I don’t know if I’m just becoming overly sensitive to my own language or if this is an actual issue, so feel free to let me know if it seems that I just need to grow thicker skin, but still.
I keep getting this uneasy feeling whenever I use the word “lame” and I think it’s because I’m starting to realize it’s technically ableist. However, there’s no single non-profane word that I know of that fits the niche that I use it in.
For example, I wrote out something earlier about a behavior I do that I don’t like that I do because I think it’s kind of shitty behavior, but it’s overall harmless. I use lame to describe it casually. I could also call it kind of shitty, as I did before, but not to audiences that I don’t want to use profanity around.
Anyone know of a word I can replace “lame” with?
I’d say maybe weak, but that’s got its own baggage that I’m not sure I’m ok with switching to. Annoying is too strong of a word for what I’m going for. Maybe lame is a short word for “this makes me feel slightly sad”?
Idk, so I open it up to the public: Is this even an issue or am I being too sensitive? Could this be solved in a single replacement word or do I need a whole ass phrase to express this?
My biggest take away was:
So the language itself isn’t ableist, technically, according to this, but abilism is when the person using the language thinks of the negative stereotypes associated and uses that to justify some shitty position or action.
So in other words, while lame is acknowledged as a problematic word, it’s not inherently abilist to use it, which is not a takeaway I was expecting to get.
Let me know if I misread it, but thank you for posting! It was an informative read!
I think it’s a super complicated topic. My understanding of the quote is that ableism is much bigger and more complicated than language, but we should be aware of how our language reflects ableist views - like the normalization of ableist slurs into our everyday vernacular, for example. In other words, our society is so comfortable with ableism, that even disabled people and advocates for disability rights may use ableist terminology regularly, whether or not they’re aware of the origins.
I, personally, don’t believe that “lame” is necessarily a word that needs to be changed, but I do believe it’s a word with ableist origins. Like our conversation on “dumb”, IMO most people don’t think about the technical definition of “lame” anymore - but I might be wrong, or it might be regional. It’s ultimately a personal choice whether or not it feels hurtful - and obviously, if someone tells you to not use a term around them, that’s important to respect.
The key takeaway, to me, is that we should be mindful of how much ableism is normalized in our lives. I think you’re definitely doing that, based on this post. It doesn’t mean that using terms on this list is only ableist if you’re thinking negatively about disabled people when you use it; it means that we should be thoughtful with our language, but more importantly, thoughtful of how our words and actions may be reinforcing hurtful systems. To use the example from before - if someone doesn’t use the word “crazy” except when describing mentally ill people, that can speak to how they see mentally ill people as not just people who are ill, but as people who are undesirable boogeymen.
Take it on a case-by-case basis, IMO, and follow your gut if you feel shitty about certain words - better safe than sorry. But, at the end of the day, it’s just… complicated!
I appreciate your nuanced take.
Hm… I’d actually disagree with that conclusion? I think what the author is saying there is that ableism isn’t simply a matter of the words being used. A statement that treats disabled people as subhuman isn’t okay because it avoids using these words - it’s still ableist.
From the beginning of the article (emphasis mine):
Not everyone has the ability to be mindful of how certain language originated in ableism and this reinforces it. But for those of us who can, it’s a good idea to try.
Hmm I wonder if I may have shot past the more straightforward way to parse it.
I’m coming from a stance where “don’t do it as soon as you know it’s ableist” is voiceless rule, so that significantly colors how I’m interpreting it.
That response was more me being like “oh wow this is essentially saying ignorance is an excuse for using ableist language” (caveats run amok here like “only when there are no known other words” as well as “strictly only when one isn’t employing a shitty stereotype when referring to whoever they’re referring to”)
Admittedly, I can see how that is still a less than desirable takeaway, but all I’m trying to say is I 100% agree with what you’ve written.
Tldr; thank you for the clarification! Full agree and this is mostly just me trying to figure out where some disconnect is