2 ms·

So you recognize that giving someone a negative label harms them, but you think people should do it anyway? The problem is that the label itself creates additio

by redeux 4y ago

So you recognize that giving someone a negative label harms them, but you think people should do it anyway? The problem is that the label itself creates additional bias. It dehumanizes the person. Suddenly you’re not a person suffering from depression or bipolar disorder; you’re “crazy” or “mentally ill” and should be shunned or diminished. Plenty of people who suffer from a mental illness do well in life, but you’re right that they often have a harder time. So then why should we actively make their life even harder by attaching a stigma and dehumanizing them? I don’t think that’s progressive as much as just humanitarian.

subjectsigma 4y ago
We’re conflating two abstract issues here and you’re accusing me of doing things that I’m not doing. Imagine a hypothetical scenario: two of your coworkers are in an office and one tells the other something shocking. The second says, “Wow, that’s crazy!” Do you think that’s a micro aggression, or worse, a slur? Second scenario: you’re talking to a coworker and they say “Bob has been off recently. Some of the stuff he says is so insane. Yesterday he completely embarrassed us in that meeting!” Do you think this is any less hurtful to Bob because your coworker said “insane” instead of “crazy”? My answers are “no” and “no”, and it seems pretty obvious why. In the first scenario there’s no intention to harm someone and even if harm is done, it’s extremely small. In the second scenario, your coworker is going to say something bad about Bob and it doesn’t matter how tightly you control the corporate Newspeak, he is going to express his opinion. Grow a spine and realize the world isn’t for or against you, it just is.