What year is this, 1989? Tell me you don’t know any disability activists without saying you don’t know any disability activists. Nobody says “differently-abled,” and if you say that around disability activists, they will look at you like you just landed from Mars, or they may suspect you’re trying to mock them. I mean, people in the movement are reclaiming the word crip with pride. Disabled is indeed the standard term used by professionals who work in the field.
But the left leaning tried to cast shame on the word “disabled”. That’s the point.
Got a cite for that? It is not yet determined whether you have a point, though that appears increasingly doubtful. Who do you think the crip-pride activists are, if not the left?
“Look at this molehill the left have built!” they cried, pointedly ignoring the mountain range the right had raised behind them.
Are you saying that the SJW set didn’t try to get polite society to stop using the word “disabled”? Because I hardly need a cite for that. It happened.
I see, you admit you have nothing to back up your claims. Well, so much for this little subtopic.
I remember people moving away from terms like “disabled person” to “person with a disability” and I remember PC jokes talking about “handi-capable”, but I don’t recall any move away from disabled. I have also seen people mention the “differently abled”, but I never came across anyone actually objecting to “disabled”, in person or online.
Yes, there was some discussion at one point about moving away from the term “disabled”. It didn’t last.
Who are “the SJW set”? Do they take sugar on their porridge?
You definitely need cite for that. If it was remotely as big a thing as you claim, providing at least one credible cite should be trivially easy.
I’d like a cite for the “cast shame” part, specifically. Some sort of evidence that someone suffered some sort of adverse reaction for using “disabled.” Just floating an alternate terminology for something isn’t the same as shaming people for using the older terms.
I take a little porridge on my sugar.
Okay, look. Every group is going to have dumbasses in it. There are people on the left who are dumbasses. I don’t think anyone denies that.
I have, more than half a dozen times, received a guide to racially equitable education (the same copied page) that tells me that instead of calling them “word problems,” I should call them “math stories,” because apparently the Black community has trauma associated with the word “problem” and students won’t learn well if I talk about “problems.” I think that’s nonsense, and I think its repetition–especially in a way that precludes real conversation about equity in education by monopolizing meetings–is pernicious nonsense.
But that’s not because The Left is throwing people in the gulag for thought crimes. It’s because there are dumbasses everywhere.
The steady pattern of certain people on the right (#notallrighties) is to take an idea from the left–often but not necessarily an ill-advised on–excise it from its context, exaggerate what happened, and use it as an emblem of everyone on the left. It’s a remarkably effective strategy. Thus, someone who goes on the new objecting to “Oriental” aisles at grocery stores (and for all we know the news crew stopped a dozen shoppers and asked leading questions until they got this particular answer–this is BaitClick 101 and something every rookie local TV reporter learns) becomes OMG THE LEFT ARE REPRESSIVE THUGS WHO FLIP OUT OVER HATE SPEECH!!!
Don’t fall for it. Don’t participate in it.
I think a good example of what Lumpy might be referring to occurred a few years ago when there was a (albeit short-lived) spate of people getting fired for doing the OK sign, as in this example:
Here’s another example:
Getting fired for making an “o.k.” sign?
Is that how you remember it?
That seems to be how the articles I linked to are portraying it. The second one is particularly egregious, IMO. I’m open to new information, but at first glance it seems these two were most likely victims of a (thankfully short-lived) moral panic.
That seems backwards. The OK sign was used by white supremacists for a while but they largely abandoned it when most people figured out what they were doing. Once their ‘secret’ hand sign was no longer secret, it didn’t make much sense to keep using it. Moral panic did not come into it.
It was in the news and the ADL was on top of it. The 'OK' Hand Gesture Is Now Listed As A Symbol Of Hate : NPR
The problem is, I can’t find any information about the case except from Cafferty’s point of view. He filed a lawsuit almost four years ago, but I can’t find any update on it. The closest I can find is that, despite the bad publicity and the lawsuit, his employer stands by their decision. That doesn’t mean it was right, of course–but absent a detailed account, I worry that this is yet another case of:
What we know happened:
- There was a BLM protest.
- There was a common sign that assholes were using to troll activists at the time (the OK symbol). It was great for trolling because it also has innocuous connotations, and trolls love nothing more than claiming innocence.
- This guy was photographed making that sign as he drove past the protest.
- The photographer put the picture on social media. Later they took it down and said maybe they shouldn’t have posted it, and they didn’t mean for him to get fired.
- His employer investigated and fired him.
At what step was a “moral panic” occurring? Not steps 1-3. Was the guy that took the picture, then took it down, engaging in moral panic, or just responding to trolls (Cafferty, or the trolls that popularized the gesture)? Was his employer engaging in a moral panic, or firing someone who otherwise was a terrible employee but they can’t discuss it, or acting cowardly?
None of that matters. What matters is that the right took the incident, stripped it of context, and started screaming MORAL PANIC THE WOKE ARE RUINING LIVES over it.
There is also the “3 Percenter” signal, where three of the fingers from the pinky on are pointed upward, with the forefinger and thumb are curved and brought together, making it look somewhat like an “o.k.” sign but at a weird angle. The 3 Percenters is/was a wing of the right wing anti-government extremist militia movement. Adding that I could of sworn I thought I saw one of the masked protesters flashing this sign at a Boebert conference recently. To claim that it was only an “o.k.” symbol would take a massive amount of hubris.
People? It was just a OK sign. Also, that’s rotten eggs not mercaptan you’re smelling.
At various times the NAACP has had internal discussions about their name. When the organization named itself, colored wasn’t a pejorative, and some members are torn between changing what is now a disfavored word and honoring their forebearers who created the organization.
I admittedly find it a little odd and I’m not comfortable referring to anyone as a person of color because it’s too close to colored in my mind. I can’t bring myself to refer to someone as queer even if they identify themselves that way. It doesn’t bother me when other people use those words or phrases though.