5 ms·

I'm not aware of any community of disabled people or disabled person who finds the usage of the term "Disable" offensive in any context. I've never actually he

I'm not aware of any community of disabled people or disabled person who finds the usage of the term "Disable" offensive in any context. I've never actually heard any controversy over the word "Disabled" EXCEPT in the specific context of it being used to refer to disabled people (person-first vs identity-first language debate, but that's a digression) There's quite a long history people arbitrarily deciding they speak on behalf of all disabled people and know that language must change to protect their dignity and feelings. Inclusive language is actually plain language, since that's the easiest for people with certain disabilities to understand, so the inclusive thing to do is to avoid arbitrarily stigmatising words.

justatdotin 5y ago
personally I have very little exposure to the realm of disability. So if someone suggested to me that 'disabled' might not be a good term to be customer facing, although its not obvious to me, I know I do not have basis to disagree. I might just accept the suggestion and keep moving. I don't think it would occur to me to suspect someone of inventing nonsense. actually I'm not even sure that 'disabled' is a clear term. In some contexts, 'unavailable' or 'not ready' might be more clear / less complicated. Kinda like how I don't personally recognise 'master' as a problematic term (انا لست امريكيا) but in many situations I find 'main' is a better fit anyway
- faeriechangling 5y ago
  With disabilities things get very complicated very fast because disabled people are a very diverse group. You'll have different groups of disabled people having different views on things, given they're often in pretty distinct and unique situations. This has resulted in a number of linguistic disputes over the years. "Not ready" has a space in it which is frequently annoying in software. I think it also implies that thing may become ready after some time elapses or a condition is met, which disabled does not imply. "Unavailable" and "Disabled" are already used adjacent to eachother in software, the former implies something becoming unusable for reason outside of the software's control, and "disabled" tends to imply something being made unusable intentionally. Here's F5 using the two words in this way https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K12213214 https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K12213214 I agree with you regarding master vs main. Main is a syllable less, two letters shorter, and more clear. I feel people mostly resist the change to STICK IT to the politically correct.
  - justatdotin 5y ago
    ah yeah rite, I'm horrible at naming things, which is another reason I wouldn't push back on this kind of change, even if I didn't see an issue.
smoyer 5y ago
I have a disabled son and agree that using the word "disabled" or "disable" isn't an issue. Please DON'T use the word retarded (unless you're talking about the timing of the spark plugs in your car) - this word originally had a clinical connotation which was largely synonymous to "disabled" but it is now offensive because people use it to disparage an able-bodied, able-minded person who's acting stupidly by comparing them to someone who's legitimately disabled.
mwcampbell 5y ago
As a (partially) blind person, I agree with you, and I know that some prominent blind people have spoken out against person-first language, for example: https://mosen.org/person-first-language-it-does-more-harm-than-good/ https://mosen.org/person-first-language-it-does-more-harm-th... (seems to be down at time of writing)
eyelidlessness 5y ago
What I find fascinating is that my comment about my personal reaction got a bunch of downvotes and several dismissive replies, including this one lecturing me about inclusion. And yet not one person who reacted negatively bothered asking me: - whether I have a disability (yes) - whether my reaction is consistent with views expressed to me by some others who have disabilities and/or work with/advocate for others who do (yes) - whether I even have any interest in trying to convince others to change this language usage (not much; it would be welcome if people consider it but it’s nowhere near my priority list) Now I’m not claiming that I—or anyone else who has a similar reaction—speak for all disabled people. But uh, you may want to re-read your comment. Particularly the last paragraph.
- faeriechangling 5y ago
  First, out of curiosity and practical interest, which disability? Views on these matters tend to cluster and I'm not savvy on every disability communities views. If I'm making software for such a community, I will not use the word disable. Second, My post(s) were consciously written with the possibility I was talking to a disabled person in mind. My visceral reaction to an implicit comparison between disable/disabled and master/slave being made is of annoyance and trepidation given what happened with master/slave and given the immediate replies (not from you) that somebody who DIDN'T want to get rid of terms like disable/disabled simply weren't interested in their users comfort. You had already influenced people on HN before I made my post, you already had the ball rolling. I started out with an aspergers diagnosis, that became disused in medical circles, and is now considered offensive in some circles. Then I was an autistic person, that became offensive in some circles, and got redefined to person with autism, which also became offensive in some circles. There is literally no non-offensive way to refer to my own disability presently. I have seen various other redefinition of slurs, euphemisms, and medical terms being changed around due to influences from various groups and half the time these groups are a minority of disabled people of some sort. Disable/disabled are good BECAUSE they evoke disability. This promotes familiarity with the concept of disability, and notably, that disabled people can't do things which is a surprisingly difficult thing for many people to understand. Conversely, disable/disabled makes a poignant analogy for what happens in these programs. I have a self-interest in making it so that more stigmas do not enter peoples head, I am so exhausted by the very concept of disability being a magnet for stigma, I believe such stigma causes normals to behave in bizarre ways.

justatdotin 5y ago

personally I have very little exposure to the realm of disability. So if someone suggested to me that 'disabled' might not be a good term to be customer facing, although its not obvious to me, I know I do not have basis to disagree. I might just accept the suggestion and keep moving. I don't think it would occur to me to suspect someone of inventing nonsense. actually I'm not even sure that 'disabled' is a clear term. In some contexts, 'unavailable' or 'not ready' might be more clear / less complicated. Kinda like how I don't personally recognise 'master' as a problematic term (انا لست امريكيا) but in many situations I find 'main' is a better fit anyway

faeriechangling 5y ago
With disabilities things get very complicated very fast because disabled people are a very diverse group. You'll have different groups of disabled people having different views on things, given they're often in pretty distinct and unique situations. This has resulted in a number of linguistic disputes over the years. "Not ready" has a space in it which is frequently annoying in software. I think it also implies that thing may become ready after some time elapses or a condition is met, which disabled does not imply. "Unavailable" and "Disabled" are already used adjacent to eachother in software, the former implies something becoming unusable for reason outside of the software's control, and "disabled" tends to imply something being made unusable intentionally. Here's F5 using the two words in this way https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K12213214 https://support.f5.com/csp/article/K12213214 I agree with you regarding master vs main. Main is a syllable less, two letters shorter, and more clear. I feel people mostly resist the change to STICK IT to the politically correct.
- justatdotin 5y ago
  ah yeah rite, I'm horrible at naming things, which is another reason I wouldn't push back on this kind of change, even if I didn't see an issue.

smoyer 5y ago

I have a disabled son and agree that using the word "disabled" or "disable" isn't an issue. Please DON'T use the word retarded (unless you're talking about the timing of the spark plugs in your car) - this word originally had a clinical connotation which was largely synonymous to "disabled" but it is now offensive because people use it to disparage an able-bodied, able-minded person who's acting stupidly by comparing them to someone who's legitimately disabled.

mwcampbell 5y ago

As a (partially) blind person, I agree with you, and I know that some prominent blind people have spoken out against person-first language, for example: https://mosen.org/person-first-language-it-does-more-harm-than-good/ https://mosen.org/person-first-language-it-does-more-harm-th... (seems to be down at time of writing)

eyelidlessness 5y ago

What I find fascinating is that my comment about my personal reaction got a bunch of downvotes and several dismissive replies, including this one lecturing me about inclusion. And yet not one person who reacted negatively bothered asking me: - whether I have a disability (yes) - whether my reaction is consistent with views expressed to me by some others who have disabilities and/or work with/advocate for others who do (yes) - whether I even have any interest in trying to convince others to change this language usage (not much; it would be welcome if people consider it but it’s nowhere near my priority list) Now I’m not claiming that I—or anyone else who has a similar reaction—speak for all disabled people. But uh, you may want to re-read your comment. Particularly the last paragraph.

faeriechangling 5y ago
First, out of curiosity and practical interest, which disability? Views on these matters tend to cluster and I'm not savvy on every disability communities views. If I'm making software for such a community, I will not use the word disable. Second, My post(s) were consciously written with the possibility I was talking to a disabled person in mind. My visceral reaction to an implicit comparison between disable/disabled and master/slave being made is of annoyance and trepidation given what happened with master/slave and given the immediate replies (not from you) that somebody who DIDN'T want to get rid of terms like disable/disabled simply weren't interested in their users comfort. You had already influenced people on HN before I made my post, you already had the ball rolling. I started out with an aspergers diagnosis, that became disused in medical circles, and is now considered offensive in some circles. Then I was an autistic person, that became offensive in some circles, and got redefined to person with autism, which also became offensive in some circles. There is literally no non-offensive way to refer to my own disability presently. I have seen various other redefinition of slurs, euphemisms, and medical terms being changed around due to influences from various groups and half the time these groups are a minority of disabled people of some sort. Disable/disabled are good BECAUSE they evoke disability. This promotes familiarity with the concept of disability, and notably, that disabled people can't do things which is a surprisingly difficult thing for many people to understand. Conversely, disable/disabled makes a poignant analogy for what happens in these programs. I have a self-interest in making it so that more stigmas do not enter peoples head, I am so exhausted by the very concept of disability being a magnet for stigma, I believe such stigma causes normals to behave in bizarre ways.