3 ms·

I've never once met a group. I've only met people who are members of groups, and they are rarely unanimous about the words that should be used to refer to membe

I've never once met a group. I've only met people who are members of groups, and they are rarely unanimous about the words that should be used to refer to members of the groups to which they claim membership. If I can manage not to forget your username, hungie, then I will try to remember not to call you "differently abled". But please be patient and forgiving of my confusion if, between now and our next conversation, I encounter a third individual who insists that I never refer to them as "disabled" and instead call them "differently abled", and my memory for which of you preferred which term fails me. Forgive me doubly if you're both in the audience at the same time when I'm giving a presentation about installing a wheelchair ramp, and struggling to come up with a mutually-satisfactory term. I already struggle enough with names alone, such that I often decline to use them out of anxiety of making a mistake!

hungie 2y ago
You've got my forgiveness in that situation! That would be a tough one! I don't think most groups are unanimous in self describing, but I do think there are general trends. We know, generally, that certain words aren't ok! Plenty of slurs we avoid, even ones used by in groups in a reclaimed way. I don't think most reasonable people expect perfection. I spend a lot of time in disabled and queer (and disabled queer) circles, and I've primarily observed people expressing preferences, not anger.
- mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  This is true, but don't forget that (especially for socially-anxious individuals), anger does not have to be expressed to be perceived! And that when the burden of expressing oneself becomes too high, people may prefer not to express themselves at all. Everyone has their own internal threshold for this, some are set surprisingly low, and often the people who decide to stay quiet have the views we most need to hear. Some people will cheerfully adapt their language and continue without missing a beat; others will feel deeply ashamed and embarrassed, and simply shut down out of the fear of making a mistake again. There are all sorts of people, and the burden of language weighs differently on each.
  - hungie 2y ago
    Yep. Like I said, I hang out in a lot of disabled spaces. Many of those disabilities are invisible (social anxiety is super common). There's not a great one size fits all solution, so I push for grace and I push for understanding. Two people might have mutually impossible to reconcile experiences with language. I believe if we assume good intent from others and attempt good intent towards others, we'll clear many, many situations with a minimum of harm to all.
    - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
      Me too. This is why, as I said earlier, I don't correct people when they use outdated euphemisms, unless it's clear that they're deliberately using them as put-downs. (And in that case it's more the attitude rather than the language that is the problem). (Anyway, cheers! You seem like the kind of person I'd enjoy hanging out with in person, even if we disagree on things. Sorry if I seem like I'm just posting rebuttals; text is a hard medium).
      - hungie 2y ago
        I try to be not an asshole, but firm in my beliefs. While also recognizing they are my beliefs not grand universal truths. I don't always succeed, but at least I felt likewise: you disagreed, but didn't resort to obvious flame bait or straw person arguments. Appreciate it!
    - freedomben 2y ago
      I agree completely. It is a real shame that nowadays so many people do not assume good intent, or if they do, they value the intention much then the Deliverance. There are definitely a small number of people that intentionally use terms that others may find distasteful or offensive, but the vast majority of people are not trying to do that. They are just using the words and vocabulary with which they are familiar. The more time goes on and the more experience I get the more cemented this becomes. The best example is the expression you guys. Nowadays that expression is fully gender-neutral and is routinely used to refer to a group of mixed gender individuals. Some people can feel excluded by the term, and for that reason I do often try to substitute a different term for it, but many of the women I work with use the same expression of you guys even when referring to a group of entirely women. I strongly wish that most people would hear that and not think of a gendered reference. I think that would radically improve communication. If there is doubt about what the person meant, sometimes a clarifying question can be extremely useful. For people that are trying to use offensive or exclusive terms, it is good to push them on that a bit and ask for clarification and such. But I don't think I've met anyone who was using the term that way in many, many years.
concordDance 2y ago
> I've only met people who are members of groups, and they are rarely unanimous about the words that should be used to refer to members of the groups to which they claim membership. The problem of "determine what group X wants" gets even worse when we go online and the people whose words we read are now not randomly sampled from the group, instead being the tony minority who care enough to campaign about it online (or those who arent even group members but campaign for them).

hungie 2y ago

You've got my forgiveness in that situation! That would be a tough one! I don't think most groups are unanimous in self describing, but I do think there are general trends. We know, generally, that certain words aren't ok! Plenty of slurs we avoid, even ones used by in groups in a reclaimed way. I don't think most reasonable people expect perfection. I spend a lot of time in disabled and queer (and disabled queer) circles, and I've primarily observed people expressing preferences, not anger.

mitthrowaway2 2y ago
This is true, but don't forget that (especially for socially-anxious individuals), anger does not have to be expressed to be perceived! And that when the burden of expressing oneself becomes too high, people may prefer not to express themselves at all. Everyone has their own internal threshold for this, some are set surprisingly low, and often the people who decide to stay quiet have the views we most need to hear. Some people will cheerfully adapt their language and continue without missing a beat; others will feel deeply ashamed and embarrassed, and simply shut down out of the fear of making a mistake again. There are all sorts of people, and the burden of language weighs differently on each.
- hungie 2y ago
  Yep. Like I said, I hang out in a lot of disabled spaces. Many of those disabilities are invisible (social anxiety is super common). There's not a great one size fits all solution, so I push for grace and I push for understanding. Two people might have mutually impossible to reconcile experiences with language. I believe if we assume good intent from others and attempt good intent towards others, we'll clear many, many situations with a minimum of harm to all.
  - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
    Me too. This is why, as I said earlier, I don't correct people when they use outdated euphemisms, unless it's clear that they're deliberately using them as put-downs. (And in that case it's more the attitude rather than the language that is the problem). (Anyway, cheers! You seem like the kind of person I'd enjoy hanging out with in person, even if we disagree on things. Sorry if I seem like I'm just posting rebuttals; text is a hard medium).
    - hungie 2y ago
      I try to be not an asshole, but firm in my beliefs. While also recognizing they are my beliefs not grand universal truths. I don't always succeed, but at least I felt likewise: you disagreed, but didn't resort to obvious flame bait or straw person arguments. Appreciate it!
  - freedomben 2y ago
    I agree completely. It is a real shame that nowadays so many people do not assume good intent, or if they do, they value the intention much then the Deliverance. There are definitely a small number of people that intentionally use terms that others may find distasteful or offensive, but the vast majority of people are not trying to do that. They are just using the words and vocabulary with which they are familiar. The more time goes on and the more experience I get the more cemented this becomes. The best example is the expression you guys. Nowadays that expression is fully gender-neutral and is routinely used to refer to a group of mixed gender individuals. Some people can feel excluded by the term, and for that reason I do often try to substitute a different term for it, but many of the women I work with use the same expression of you guys even when referring to a group of entirely women. I strongly wish that most people would hear that and not think of a gendered reference. I think that would radically improve communication. If there is doubt about what the person meant, sometimes a clarifying question can be extremely useful. For people that are trying to use offensive or exclusive terms, it is good to push them on that a bit and ask for clarification and such. But I don't think I've met anyone who was using the term that way in many, many years.

concordDance 2y ago

> I've only met people who are members of groups, and they are rarely unanimous about the words that should be used to refer to members of the groups to which they claim membership. The problem of "determine what group X wants" gets even worse when we go online and the people whose words we read are now not randomly sampled from the group, instead being the tony minority who care enough to campaign about it online (or those who arent even group members but campaign for them).