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?

Agree with OP as well.

My favourite insult atm, though, is "bellend". So much so, I'm posting just so that I can type it. Oh, and look, there's Danny Alexander on the telly...

I really hate seeing women described as slags

limited nobody would blame you for being upset by insensitive responses to your mother's death. It's the use of the word "cripple" which is at face value offensive and 'disablist'.

Because you are taking it out of proper (ie medical) context and applying it as an insult. You're using "cripple" as a pejorative term, and are therefore using a disability as an insult in itself.

Just like using the word "gay" to insult someone.

I can't understand how you're not seeing this.

Amberleaf hits the nail on the head:
Why call a NT person 'socially disabled' to highlight their character flaws though?

Why use the word disabled in such a negative way?

I think loon is a good example. A bird that makes a loud, annoying and pointless sound. (well pointless to me. It's possible that other loons find it fascinating)

Sometimes someone will try to make out it's a reference to mental illness, but to do that they have to first say that it sounds like lunatic. Then they have to show that lunatic comes from an old (and obviously false) belief that the moon made people act strangely. Then they must extrapolate that the people referred to as lunatics in those times were actually suffering from a mental illness. Once they have sorted that out they can be offended on behalf of anyone who happens to have MH issues.

A lot of effort though for a little reward.

well I think Limited's posts on "social impairment top trumps" etc has neatly illustrated the OP's point, that an unwitting use of moron/cretin isn't the worst example of antiSn/ablist language out there and possibly may not merit auto deletion.

Loon does indeed yield an excellent example above - of the elaborate attempts people make to pretend a word isn't about MH.

And that loons and loonies aren't people from the loony bin - a common, long-standing pejorative name for a lunatic asylum or psychiatric hospital.

Ironically, I've been OK with loon, because I felt it was sufficiently far down the track from lunatic, which anyway isn't used medically these days, and I wouldn't use the terms in between.

But writing out the above I've realised other people do indeed still use lunatic, loony bin and loony pejoratively, and explicitly referencing MH. Hmm.

Pejoratively referencing mental health, that should have said.

The bird is the primary meaning here because of the annoying sound that comes from it's mouth. Perhaps many of you do think first of lunatic - interesting.

Sillylass79, not sure where you were going with the rest of your first sentence. I'm pointing out that the person wanting to be offended on behalf of someone else sometimes has to go to great lengths to arrive at a please where they can be offended.

Remember, we've had the posters who wanted retard banned even though it's an engineering term. As I recall one poster said that we should stop French people using it to because even though it only means 'late' someone could be offended

'arrive at a place'

Ah, where is "here" for you, Back? Loon meaning bird is an American name for what in the UK is called a great northern diver. It isn't even resident in the UK, though it's a winter visitor to some coastal areas.

So most Brits have never heard one, and wouldn't call it a loon if they did.

I wonder, have you ever heard the terms "lunatic asylum" and "loony bin", or were those new to you when I posted them?

I don't have to go to great lengths to be offended by 'looney', I just have to remember people yelling it at my DSis when we were growing up.

Ah. I've just seen the rest of your comment.

You're defending the use of a word that is shouted after disabled people in the street, because there can also be found a technical use of it in engineering?

I refer you to my post of 17 Mar 12:03. You are exactly one of those people trying to use a dual meaning as cover for something you know damn well is pejorative.

at anyone ever using the word "loon" to actually refer to a bird. FFS.

As for the "retard" comment Oh yes, when kids use this as an insult what they really mean is engineer. Or the French word for late. Jeez.

And let's be clear, the r-word has probably never appeared on MN in an engineering context. So discussion of its use here is not about that.

i agree that there is a current trend of trying to covewr up (for want of a better phrase) using disablist language as an insult by trying to be clever (see loon, retard, even limitedperiod's examples of social cripple etc).

I have used loon to refer to the bird (in RL, I hasten to add!) but would never skip to that definition when I see it used on MN because people are clearly referencing 'loony-bin' rather than birds - the context of the thread and indeed the post where it is used easily point to that.

I also hate the almost legalese posts, which try to tie everyone up in knots by pointing out the potential legitimate uses (usually rare and archaic, and again, it would be incredibly easy to tell from context that the poster was not trying to hurl insults, but instead talking about a niche area)

It may be amusing to these posters to linguistically fence their way through such arguments. I don't find it so amusing, given that it is my children beign referred to in insulting terms, and my children being used as a benchmark (and failing badly, according to many) against which idiocy and social inadequacy can be measured.

it is so easy to say 'oh, I don't mean you' when pulled up on using disablist terms. but Im afraid it sounds very hollow.

BOF, thank you for starting this, and trying to sort it out. Sadly, I'm not sure it will work. You said in a post: "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.' - unfortunately, MN has long had a policy of deleting something if a poster dislikes it, however tenuous. And that is only one reason why this thread won't work.

WHich is not to say it shouldn't be debated. you never know, it might make some posters think a little more carefully about who they are casually insulting when they bandy about terms like loon and mong etc.

I play an online game that has a very large proportion of younger people. Mostly boy. The insult of choice is 'retard'. The mods don't seem to care.

back I think other posters took it as read that we know the difference between uses of retard, as in decelerate, and as in out-moded medical terminology for someone with some form of learning disability.

It's a bit like how most MNers would be able to tell what was meant with the word row, simply from context, even though, among others, it has the senses of:

1. to propel a boat with an oar or similar
2. an argument
3. a noisy racket
4. a line of items, especially a horizontal line.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/row

P.S. We could quite easily ban 'retard' as a noun, without affecting engineers in the least.

I've calmed down now and would like to apologise for being heightened last night.

Thanks to bialystockandbloom for her post to me.

I don't agree with everything she said or others have said, but that's allowed in a debate, isn't it?

Just like many people don't agree with me.

We are trying to establish which terms are okay to use on MN.

I've said which terms I'd like to use and why. Other people have argued against them. I respect some of those views, but not the views of the people who were chucking words like wanker and arsehole about.

Those of you who did that were as guilty of being as stupid and insensitive as me.

Anyway, I'm grateful to OP for starting this debate. It needs to be had and I apologise to her if I've diverted it.

I think this could be a useful turning point on how to proceed with language related issues on mumsnet.

I do think certain words should be an automatic delete (retard, spastic, mong etc). And if the person is surprised and upset by their post being deleted, then mumsnet should be kind but firm in helping them realise what most people already know.

It's all the in betweeny words that are problematic, and I think context needs to be the steer here. And in very borderline cases perhaps a mumsnet post explaining that this language is not ok although they understand the poster may not have meant to cause offense please refrain from using this word/ phrase. So not deleting but leaving it open so people can see.

Or would that cause a bun fight each time?

limited, in the context of this discussion can you really not see the difference between, on the one hand, terms such as 'arsehole' and 'wanker', and on the other hand, terms such as 'socially disabled' and 'social cripple'?

Not really, no. They're intended as insults, as a poster on a related thread recently said, insults don't move the debate on and she wished we didn't use them.

I thought she was probably right, but I also thought that very few of us could be that restrained.

Anyway, I posted to explain my position. I'm not interested in arguing with you about me, and what you think of me, because this is an important issue and we're diverting it.