[ SECRET POST #4751 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4751 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 17 secrets from Secret Submission Post #680.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Genuine questions, because I've been wondering

[(Anonymous)]

I would consider it very clearly ableist, to be honest. I just don't agree that it's been used more about horses and arguments than about people - I just don't think it's true. I don't think there's really an argument where you can say it's not ableist.

That said, it's not the kind of thing that I would really make a federal case over - I try to avoid using it myself, but I think certain forms of ableism are so deeply embedded in the language that there's not a lot of use to trying to actively socially condemn them. I'm sure some people would yell at me, but I just think it's a matter of degree, I guess.

Re: Genuine questions, because I've been wondering

[(Anonymous)]

Nah, I'm with ayrt. It's almost entirely used as slang these days, and when I have seen it used with it's original meaning it's almost always been about animal.

I actually once asked my friend who is in a wheelchair if it bothered her that I used the word, and she said, "No, I mean it's mainly about horses not people anyway."

If it is ablist I'd say it ablist the same way words like crazy, insane, and bonkers are ablist. Which is to say, theyre slang, used as slang, and who gives a shit.

Re: Genuine questions, because I've been wondering

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

Well, I do think "crazy" and "insane" are also pretty clearly ableist, actually. I also think that saying that they're slang and who gives a shit is still a reasonable position to take, because of how they work in the language. But I just don't see how you can say that ableism is a thing, and say that they're not ableist.

Re: Genuine questions, because I've been wondering

[(Anonymous)]

Ableist: "They caught some crazy person trying to jump off a bridge."
Not ableist: "You want me to finish all this work in one day? Are you crazy?!"
Not ableist: "I'm so tired. Work was crazy today."

Ableist: "He has to use a wheelchair because he's lame."
Not ableist: "That movie was so lame."
Not ableist: "You actually liked that movie? You're so lame."

Re: Genuine questions, because I've been wondering

[(Anonymous)]

DA

The second example isn't what I would call ableist since the definition of lame is an injury to the legs. Using it in it's defined purpose is just using the word correctly, since there there isn't any misunderstanding or discrimination associated with the sentence.

Re: Genuine questions, because I've been wondering

[(Anonymous)]

I don't understand what definition of "ableist" this is really based on.

Re: Genuine questions, because I've been wondering

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I'm still mad they changed psychoshipping to trashshipping because it was offensive. It's completely off topic, but both the characters were pretty legitimately deranged so I didn't see any reason for it even if they did take it literally as opposed to slang.

Re: Genuine questions, because I've been wondering

[(Anonymous)]

I don't know what that is.

But just in general, the fact that something is slang based on a physical or mental disability, rather than a literal reference to it, doesn't mean it can't be ableist. Again, I'm not saying we necessarily need to make a federal case out of every single thing, either.