I don’t know if I’m just becoming overly sensitive to my own language or if this is an actual issue, so feel free to let me know if it seems that I just need to grow thicker skin, but still.

I keep getting this uneasy feeling whenever I use the word “lame” and I think it’s because I’m starting to realize it’s technically ableist. However, there’s no single non-profane word that I know of that fits the niche that I use it in.

For example, I wrote out something earlier about a behavior I do that I don’t like that I do because I think it’s kind of shitty behavior, but it’s overall harmless. I use lame to describe it casually. I could also call it kind of shitty, as I did before, but not to audiences that I don’t want to use profanity around.

Anyone know of a word I can replace “lame” with?

I’d say maybe weak, but that’s got its own baggage that I’m not sure I’m ok with switching to. Annoying is too strong of a word for what I’m going for. Maybe lame is a short word for “this makes me feel slightly sad”?

Idk, so I open it up to the public: Is this even an issue or am I being too sensitive? Could this be solved in a single replacement word or do I need a whole ass phrase to express this?

  • FlickOfTheBean@beehaw.orgOPEnglish
    0·
    1 year ago

    My biggest take away was:

    Ableism is not a list of bad words. Language is one tool of an oppressive system. Being aware of language – for those of us who have the privilege of being able to change our language – can help us understand how pervasive ableism is. Ableism is systematic, institutional devaluing of bodies and minds deemed deviant, abnormal, defective, subhuman, less than. Ableism is violence.

    So the language itself isn’t ableist, technically, according to this, but abilism is when the person using the language thinks of the negative stereotypes associated and uses that to justify some shitty position or action.

    So in other words, while lame is acknowledged as a problematic word, it’s not inherently abilist to use it, which is not a takeaway I was expecting to get.

    Let me know if I misread it, but thank you for posting! It was an informative read!

    • eladnarra@beehaw.orgEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      Hm… I’d actually disagree with that conclusion? I think what the author is saying there is that ableism isn’t simply a matter of the words being used. A statement that treats disabled people as subhuman isn’t okay because it avoids using these words - it’s still ableist.

      From the beginning of the article (emphasis mine):

      Note that only some of the words on this page are actually slurs. Many of the words and phrases on this page are not generally considered slurs, and in fact, may not actually be hurtful, upsetting, retraumatizing, or offensive to many disabled people. They are simply considered ableist (the way that referring to a woman as emotionally fragile is sexist, but not a slur).

      Not everyone has the ability to be mindful of how certain language originated in ableism and this reinforces it. But for those of us who can, it’s a good idea to try.

      • FlickOfTheBean@beehaw.orgOPEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        Hmm I wonder if I may have shot past the more straightforward way to parse it.

        I’m coming from a stance where “don’t do it as soon as you know it’s ableist” is voiceless rule, so that significantly colors how I’m interpreting it.

        That response was more me being like “oh wow this is essentially saying ignorance is an excuse for using ableist language” (caveats run amok here like “only when there are no known other words” as well as “strictly only when one isn’t employing a shitty stereotype when referring to whoever they’re referring to”)

        Admittedly, I can see how that is still a less than desirable takeaway, but all I’m trying to say is I 100% agree with what you’ve written.

        Tldr; thank you for the clarification! Full agree and this is mostly just me trying to figure out where some disconnect is