![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Thinking about ablist language
This post is for blogging against disablism day. I'm pretty new to thinking about disability in any serious way so this may all be bunk.
I was plotting out a post in my head the other day and the phrase "I am rather tone deaf to the nuances of american cultures" popped into my head. "Hmm" I thought "Is that ablist language? Do tone deaf people really count as disabled? Would they care? Where do you draw the line?"
And I had a bit of an epiphany. To a certain extent it doesn't matter: while one of the major reasons for avoiding ablist language is to avoid contributing to social bias and discrimination against those disabled people who suffer them, the very idea of using a real illness as a metaphor for a negative trait is indicative of deep problems with the way our society views illness.
Unfortunately, I am low on spoons, so I can't quite articulate my point, but I'll take a punt and try to flesh it out another day.
I think a good example which illustrates my point is "colourblind racism". Briefly: This is when someone "doesn't see" the race of the people they interact with, and so ends up supporting the status quo ie racism and not making allowances for the different experiences people have because of their race.
The reason this term is unfair to colourblind people is that they don't go around saying "I don't see colour! We should all act like colour doesn't exist! You people insisting that red and green traffic-lights mean different things are the real problem!". In my experience they aware of and acknowledge that their vision is flawed, and learn to work around it.
Ablist language works on the assumption that people who have lack certain abilities (whether this makes them disabled or not) are inherently less worthy, and incapable of being as good as anyone else at things involving that ability.
Aaaand that's about the end of my spoons. If you're interested in the topic, have a look at Feminists are fine with being bigots if it’s just ableism which has links which lead to more links... and then I ran out of link clicking spoons :)
I was plotting out a post in my head the other day and the phrase "I am rather tone deaf to the nuances of american cultures" popped into my head. "Hmm" I thought "Is that ablist language? Do tone deaf people really count as disabled? Would they care? Where do you draw the line?"
And I had a bit of an epiphany. To a certain extent it doesn't matter: while one of the major reasons for avoiding ablist language is to avoid contributing to social bias and discrimination against those disabled people who suffer them, the very idea of using a real illness as a metaphor for a negative trait is indicative of deep problems with the way our society views illness.
Unfortunately, I am low on spoons, so I can't quite articulate my point, but I'll take a punt and try to flesh it out another day.
I think a good example which illustrates my point is "colourblind racism". Briefly: This is when someone "doesn't see" the race of the people they interact with, and so ends up supporting the status quo ie racism and not making allowances for the different experiences people have because of their race.
The reason this term is unfair to colourblind people is that they don't go around saying "I don't see colour! We should all act like colour doesn't exist! You people insisting that red and green traffic-lights mean different things are the real problem!". In my experience they aware of and acknowledge that their vision is flawed, and learn to work around it.
Ablist language works on the assumption that people who have lack certain abilities (whether this makes them disabled or not) are inherently less worthy, and incapable of being as good as anyone else at things involving that ability.
Aaaand that's about the end of my spoons. If you're interested in the topic, have a look at Feminists are fine with being bigots if it’s just ableism which has links which lead to more links... and then I ran out of link clicking spoons :)
no subject
Excuses? "I have a disabled parent!" and "I'm and EMT, we joke like this all the time!"
GUH. Ablism is a pretty big thing for me. For awhile, I was going into special education (until I realized I don't like teaching) and most of my jobs have been working with those with disorders and disabilities (as well as the older adult population, who are not always as able as the younger population). I know that even I am still learning, but it's personal to me because I have been very invested in my clients and their well-beings. I'm glad you're covering it, even though you stated that you're pretty new to this stuff. :-)
no subject
no subject
We met a lot of kids with disabilities at my old job (children's museum attendant) and got NO TRAINING on the subject, it was really frustrating because I'm sure I wasn't giving those kids the help they needed.
no subject
I've decided I'm going to try to make a post with some good alternatives to "lame", "crazy" and "retarded" and then make a short comment linking to it every time people use them.
no subject
I got into a totally pointless argument with someone during RaceFail about "blind". Because I hadn't thought about it before, but it was suddenly obvious to me that there's a huuuuuuuuge difference between someone who was born blind and has been all their life, and a sighted person saying "I was blind with rage". And it's really offensive to imply that blind people are illogical/unobservant/swept away by their emotional state. Even if the sighted person temporarily could not see/wasn't processing what was coming in their eyes, that's not the same as being a blind person.
But no way was this person ever going to get my point. What's the saying "none so blind as those who will not see"? (heavy irony markings ahoy!)
no subject
The difficulty for people with impaired vision, physical disability and the like is that the "negative" character of their traits is taken as a given by others (although this in itself is offensive to some), and the metaphoric step from one negative to another (e.g. from blindness to ignorance, or from deafness to pig-headedness) is elided because the majority simply don't observe any difference.
Speaking personally, I do find it difficult to credit certain terms as giving offence -- one example is a generic pejorative term like "crazy" (as opposed to a more specific term like "spasticated" or "retarded" that stands in for generically "mad").
I can understand the argument as to why its use is considered offensive by some of the mentally ill, but can't understand why the same argument doesn't extend to, say, "stupid", and people with low IQ. At which point pretty much any negative adjective that can be applied to a human is arguably removed from appropriately sensitive discourse. This I view as an unacceptable restriction at the moment, but that may be because I can't appreciate the perspective of those who might be offended by the use of words like "crazy".
no subject
no subject
I think there's a difference between "ablism" and prejudiced thinking with which I'm more familiar: sexism, racism, class prejudice et al. The difference is not that it's less bad or in any sense more justified. It's that it's differently inflected in relation to the concept of equality, because "disabled" people are functionally different from "able" people, and the assertion of equality of capability is one underpinning of some (flawed?) ideas about breaking down prejudice (compare "Hand an armless man a spanner" with "Hand a girl a spanner", if you recall the old bumper sticker).
no subject
I'm certainly interested in reading what
I know what you're trying to say about ableism being different from racism or sexism or ... but I'm not sure it's that simple. I mean, back to my favourite example, there's lots of things Stephen Hawking can't do, but next to him I am not a rocket scientist, you know?
There's so many kinds of disability and "can't do X" doesn't mean "can't do Y", and besides, there's a huge range of variation in ability among "normal" people. For example, I'm quite seriously nearsighted. I only go without my glasses as a joke. And yet, in our society, that's not considered disabled, because (by having glasses) I have equal access. If you compare places I can go and things I do because I can always bring my glasses (and all the things I couldn't do if I couldn't) to the situation facing wheelchair users, well.
I mean, I know it's more expensive and so forth to put in wheelchair ramps but that's partly because we don't think of it from the beginning.
no subject
As you point out capability is neither defined by the human sorting baskets that delimit prejudicial thinking, nor is it intrinsic to the individual, instead it's a derivative of the person and their environment Since their environment includes their sociopolitical environment, we have a situation in which the capability of the individual is, in part, imposed by society.
The intersection between capability and prejudice is extremely interesting because of the way false dogma about capability is used to justify unequal power structures. "The Bell Curve".
That link between notional capability and social status is why there is a frisson of transgressive excitement around transhumanism: think of the controversy around Oscar Pistorius ...
Joint reply to make the conversation easier to keep track of
Second: I feel a bit uncomfortable being framed as the expert here: I'm pretty new to the idea of ableist language, and in particular am not mentally ill (eg everything I know is in my post and the stuff I linked). Also one of the things thinking about ablism has really opened my eyes to is the HUGE amount of prejudice I still have towards the disabled, most especially those with cognitive disabilities.
Ok, that said various thoughts:
I have never heard anyone with an intellectual disability complain about the term stupid, but it occurs to me I've never heard anyone with an intellectual disability talk about ableism at all, they're not a group I spend much time talking to or reading the POV of. Hmm.
Since I think it needs saying specifically: being mentally ill is not the same as the sort of irrationailty implied by "crazy". Having an intellectual disability is not the same as the sort of thoughtlessness implied by "stupid". Beyond that I'm still pondering, but I think the issue is that most people, myself included, don't bother making that distinction, or thinking about what we really mean by our words.
Yes, disability differs from gender/race etc in that the problems associated with it are not just the result of prejudice. eg I would become able-bodied again with no regrets but have no interest in becoming a man :) This isn't true of all disabilities or all disabled people though, and a lot of the problem is the general lack of flexibility for differences from the "norm" eg if (as used to be the case in the maths dept years ago) all you have is men's toilets neither disabled people nor women will be well served. As you said, glasses are a good example of this, and it's interesting that hearing aids are not seen the same way.
The fact that most ablist terms started out as medical terminology doesn't stop ones that have always been pejorative from being ablist. For example, afaict "gimp" has always been used as an insulting term for "limping". A while ago I decided to try not using the word "crazy" as an experiment, as well as paying attention to how other people use it. It's actually been really interesting: in trying to find another word, I have to ask myself what I'm actually trying to say (and if I mean "mentally ill" I should say so). Because I would say that as with any other ablist term, on the one hand it is associated with the actual condition, but it also has a bunch of other unfair associations. I googled about a bit. There's quite a lot if you search under "ableism crazy" and this gives some examples of the way the word conflates actual mental illness with irrationality.
no subject
Anyway, agreed with what you have to say in this comment, see further replies below. (I started reading the article, but my brain protested that it's done enough thinking for the morning)
no subject
It's a shame I am feeling the need to arm myself for battle as far as these issues are concerned but, there you have it. There's something in the discourse that rubs me the wrong way, and I've convinced myself it's not just the mildly unpleasant sensation of my social privileges being equalised.
Re: Joint reply to make the conversation easier to keep track of
(I'm not suggesting this is the case with "crazy". The post you linked to makes an excellent point about how "I'm not crazy" statements might have a deeply exclusive social function for the mentally ill.)
I apologise for casting you in the role of expert, as it precludes you from making your usual disclaimers about fumbling in the dark on all of these matters. D'oh. I actually just thought that since you'd mentioned the difficulties associated with "crazy", you'd almost certainly read something cogent on the subject.
My current take on political campaigns to change elements of discourse (vocab, figures of speech) that are taken to invoke or reinforce prejudicial thinking is that perhaps they are not all accounting for their effects very well.
If these campaigns are pursued with uniform vigour whether their effects are productive or not, and if there's not usually much clear understanding whether it's the changes to elements of discourse, or other "side" effects of the campaign itself that are expected to produce a positive political outcome, they don't seem to me to be a good idea.
My thinking is that if these effects were accounted for more carefully, the shape of the campaigns would also change to acknowledge and drop or change failed lines of attack. For example, although the word "crazy" may well have unwanted patterns of use that invalidate the lives of the mentally ill, to decry its use to the "average Australian" would provoke storms of laughter and a whole heap of "blah blah blah PC thought police" dismissal. So it wouldn't be a good idea, or it would be a very poorly timed one.
It reminds me of an old Alexei Sayle joke about revolutionary communism:
Q: How many Trotskyists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: You can't change the light bulb comrade, you have to smash it!
transhumanism
But I don't think I understand transhumanism at all. From my perspective, it has arisen out of a faulty definition of what being human is, and this article, or what I've read of it so far, isn't changing my impression at all.
If I were you, I'd be very very suspicious of your conviction (and of you having managed to convince yourself) that your sensation is not just your social privileges being pointed out. I've been there, done that. I've watched other people go there, do that. Honestly, becoming aware of your privileges need not feel remotely like you're becoming aware of your privileges, and it can feel at times like you're the only reasonable person left. (That one is practically diagnostic.)
Re: Joint reply to make the conversation easier to keep track of
Secondly, I'm not arguing that this is parallel to "crazy", I'm just arguing that it might be parallel to crazy, or at least give you an idea why I'm still on the fence. Let's say I identify with "bitch" at least here as aquaeri: unashamedly opinionated woman who does sometimes hurt other people's feelings with her opinions. I think the number of times I see "bitch" used to mean something that looks awfully like that to me, entirely justifies that idea. But I don't think asking other people not to use the word "bitch" is remotely useful. Not in isolation. It has to be in the context of an awareness of social expectations about women as nurturing, supportive, and not so much not entitled to have strong opinions, as not needing to have strong opinions because surely a man can take care of that for her? And if a man isn't expressing those strong opinions, they're probably not important?
I think I either have to accept the way "bitch" is used by our culture, with an awareness that every time I am opinionated and female, there will necessarily be a lot of negative reactions, because of the way things are. It's not the way things have to be, but I can't see that I have any chance of contributing to changing that, without a very clear awareness of exactly how things are right now. Otherwise we get PrivilegeFails like 'colourblindness'.
Re: transhumanism
That said, I do have an interest in the way that the communities of discussion to which I'm exposed by my association with sqbr and others operate, and it's fair enough that they can be, are, and should be subject to critical perspectives both from insiders and outsiders, delivered appropriately.
Of course that means trying to avoid derailing - I have a bad instinct to try to turn every discussion about prejudice into a discussion of the practices of discussions about prejudice, and I'm doing it again here. Sorry.
Continuing to derail re transhumanism at your prompting:
I would've thought the article's reference to a definition of it as "the idea that humans can use reason to transcend the limitation of the human condition" was clearly stated, if not straightforward.
From a transhumanist perspective (under this definition) all levels of ableness (or dually, all "limitations of the human condition) are changeable, and not as intrinsic to the individual as they are typically thought to be. Therefore this perspective can catalyse new ways of thinking for and about people with "disabilities".
Transhumanism is strongly associated (though perhaps unfairly) with utopian thinking in which issues like physical disability fall by the wayside and we all become "luminous beings". A nice but unconvincing dream.
But it's clear that as far as technology does change capability (see innovations in prosthesis, bionic eyes and ears, laser corrective surgery, developmental surgery etc.) it has a huge impact on the factors underlying ablist prejudice. As you mentioned previously, your spectacles provide you with equal access.
Re: transhumanism
That definition doesn't help me at all. What is "the human condition"? How could anyone possibly begin to even think about defining "the human condition" without including our ability to reason and our ability to change our circumstances? Aren't those things pretty close to the core of what it means to be human? And what does "transcend" mean, apart from being a word with a high "warm fuzzy impressiveness" factor? Is this a sales pitch?
(I hope this doesn't feel like a personal attack; it's an attempt at a fairly close to realistic impression of the sorts of things that went through my head when I read that bit, slowed down enough to be written out.)
Also, don't know if you know, but might be relevant: I'm an evolutionary biologist and partly as a side effect of my training, partly as a deliberate exercise because I liked the effects, I've to some extent re-wired my brain to look at the world from an evolutionary perspective and that does mean there are things that are "perfectly obvious" to "normal" people that make no sense to me.
Re: transhumanism
I think it's pretty clear. There are various mental models of what a "human" is that include a range of capabilities and distinctive traits. Typical ideas delineating between humans and animals include use of language, ability to reason, ability to build and use tools, etc. As someone with related training you already know that all of those are actually rather blurrier than they might seem at first bluff.
The models are often implied rather than defined because of the difficulty of defining them. "What is it to be human?" is still one of those Big Not Properly Answered Questions.
These models, often implied, also include limits on our traits and capabilities: we can't breathe underwater, live forever, stop aging, remember endless facts, do arithmetic as fast as our personal computers, render multiple layers of geographical data into a coherent map image in our heads and then "think" it over to the person standing next to us.
So under the definition cited transhumanists look at limits like these (not these exact limits) -- limits that are implied in prevailing models of humanity -- and propose that they can be overcome by the application of the tools we have to hand, summarised by "reason". In overcoming them we would become "transhuman" in the sense that we "cross" some boundary of present humanity as perceived by consensus, but remain "human" in some other more profound sense that, I presume, is even more difficult to define.
Still clear as mud? Sorry about that :-)
Re: transhumanism
(I'm still playing around with how strict I'm going to be, but if I don't make an effort to enforce the rules now I'm going to fall to bits when I encounter narky defensive people who refuse to admit they even are derailing)
But if you drop a link saying where the conversation is going I may pop in once I've had a chance to read the article :)
Re: Joint reply to make the conversation easier to keep track of
I have, I linked it :) But no, I don't have a very deep understanding, to a large extent I'm working from general principles about power and representation and then learning the specifics of how it applies to disability.
The thing is: I'm not talking about public policy. I'm not even trying to say definitely what other people should and shouldn't say on ethical grounds. Because I'm not qualified to make those decisions. (I don't recall ever encountering ablist language which applies to me personally) The principle I work from though, and which I am going to try to enforce here is that if people with mental illness, say, claim to find "crazy" hurtful (and from the evidence I've seen, a moderate number of them do) then they don't need to justify it. You can choose not to stop using the word, but you can't deny that they find it hurtful, even if you can't understand why it would be.
I am personally trying to avoid language which I have gotten the impression people find hurtful or damaging, and working through my thoughts publicly to get feedback and encourage other people to think about the issues and make up their own minds based on the opinions of people who suffer as a result of ablist language (ie not me). As to public policy etc, I would listen to what disabled rights etc organisations etc say.
Re: transhumanism
Of course, if I start to talk about the intersection of actual capability with ablist prejudice from a transhumanist perspective, or if I do my whole problematising dialogue bit, I'll probably end up composing something seriously offensive. Maybe you should just let me fizz out here where fewer people are going to be affected. *sigh*
Re: transhumanism
That's not exactly what I had in mind when I tried to set this up as a safe space :P
You could always talk with aquaeri via instant message, I've done that with conversations that might offend passers by.
EDIT: And thinking about it some more, I really am rather annoyed that you hold yourself to a higher standard on your lj, where it's your subscribers who may be hurt and the comments are your responsibility, than you do on my dw, where it's my subscribers who may get hurt and the comments are my responsibility. One of the primary reasons I started this journal was because people told me privately that the thoughtless comments others made on my lj meant they weren't comfortable speaking up, you can't assume that the people speaking are the only ones paying attention.
Re: Joint reply to make the conversation easier to keep track of
You're right that stopping using a word without thinking about why you should stop using it is problematic. Better to think about it carefully and decide when it is and isn't appropriate.
But I wasn't trying to answer the question "Should everyone stop using the word 'crazy'?" so much as "Is the word hurtful to mentally ill people?", and the answer to that is "In a lot of cases, yes". Which for me, personally, is enough to make me stop using it even if I don't understand why it's hurtful.
Gaining that understanding is also important, because the problems with the word "crazy" are rooted in a lot of misconceptions about mental illness that won't go away just by changing the way we speak.
Re: Joint reply to make the conversation easier to keep track of
I realise you're not talking about public policy, nevertheless I believe the process whereby the objections of a few individuals within a notional "category" affected by prejudice are transformed into a general, normative rule of discussion should be carefully moderated (by a representative sample of affected people).
It's easy to imagine people diagnosed with mental illness feeling pigeonholed, patronised and infuriated by a concerned speaker avoiding the use of the term "crazy" because it might offend, when in their case it possibly doesn't. And subsequently resenting other people who'd testified to the offence they take from the term and their influence on the mainstream voice of authority that inevitably seems to have a majority share in the control of discourse*.
I've seen this happen in the case of feminism where women, particularly those who feel in control of their own circumstances and don't want to be portrayed as "in need" by an interfering male-dominated voice of authority, are infuriated by condescending concessions.
I can't see this being a problem with your comments policy though, since you've declared this to be a safe space in which people should be free from whatever oppression, including that related to the use of language, that they suffer from in other contexts. But I think there's a need for us all to understand that while a rule concerning terminology, or modes of speech, or some other instrument of the social sphere might function very effectively in one context, it might be an abject failure in another context.
Specific rules don't cross those contextual boundaries well, they usually need to be redesigned according to their more general formative principles within the new social environment, or the environment itself needs to be changed in preparation for their introduction (cf my earlier comment predicting the response of the Australian public to restricting use of the word "crazy").
* I understand this is in itself a huge problem (and one which I probably exacerbate by being in this discussion and trying to control thereby how discourse "should" change), but it's also just another practical hurdle to effective change.
less "crazy"
I think we agree in principle. The way I want to go about it though is to think about social conceptions of mental illness and challenge them in my own thinking and I suspect/hope the frequency with which I call something "crazy" will naturally drop as a result.
(I also wanted to mention that I am in fact diagnosed with mental illness, but not one where "crazy" is usually applied. And talking about my own experience would be hijacking this so I hope (once the marking is done) to write something about it in my own space.)
Re: transhumanism
As I see it, I haven't made thoughtless comments on this post, I've given my views in good faith and in a temperate way.
Re: transhumanism
That said, while my comments are definitely much more slapdash and unstructured than my posts, I do hold myself to a higher standard of not-being-offensive in conversations like this than I do on my lj eg if I was a white person coming into a conversation about race on the journal of a POC.
Re: transhumanism
Re: Joint reply to make the conversation easier to keep track of
But you said I do find it difficult to credit certain terms as giving offence -- one example is a generic pejorative term like "crazy". And I was arguing that it does give offense to some people with mental illness, and on this point we now agree.
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. If it turned out that it bothered like ONE mentally ill person and NOONE ELSE minded then I might not try so hard. But...
The point of my post was not the individual use of particular words, but that the existence of ableist language is a symptom of deeper problems in attitude. By putting in a "Do you really want to use that word?" filter I'm forced to consider the (often very ableist) implications of what I'm saying. I mean that's the thing with "tone deaf": I don't think tone deaf people are really going to care, but using that metaphor is still problematic because it reinforces a POV I'm trying to move past. Similarly, stopping myself from using "crazy" has made me confront some deep seated issues with the way I view mental illness. (Of course relying on this argument alone ignores the effect on disabled people and makes it all about the Journey Of Self Discovery, which is not so good. But hey)
Re: Joint reply to make the conversation easier to keep track of
(I also wanted to mention that I am in fact diagnosed with mental illness, but not one where "crazy" is usually applied. And talking about my own experience would be hijacking this so I hope (once the marking is done) to write something about it in my own space.)
*nods* I hope I wasn't erasing your experience by assuming you weren't, but asking felt like it would create a weird dynamic. I think these sorts of things are particularly nuanced with disability, which make's it tricky working out where one stands. While a lot of the same things apply, the experience of having cfs is very different to being blind is very different to being mentally ill and so on, and within that you have different diagnoses and level of severity etc. I mean I don't directly experience ablist language myself afaict (I guess I limp sometimes, but not enough that I take "lame" personally)
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.
Re: transhumanism
Well I can hardly argue with that sort of self justification :D
I guess you have to figure out for yourself the best way to control your behaviour and experience. I found I had to blanket ban myself from any discussion forum without comment threading since otherwise I got drawn into Every Single Argument.
I'd hate for you to stop commenting on all my posts altogether, since you often have really interesting things to say, but that's one of the points of me having two journals.
Re: Joint reply to make the conversation easier to keep track of
Yes, but I'm not suggesting that. The only time I can remember correcting someone's use of words like "crazy" or "insane" as hyperbole was the official discussion post for an anti-racist community, which felt like a place that should be super careful with it's language, and the author agreed with me and changed it. I don't think we're actually disagreeing on anything here, and since we're a fair way from the actual point of my post this seems like a good time to stop :P