[ SECRET POST #2377 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2377 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 071 secrets from Secret Submission Post #340.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: "Ableist language"?

[intrigueing]

Because of a fundamental misunderstanding of what "stupid" implies. "Stupid" implies that the person acting stupidly could have done better, and yet behaved in an incredibly stupid manner instead.

Someone who has an actual mental disability would not be called stupid, because them making a more reasonable choice isn't something they could have done if they just decided to care/think about/pay more attention to it.

If you call a mentally disabled person stupid, that's offensive, because you're implying they should have magically been able to act differently. If you call someone with no mental disabilities stupid, you're just insulting their ignorance/poor judgement/lazy thinking/lack of forethought.

But some people decide that they'd like to make sure that no one can ever be insulted or judged for behaving in a colossally ill-advised manner, even if they DO have the mental faculty to behave more reasonably.

Re: "Ableist language"?

[(Anonymous)]

If you call a mentally disabled person stupid, that's offensive, because you're implying they should have magically been able to act differently.

Mentally disabled person (and not bothered by 'stupid' except in specific contects) here- how can you be sure the person you're calling stupid isn't disabled? Outside of Down syndrome and a few other things you can't really tell by looking.

Re: "Ableist language"?

[chardmonster]

How can you tell they're not mentally disabled?

How can you tell they're not physically disabled?

How can you tell they're not depressed?

How can you tell they're not sick?

How can you tell they're not just upset?

How can you tell they want to talk to you?

How can you tell they are enjoying the party?

Re: "Ableist language"?

[(Anonymous)]

well we know how to tell when someone is desperate for attention

Re: "Ableist language"?

[intrigueing]

IMO, what makes this particular term offensive is whether or not the say-er knows. If you call someone stupid who you know is mentally disabled, that's kinda douchey. If you call someone stupid who is mentally disabled but you didn't know it, IMO, just apologize if you do find out, but if you can't tell they're mentally disabled from the get-go...well, no offense, but I don't really think it's a huge deal? Stupid isn't the worst thing you can call someone. I mean, a stupid action is a stupid action regardless, it's just that it could be mean-spirited to say it if you know the person who did it has a mental disability. But I may not have the right perspective here, so feel free to argue with this opinion.

But this kind of just strengthens my opinion that the word "stupid" is kind of jerky and pointless if you're describing a person wholesale, disabled or not. I find that "stupid" is a much more useful descriptor when you're referring to actions or behaviors.

If I may ask -- what contexts do you find the word bothersome? Just curious to know about various people's perspectives on these kinds of things.