4 ms·
The comment you reply to does a good job describing one goal of this usage. You can see virtue signaling in this behavior, and there may be a part of it, but t
by cauch 2y ago
The comment you reply to does a good job describing one goal of this usage.
You can see virtue signaling in this behavior, and there may be a part of it, but that is not the only reason it is used and it's dicey to jump to the conclusion that virtue signaling can only be the main goal. The fact that you don't see these others goals or refuse to believe that they may be the main reason does not change the reality of the existence of these goals.
It's like people who are saying "if you say you prefer Linux over Windows, it's only because you are jealous of Windows popularity and want to feel different". Maybe it is, maybe it is not. But they just refuse to even consider that maybe the other person is not acting by jealousy.
> I have NEVER met someone using alternative language like "differently abled" who actually did something substiantial for the community or for a particular person. Almost all cases have a touch of patronisation.
That sentence sounds very strange to me: why on earth someone using alternative language like "differently abled" would suddenly be required to do something that you don't even blink an eye for people who don't use that language?
It feels like the virtue signaling resides in your eyes only: you are seeing someone saying X, you _invent_ that it is because they want to be seen as a knight helping the disabled people, and then you show that there is an incompatibility because they don't really act like a knight helping the disabled people.
But what if people using this language don't do it to be seen as a knight helping the disabled people. Then there is absolutely no incompatibility at all.
The fact that this incompatibility exists is even a clue that maybe this behavior has nothing to do with virtue signaling.
> And as a disabled person, I can tell you, I need nothing of it.
I think that the goal as described by the previous comment has nothing to do with you. The goal is to reshape the way of thinking "there is a hierarchy of 'good situation' with abled people on top" into "there are differences, with sometimes good situation and sometimes bad situation, but it's more complicated than that and simplifying the picture as a simple hierarchy is incorrect". The goal is not to please you, the goal is to avoid having a way of thinking that does not correspond to the reality.
It's the same reason why some people stop saying buzzwords like "artificial intelligence" when referring to a smartish complex algorithm composed of if conditions and no machine learning at all. They are not doing that to be fair to algorithm, they do that because there is a gain for them and for the society to not maintain misconceptions.
- lynx23 2y agoOK, I guess you have ablesplained everything now, thanks for teaching me the error of my ways! Writing a serious reply doesn't feel like a good use of my time. You have already demonstrated that you have no regard for the lived experience of minorities and prefer your pseudoanalytical explanations over everything a person from such an in-group could tell you. The truth is, the story is much more complicated. But trying to explain that to you feels draining and useless, so I just stop here.
- cauch 2y agoAre you serious? YOU are the one explaining what other have in their mind. I just tell you "maybe it's not so simple". And you get all virtue signaling, explaining that everyone who dares not agreeing with you can only be a bad guy because you have a disabled get-out-of-jail-for-free card. And that is not a "pseudoanalitical" explanation, that's sooo simple, if you don't get it, it's your problem. That's very easy: I don't call "artificial intelligence" an algorithm that is just a bunch of if-conditions, just because it's misleading. Others use "different abled" FOR THE SAME REASON. The fact that it does not affect you is irrelevant, you are not the reason they prefer to use a term they think (correctly or not, who cares) is better suited, and they don't do it to look good. It's very simple.
- lynx23 2y agoOh yeah, I am of course using my disability to win an argument. Its not possible that I might have much deeper insight into daily communication between disabled and non-disabled people, no. I am just a frustrated blind guy trying to win an argument. As said, it is totally useless to continue this discussion with you. You are not willing to see.
- cauch 2y agoSo, please, explain to me, then. The first comment is saying that one reason to use that is just because some people think that the other term is misleading and reinforce a representation of the reality that does not correspond well to the reality. You answer by saying it's virtue signaling and that somehow if they use this term and don't also do things for disabled people they are inconsistent. How is that virtue signaling? Is using "Netherlands" instead of "Holland" virtue signalling by pretending they care about dutch people? If they say "Netherlands" but they also don't actively participate to dutch charities, is it inconsistent? You are talking about deeper insight into daily communication between disabled and non-disabled people. What does it have to do with the fact that some people prefer to use a term that they think correspond better to the reality? If I prefer to say "disabled people" instead of "disobled people" (because I prefer to use a term that I consider better because I consider spelling mistake not ideal), how your deeper insight into daily communication between disabled and non-disabled people is relevant? Well, I guess that if I tell you "I prefer not making spelling mistake", I am ablesplaining to you, and you are not at all using your disability by explaining that I'm a bad person for not saying "disobled" because you are disabled so you know best.