice, iyswim?

Yes I think 'Arsehole' and 'Arse' have quite different meanings. Both are useful.

Shucks, Mintyy

I agree with you there.

I do think that people should be more aware of the words they use as insults, where they stem from and their current impact [if historical terms]

Using disability related terms to insult is a much wider issue than some realise I think. Lots probably don't even realise how offensive their words are. Raising that issue shouldn't lead to those raising it being called 'precious' etc. It should lead to people just thinking a bit more before they open their gobs.

I don't think any disabalist posts should be deleted. I think they should stay so we can see what posters are really like.

If their posts keep being deleted we never know what they are really like IYSWIM.

I'd be shocked if you said this in front of me

Why? Honestly? Upandatem?

Have you never met people you consider to be socially crippled or to have unacceptable social views?

Perhaps me, for instance?

Setting that aside, I meet them all the time.

How do you describe someone who does not behave in the way that you deem socially or politically appropriate, whether NT or not

But particularly NT?

I think you've misunderstood me, zzzzz.

I don't want to be on a site which tolerates racist, misogynistic or disablist language.

I do think though that we need a clearer understanding though of exactly what constitutes disablist language, rather than just words which some people prefer not to see used.

Is that any clearer?

Words aren't ableist. It really annoys me to see something like, a women without disabilities calling another woman without disabilities 'stupid' and her jumping up and down and claiming the real reason she's outraged is concern for people with disabilities. It's blatantly not. It's because she said something stupid and she didn't like losing an argument. That has nothing to do with disabled people and it's disgusting to drag us into it.

What would be offensive is to call a woman with a learning disability stupid/idiot/moron as a means of saying her opinion has no worth. Because that's what other people say, that's what society says. Same as calling a woman with a mental illness crazy/irrational/delusional/hysterical. It is not the words themselves, it's the attitude towards disabled people that's implied in the words.

So someone insulting a disabled person based on their disability should be deleted as ableism, but arguments themselves are not ableist. Because it's about people with disabilities. And all of this 'well I wouldn't be offended if people said and my son/daughter is disabled' is missing the point too. It's not about your feelings, it's not about the feelings of people who want to ~debate etymology~, it's about disabled people. Which is what is always overlooked when it comes to ableist language. Because we are always overlooked. Which is the problem. It's not about being insulted!!! on the internet or being censored!!! on the internet.