I think my line is drawn somewhere else, or doesn't get drawn at all. Even the phenomenon of "giving offence" is much more nuanced than our discussion has admitted to this point, let alone the complex, dynamic environment in which the whole of any human utterance must be considered if you're going to analyse its intersection with power structures to the point where you can propose ways to change that.
But changing language is the means, changing power relations the end. I regard you here as promoting a somewhat reductive axiomatic programme for changing language. It seems to include the principle "if it offends thee, cut it off" as evinced by your comment:
"I do also think that this means it's probably worth avoiding all things being equal. The fact it doesn't bother all mentally ill people doesn't stop it bothering the ones it does."
(Side note: I'm not personally in favour of a hypothetical future in which no one gets "bothered". I'd rather one in which people are all bothered equally where those traits which should provide no basis for systematic discrimination are concerned.)
I assess "crazy" to be a good example of a term with a relative marginal capacity to offend by its mere presence in discourse. Compared to, say, "nigger", which by its mere presence has a great capacity to offend.
That's a unilateral assessment that doesn't have any bearing on how real people actually feel, so I make it tentatively, and in the knowledge that real people have been offended by uses of the term.
But we're not really talking about words but about their use as a tool of oppression. That's what we want to eliminate, but how?
Therefore where in some cases I think proscribing words is useful, in others I believe more nuanced tactics might be better. It is valuable, for instance, to bring the discussion about why you might want to avoid the word "crazy" into mainstream consciousness -- as you have into mine. By having this discussion I've become much more aware of the ablist politics embedded in my usual patterns of speech, which is a good thing for me and for the activist agenda.
It's perhaps more valuable to highlight, satirise, ridicule, invert or "jam" the way a word is used. That's attacking the process whereby its uses derive a power-political outcome, not the word itself.
Trying to ban the actual word in a wider social context seems likely to fail, and fail in a counterproductive way that gives the "normals" every chance to accuse the activists of naïveté and impracticality.
In effect, I see this conversation between us as testing what would happen if you proposed to limit the use of terms in a more general venue, say a university department or a corporate workplace. Except that I'm probably more forgiving than that hypothetical wider audience would be. The last thing you want to do is fail with a proposition like that in a venue where your audience ends by roundly congratulating itself on its disagreement with you, reinforcing prejudice.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Joint reply to make the conversation easier to keep track of
I think my line is drawn somewhere else, or doesn't get drawn at all. Even the phenomenon of "giving offence" is much more nuanced than our discussion has admitted to this point, let alone the complex, dynamic environment in which the whole of any human utterance must be considered if you're going to analyse its intersection with power structures to the point where you can propose ways to change that.
But changing language is the means, changing power relations the end. I regard you here as promoting a somewhat reductive axiomatic programme for changing language. It seems to include the principle "if it offends thee, cut it off" as evinced by your comment:
(Side note: I'm not personally in favour of a hypothetical future in which no one gets "bothered". I'd rather one in which people are all bothered equally where those traits which should provide no basis for systematic discrimination are concerned.)
I assess "crazy" to be a good example of a term with a relative marginal capacity to offend by its mere presence in discourse. Compared to, say, "nigger", which by its mere presence has a great capacity to offend.
That's a unilateral assessment that doesn't have any bearing on how real people actually feel, so I make it tentatively, and in the knowledge that real people have been offended by uses of the term.
But we're not really talking about words but about their use as a tool of oppression. That's what we want to eliminate, but how?
Therefore where in some cases I think proscribing words is useful, in others I believe more nuanced tactics might be better. It is valuable, for instance, to bring the discussion about why you might want to avoid the word "crazy" into mainstream consciousness -- as you have into mine. By having this discussion I've become much more aware of the ablist politics embedded in my usual patterns of speech, which is a good thing for me and for the activist agenda.
It's perhaps more valuable to highlight, satirise, ridicule, invert or "jam" the way a word is used. That's attacking the process whereby its uses derive a power-political outcome, not the word itself.
Trying to ban the actual word in a wider social context seems likely to fail, and fail in a counterproductive way that gives the "normals" every chance to accuse the activists of naïveté and impracticality.
In effect, I see this conversation between us as testing what would happen if you proposed to limit the use of terms in a more general venue, say a university department or a corporate workplace. Except that I'm probably more forgiving than that hypothetical wider audience would be. The last thing you want to do is fail with a proposition like that in a venue where your audience ends by roundly congratulating itself on its disagreement with you, reinforcing prejudice.