the euphemism treadmill is a description of linguistic patterns, not a get out of rule free card
the euphemism treadmill is a description of linguistic patterns, not a get out of rule free card
Using ableist language as insults is always bad, even if the words seem innocuous. Some may reference the "euphemism treadmill" to try to justify their behavior, but it's crucial to understand that the treadmill is merely a linguistic observation. It does not exist to normalize ableist behavior.
what is the euphemism treadmill for those who dont want to google
You're viewing part of a thread.
I don't see how that doesn't acknowledge intelligence as a quality.
Like, I'm not trying to play this off as some kind of rebuttal, I'm just genuinely not understanding what's being said.
casting value judgement on those who do or do not fit that quality
But all acknowledgements of intelligence as a positive quality necessarily carry an implicit value judgement of those who lack that positive quality.
But all acknowledgements of intelligence as a positive quality necessarily carry an implicit value judgement of those who lack that positive quality.
Maybe for you, but not for me. I can congratulate the Olympic gold medalist for her achievement without having any repressive or denigrating judgment toward all the other competitors. Can’t you? The value judgement I express in that scenario is, at worst, neutral.
I can congratulate the Olympic gold medalist for her achievement without having any repressive or denigrating judgment toward all the other competitors. Can’t you? The value judgement I express in that scenario is, at worst, neutral.
Tell me, if someone has a positive quality, and another lacks that quality, the difference between them is:
A. Positive
B. Neutral
C. Negative
?
I don’t understand your question I’m sorry. But can’t you congratulate the medalist without doing judgement on the non-medalists?
Any congratulations of the medalists necessarily implies that they have done better than the non-medalists. While the intent is not to denigrate, it is, implicitly, denigration of the results, whether deserved or undeserved, of the non-medalists. Any positive judgement necessarily creates a vacuum of negative judgement for those who do not meet it, and unless you regard all things as value-indistinguishable, such positive judgements are inevitably made.
You perceive one value scale:
- better/worse
I perceive two entirely separate, non-causal scales.
- Good at back handsprings/bad at back handsprings
- greater in value or explicit worth/lesser in value or explicit worth
That implies that you put no valuation on back handsprings, even in the context of the Olympics. Which would make any praise of it very empty.
You continue here to operate on a single-value system, where I find it trivial to embrace multiple variables. My evaluation of every single person to exist cannot be charted as a single value on a single sliding scale from 0-100.
I value back handsprings highly, but my evaluation of a person’s handspring performance has no bearing on my overall evaluation of them as a person, whether they are valuable, deserving of respect or rights. Those scales are utterly unlinked.
It’s okay that you don’t, but can you at least try to imagine how one might operate this way?
You continue here to operate on a single-value system, where I find it trivial to embrace multiple variables.
It's quite the opposite. You seem determined to deny that there is any axis of value on which you denigrate someone, as though any valuation of a person that is unequal to another is some kind of sin, that there's only one value that people are judged by, and to decrease that value is to denigrate their basic human existence.
I value back handsprings highly, but my evaluation of a person’s handspring performance has no bearing on my overall evaluation of them as a person, whether they are valuable, deserving of respect or rights. Those scales are utterly unlinked.
Who said anything about being deserving or undeserving of rights?
Who said anything about being deserving or undeserving of rights?
The people making insults under our analysis. The restriction of disability rights and mistreatment of the differently abled is the end result of ableist behavior and language. If you participate in an insult about mental illness, intentional or not, you are contributing to a system that stigmatizes and perpetuates certain avoidable suffering toward the mentally ill. The same goes for disability of any kind.
as though any valuation of a person that is unequal to another is some kind of sin.
no clue what you mean, i never said such a thing.
but can you at least try to imagine how one might operate this way?
im seeing the answer was “no.” i fear i cannot explain any more clearly how it is possible for me to value an athlete’s skill without casting shade at any single quality of any other person.
The people making insults under our analysis.
See, but I'm talking about the broader issue that you've reduced these insults to a basic principle in order to extend it to other language, while any such extension of that basic principle results in a worldview that is either entirely incoherent or entirely without merit.
All of this is predicated on the assumption either that none of the things we're talking about are negative things, or that all negative judgements are disallowed; which would also disallow any positive judgements. And as someone who is disabled, with physical and mental ailments, let me assure you that disability is a very negative fucking thing. Which leaves only the latter.
im seeing the answer was “no.” i fear i cannot explain any more clearly how it is possible for me to value an athlete’s skill without casting shade at any single quality of any other person.
Then I'm afraid you don't understand what valuation is or means, unless the valuation you're talking about is entirely empty of any real meaning and is the praise-equivalent of a participation trophy.