We already do this with some slurs, right? We can start enforcing these words, too.
Not calling anyone out, I’ve been guilty of it too. And we don’t have to do it all at once. Like, we can start with these:
Ableist words and alternatives.
Stupid, R€tarded, Idiot(ic), Cretin, or Moron(ic): People say this to imply something, or someone isn’t intelligent or worth their time, but the words refer to people with intellectual disabilities. Instead, say that a situation or person is frustrating, ignorant, dense, unpleasant, cheesy, or awful.
Dumb: This word refers to a person who doesn’t speak verbally, but people often use it to mean that something or someone isn’t intelligent or wise. It’s listed separately from stupid and its synonyms because it references a physical disability instead of an intellectual one. Try using any of the non-ableist synonyms like irritating or uncool.
Crazy, Nuts, Mad, Psycho, or Insane: “Wow, that’s crazy!” may not seem like a harmful statement, but if you think about someone with a mental health condition hearing that statement, it’s easy to realize that it is. So instead of using one of those words, try outrageous, bananas, bizarre, amazing, intense, extreme, overwhelming, or wild.
Great post comrade.
To give some theoretical oomph, the chain of metonymy is the problem here -any replacement for your example will also be inextricably related to the term it’s replacing. So “doh” is a great example since it’s in theory harmless, but its associations (with both the word replaced and the caricature) mean that we can’t ever imagine a “pure” word completely divorced from its problematic versions.
However, I think that there’s a degree between calling something “dumb” (perhaps the least offensive of all of these? It hasn’t been in the ableist usage for a long time…) and then more problematic ones like specific conditions (for conditions in the DSM now) or other more “charged” terms.
Should we still recognize the history? Yes. But as Fred Jameson says, history is what hurts, and we can never get out of it. I don’t think it’s worth fighting over some of these more benign ones that history has sanded down, at least not when there’s more appealing targets.
Yeah like, don’t get me wrong, I do recognise the problem here that some people are trying to solve…
The issue I see however is that there’s a tactical issue with this specific part of the ableist lexicon that they want to remove. It’s filling a language niche that is genuinely harmless and only ends up ableist by association and misuse. The pushback that occurs, the splitting that occurs over this topic, seems to come from the fact people know they’re intuitively not using these words to be ableist and understand the function that they’re serving in the context so they end up feeling insulted and confused about how to continue filling this niche without a suitable alternative presented.
As communists I feel like we need to be as close to “normal” as possible, especially in the language that we choose to use. My current feeling here is that if we want to solve this problem then we need to find a way around this. The intent people have with this anti-ableist language stuff is good but I think the right tactic isn’t being deployed yet. Far more penetration into the mainstream would occur if we could solve this.
Real shit: should we be “normal,” bring about communism, and a better life for disabled people everywhere but occasionally call something stupid?
Or should we legislate every aspect of language before we do anything material.
This isn’t to say we shouldn’t strive for both, but you’re totally right that if we alienate ordinary people (who don’t see calling actions “dumb” as ableist) before a revolution with the most labored HR language, what the fuck are we doing?
I know we’re not actually doing praxis here but this is a great thing to keep in mind. Self crit is good though, this has been a really interesting thread.
Edit a good point was made elsewhere on the thread that the forum is really good about apologizing when called on shit, and I think self policing (i.e. if a comrade were actually mute irl and felt specific offense at “dumb” and expressed it I’m sure all of us would apologize to them and try to do better)
Speaking in an entirely tactis-based mindset without moralism - A multi-channel approach is probably useful here.
Groups should exist that explicitly ban this. Groups should exist that do not. There are different types of people that this appeals to and it provides method for us to reach them all.
I agree we’re not doing praxis here, but we are doing propagandism. A bunch of stuff on hexbear does make its way out into social media.
There are instances where I self-police and some where I don’t. I definitely use replacement words like “ignorant” when talking about working class chuds for example, particularly because I think their characterisation as “stupid” is harmful to us in reaching out to them. Someone who is “stupid” is being characterised as incapable of understanding what we understand, making it worthless to reach out to and educate them, whereas someone who is accurately labelled as ignorant is very much still someone we can reach - assuming their economic class position is correct of course.
I think the kind of debate we’re having on this is probably similar to the kind of debate some communists in the global south end up having over lgbt issues. Being pushed by the conditions to try and be “normal” in those conditions and address them more openly at a better time. It is useful to have activists pushing the topics for change while also having groups that are not doing that. This doesn’t mean throwing them under the bus of course, not fighting AGAINST them, just not being overt about it and leaving it to other groups to push the boundaries so that they can maintain their focus on attracting a certain type of people without alienating them.