(no subject)

[lollardfish]

There's a post out there today of a "friend" (not someone I actually know that well) who has been out of touch with LJ.

He's asking for updates because, "If there's something you've been assuming I know because you wrote about it on LJ and in the past I've reliably read your LJ, you might want to point it out to me. Alternately, you can just regard me as the retard in the corner who never knows what's going on."

I find this metaphor infuriating and offensive, although I know that as with most such things he means nothing by it. What's the best response? Ignore? Post something publicly in comments? Send a private email? Write an LJ post of my own about how offensive I find it and hope someone reads it?

What do you think?

Edit - I posted what I hope was both a polite and firm comment.

Comments

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

See, I think he's just being casually thoughtless. I think many offensive comments don't emerge from real racism, or homophobia, or, in this case, casual disregard for the mentally disabled - it comes from thoughtlessness.

[guppiecat]

I agree that there is casual thoughtlessness in his language, but I think that the fact he posted it indicates a fundamental way of thinking about people that is the real problem. (Granted, I think we all do this to a certain extent.) My thinking is that it was the fundamental thought process that bothered you, i.e. what the language represented, not the language itself and that changing the language wouldn't really help all that much.

I may, of course, have been projecting my reaction upon you. If that was the case, you have my apologies.

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

You may well be right.

I just figure that if you can change speech, feelings follow slowly over time. And that you can change speech but not how people think, by in large, so focus on the possible.

[guppiecat]

Yours is a common strategy. I generally believe that changing the words doesn't really help much, as the change calls attention to the words (instead of the issue), and new words are coined to be just as hurtful as the ones that were replaced.

Of course, this is just a general belief of mine (based on limited and personal observation), and not one that I've put a lot of time and thought into. I could well be wrong.

We may need a sociologist to run a study on this. ;)

[neogrammarian.livejournal.com]

but (and I know I'm late to this party, so feel free to ignore), hate happens- even really passive hate like this. It appears to be part of humanity. So yes, I agree that vocabulary will simply shift. However, as I see it, changing vocabulary does one of 2 things- and both are positive. 1) Changing vocabulary relieves the target group of hearing themselves denigrated and objectified. This is enormously helpful in developing positive group cohesion and community-building. (Self esteem. Never a bad thing!) 2) Depending on how it's effected, the education leading to changing that vocabulary May lead to people changing the way they think about terminology.

erm. but I'd be one of those activist queer feminists who think deeply and at length about social action and justice...

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

I've been waiting for your two cents and a ha'penny!

[lydy.livejournal.com]

I know who we're talking about, and I believe that "hate" is not a factor in this case. He's a big fan of Berube, who writes often about his son with Downs. It is a slip of the lip that is not representative of his feelings or actions. It was meant as a self-denigrating comment. I'm sorry that it flicked lollardfish on a sore spot. I think that this leaping into condemnatory language is as bad as what he did.

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

I also believe that there is no hate in this case, but I also know that it was a very stupid thing to say and deserves some kind of response. I'm actually getting angrier about it by the hour, I find.

You see, our children being stuck in the corner with no clue of what's going on is fairly high on the list of nightmares we'll probably experience.

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

Out of curiosity, Lydy, do you think my comment was in fact sufficiently polite and firm?

[lydy.livejournal.com]

I thought it was very civilized and restrained. I find the discussion on your LJ to be somewhat less so. Which is why I spoke up. I don't like having someone I love insulted anymore than you do. I hope you understood that I was not criticizing you or your response.

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

Yes, I understood. And the discussion here is definitely not restrained.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

I dunno. I agree with lydy; it wasn't meant as anything more than a self-denegrating phrase without any specific meaning. I didn't think twice about it when I read it, and I'm not convinced that I would be self-aware enough to avoid writing something similar.

The question seems to be whether the word should be categorized with epithats like "nigger" or not. Once you mention it, I see your point, and will probably remember it for the future; but I wouldn't have without your mention of it. So that implies a quick, non-emotional, e-mail.

B

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

That's interesting for me to read and I'm glad you felt my response was appropriate.

I have to tell you that the original phrase hit me like a slap in the face. I was skimming lj and I literally sat back in my chair as if I had been struck, and my heart started to race.

Anyway, this is #2 of what I'm sure will be thousands of such moments in my life as Nico's dad, and I think I handled this one better than #1 (on a fantasy baseball board).

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

"I have to tell you that the original phrase hit me like a slap in the face."

Of course it did. You're sensitized to the issue. Which makes it -- fair or not -- your job to point it out to others. Because we others missed it.

B

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

Right. And hence why I ultimately decided to post a comment rather than send an email.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

All it takes for the people we know -- the good guys -- to notice it is for someone to point it out. I don't think I'll ever not notice it now.

B

[fredcritter.livejournal.com]

I generally believe that changing the words doesn't really help much … and new words are coined to be just as hurtful as the ones that were replaced.

I suspect that more often, neutral words are coined to replace the offensive ones and eventually become as hurtful as the ones that were replaced. One of the more obvious examples of this may be seen in the etymology of the word "cretin".

That being said, I don't believe that stands as a good reason not to try to heal the world.

[guppiecat]

I don't believe that stands as a good reason not to try to heal the world.

Oh, I fully agree. I just don't think that targeting the language is the way to do it.

[neogrammarian.livejournal.com]

lol, boy you Do work at a Catholic school, don't you?

Seriously, I'd ask if he's a) still in gradeschool or b) still in 1982, and if a)'s the case give him a stern talking to and no dinner, if b's the case, it may be hopeless, and if neither are the case he's gotta get w/the 21st century.

But, then, my father raised us w/the ?sage fatherly advice: 'words mean things, kids, and if you don't watch what you're saying, people're gonna think you're stupid." So I may have a rather more dogmatic view of this situation than others.

[lollardfish.livejournal.com]

Yeah. He's a funny one ... I'm increasingly angry and shocked that Patrick Nielsen Hayden (wtf, he wrote it in an unlocked post), of all people, would write such an offensive statement. I wrote a polite comment and we'll see if he responds somehow.