Don’t you call me a basket case
Thanks to latsot we can have hours of fun picking apart Stanford’s ElimiNation of HarmFul LangUage InItIaTive, which is “a multi-phase, multi-year project to address harmful language in IT at Stanford.” I guess all the other bits of Stanford will go right on having harmful language.
It’s not that I don’t think there is such a thing as harmful language (although I wouldn’t use the word “harmful” to characterize it). It’s that…oh well, you’ll see.
At the end of the intro to the thingy on harmful language there’s a WARNING all in bold that the language ahead is…harmful. Or offensive. It fails to warn that some of it could be both. Proceed at your own pace, it says. Race ya!
So. Clearly it’s alphabetical. It starts with Ableist. I know, I know, I’m not supposed to call stupid ideologies “stupid.” But the EHLI has a whole long list of words; we could spend days just on that. Everything Not Permitted Is Forbidden. Make a note of it.
It’s in three columns: instead of; consider using; context.
Item one: instead of “addict” consider using “person with a substance use disorder”. Context (by which they apparently mean “why,” or “why the fuck”): “Using person-first language helps to not define people by just one of their characteristics.”
Why that’s not at all bureaucratic or obscurantist.
I get what they’re trying for, I think. Calling people drunks or junkies or addicts is dismissive. On the other hand, “addicts” is a good deal more neutral and clinical than junkies or drunks, and a blathery circumlocution might not be an ideal substitute. It’s also way more blunt, and sometimes bluntness is exactly what an addict needs. Addiction goes hand in hand with denial, so periphrasis is not always helpful.
Then we can’t use “addicted” figuratively because that trivializes blah blah blah.
But fortunately with the next one they lighten the mood.
Instead of “basket case” consider using “nervous” because “Originally referred to one who has lost all four limbs and therefore needed to be carried around in a basket.”
How is that a reason to use “nervous” instead?!?!
This is going to be hours and hours and hours of fun.
Oh, yes, I remember that classic Patsy Cline song “Surprising”! (“Surprising/Surprising for feeling so lonely…”.)
Also, we were told a while back that we could no longer have “brown bags”, because of the association with “brown bag parties”. Instead we have “lunch and learns”. (Never mind that the origin is different, and refers to bringing your lunch to the meeting in a brown paper bag.)
Wow. This is really insane, with complaints that paraplegic and quadriplegic are “.. implying that people with disabilities are not capable”. Isn’t that their reality? Does it really benefit them to pretend they could walk if they wanted? They don’t like “confined to a wheelchair” either, suggesting “person who uses a wheelchair”, but not everyone who uses a wheelchair is confined to it. Some people who use a wheelchair have the ability to stand and walk short distances. Others don’t. In general, I prefer language that is specific and accurately reflects reality.
So what about addictions that aren’t substance-abuse disorders, like, I dunno, gambling addiction? Which seem to involve the same neural mechanisms or at least behavior patterns as drug addiction. Is it still okay to say “adrenaline junkie”?
No, you HAVE to say “adrenaline substance abuse disorder haver.” No exceptions!
As a crippled old women who isn’t confined to a wheelchair, but uses one if I have to walk more than a few steps (because I prefer to avoid unbearable pain and nasty falls), and who spends most of the rest of my time in bed (because, until I get a better wheelchair, it’s the only place where I can recline and raise my legs), I find the ‘confined to’ phrase ludicrous. Since I can transfer from my bed to my wheelchair, and back; and from my wheelchair to and from the toilet, the shower, and my vehicle, I don’t regard myself as ‘confined to’ anything.
It’s just wheelchairs and beds which get that weird description.
I have never been described as being ‘confined to’ my reading glasses, or my sticks. Are people with hearing difficulties ever described as being ‘confined to’ their hearing aids?
I was ‘confined to’ home for fourteen months by the CoViD pandemic, until I was vaccinated. I’ll accept that usage, because I was unable to leave. But all other tools are just that; tools. We use tools in order to be able to do things which able-bodied people can do unaided. That doesn’t mean that we’re ‘confined to’ them!
Yes, there are people who have to use their wheelchair whenever they are out if bed, and cannot get out to stand, even briefly. They likely (although not necessarily) need help with transferring to a toilet. But they get into bed when it’s time to go to sleep.
That said, I don’t have a problem with people who use that phrase. It’s been around for a very long time, and few people have had any reason to reflect on it. I also understand that many people have a problem with the word ‘cripple’, although I don’t.
I only have a problem with words which are said in a way which is intended to hurt. I’ll only nitpick phrases when it’s important for clarity. If I hear a shop assistant asking a colleague to help ‘the lady confined to a wheelchair’ I won’t be bothered. Far too many people grew up with that being the only way to describe a wheelchair user, and have never heard any other way to say it. It’s almost a single word, confinedtoawheelchair.
When you substitute every word for five or six, language becomes unwieldy (not sure if unwieldy is allowed or not). If you must make language less blunt (and in some cases, that’s fine, but not in everything), couldn’t you at least come up with a new word that doesn’t sound like the old word but doesn’t require such circumlocution?
For instance, instead of “crazy”, we could say “zogborst”, which defined means “person with a different way of thinking” or whatever the acceptable phrase is.
Right now, it’s a mess to try to talk to anyone who knows all the “correct” things to say.
The site is glitchy for me today!
As I was attempting to type:
I only have a problem with words which are said in a way which is intended to hurt. I’ll only nitpick phrases when it’s important for clarity. If I hear a shop assistant asking a colleague to help ‘the lady confined to a wheelchair’ I won’t be bothered. Far too many people grew up with that being the only way to describe a wheelchair user, and have never heard any other way to say it. It’s almost a single word, confinedtoawheelchair.
I think the fuss about “crazy” is actually counterproductive.
We need a word to describe “irrational, foolish ideas and/or behavior.” “Crazy” has a long usage in that sense, so it’s going to be really hard to drive it out of usage unless there’s a good alternative, and with all due respect to iknklast, “zogborst” isn’t likely to catch on. So it’s a bit of a hopeless cause to begin with.
The objection seems to be “well, people equate ‘crazy’ with ‘has mental health issues,’ and it’s bad to cast aspersions on people with mental health issues because mostly they are not irrational or foolish or dangerous.” Seems to me that activists are better off trying to break the connection between “has mental health issues” and “crazy” (which I think has largely been accomplished) than by jumping up and down and shouting “HEY, YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT US!” every time someone says “crazy.”
Blathery circumlocutions are, at least, consistent with the general tendency in languages for a correlation between length and politeness. That is, the more polite way to say something is usually the longer way.
Added!
[…] a comment by tigger_the_wing on Don’t you call me a basket […]
Also, there’s a pretty good Warren Zevon song called “Basket Case.”
A pretty good Green Day song by the same name, too. (If you like pop punk, that is.)
Other songs we need to scrub from the archives in order to be sensitive:
This ideology will celebrate with rhythmlessly snapping fingers the day the music dies.
They just don’t get the futility of it all. If words like stupid or crazy were somehow erased from our memories, we would simply coin them again. They’d sound different, but the meaning would be there because it is useful to have words with those meanings.
Screechy, yeah, the freak-out around “crazy” is…well, crazy. I have mental health issues; I am not insane. I understand that, and when someone uses the word “crazy” about someone else I do not feel like it is stigmitizing me…because I am not crazy, I am depressed.
I have been castigated for using the word “anorexia”, and when used in conjunction with the phrase “too skinny”, screamed at. Anorexia is a real disease, and it causes real problems. If we can’t talk about it, we can’t do anything to cure it.
But if you’re specifically referring to someone’s addiction there’s no significant difference between that and “addict.” I can understand avoiding “I’ll serve the addict in booth 10 his chicken dinner when cook puts it up” because it’s not likely to be relevant.
Interesting though that the tender-hearted therapists seem to want to verbally avoid defining someone as addicted when the 12 Step Program they probably recommend is hell-bent on teaching its clients that once you’re an addict you STAY an addict, regardless of whether you actually manage to kick the habit.
I’m partial to “nutter”, but it isn’t really an adjective. Likewise using words like “homeless ” should be perfectly fine…
Really, no urge to shout the n-word in the street or anything but I’m done using Approved Language; I’ll call a spade a spade and any word I use to insult the intelligence of a moron will be considered on limits.
Well spotted! I didn’t think of that.
iknklst: you can be healthy at any size! there are people who encourage self starvation on line.
I found the forbidding of ‘blind’ as in ‘blind study’ especially zogborst.
As a disabled person and wheelchair user I find that words don’t matter nearly so much as attitude. Blind people know they’re blind and if I ever forget I can’t walk it’s going to hurt when my face bounces off the deck. We’re generally not shy about our disabilities or embarrassed about them. We’ll joke about them and are happy for others to do the same providing, as tigger said, the intent is humour rather than abuse. My friend Henrietta, who some of you might know from Twitter, is paralysed from the chest down and has the biggest collection of unfortunate wheelchair accident gifs I’ve ever seen. She finds them hilarious. She’s right, they are. It’s a mixture of “yeah… done that” and “he totally deserved it”.
Those I’ve spoken to about this agree that we’d much rather people be straighforward than mangle language without ever actually consulting us. It feels performative and it makes me personally feel as though I’m expected to be grateful.
A couple of illustrations about attitude:
I’m asked very often why I’m in a wheelchair. I don’t mind this at all and I don’t think it’s rude… providing I’m asked by someone I’m already having a conversation with. It’s natural to be curious and frankly it gives me something to talk about. My conversational skills are not the best. But if someone marches up and asks me out of the blue, it no longer feels like a matter of curiosity. It feels threatening. It happens more than you might expect. I’m also asked this quite a lot by people I’m arguing with on Twitter. There, the intent is very clearly malign and it’s definitely rude.
But a lot of people are shocked when someone asks me the question in good faith. They think it’s a topic that should be avoided, for some reason. Who’s that helping, exactly? Me or them? I’d much rather they just ask than pretend I’m not very obviously in a wheelchair and they’re very obviously wondering why.
I’m also asked quite a lot if I need help going up slopes and curbs. It’s easy to see in most cases that the intent is a genuine desire to help someone who might struggle and I always decline politely and warmly. These people are not being patronising, they’re going out of their way to offer help because of simple, honest empathy. It’s not offensive at all.
It is offensive when people grab the back of my chair and push me up the slope without warning or permission. Again, this happens a lot more often than you’d think. It happened when I was doing the Great North Run, for goodness sake! Would anyone just pick up another runner and carry them for a bit, all the time grinning to their friends? It happened in London a couple of weeks ago and when I reacted with shock and some anger, the man was furious at me since he was “only trying to help”.
Was he, though? Was he really? Or was it a performance? His reaction suggests the latter. I don’t like being used as a prop. And if you hang your bag on the back of my chair in the tube or at a bus stop so you don’t have to carry it (yep, happens surprisingly often too) then you deserve the elbow that is about to make contact with your testicles.
So don’t walk on eggshells around us. Make a joke about us rolling our chairs over eggshells, if you like. Just don’t joke about our being unable to walk on eggshells, unless you know us quite well. And don’t alter language on our behalf, it just mildly embarrasses us.
I understand the need for somewhat performative language in many areas. It’s a sign that people are paying attention to issues without having to address them explicitly and personally. It’s a signal that everyone has understood the tone a conversation will take and the boundaries that have been set. And it’s an agreement that some words and phrases are unacceptable for cultural or historical reasons. It’s when people go out of their way to invent offence on behalf of other people that we get idiocy like the ‘blind’ example above.
Wait, I’m probably not allowed to say “idiocy”, am I?
iknklast. I was widely castigated at We Hunted The Mammoth a few years ago for using “crazy”. I now see it as a sign that the site was beginning to purity-spiral its way down the plughole.
Language needs to be colourful and fun to use. We don’t want to offend people if we can help it, but the main purpose that tortured language and Forbidden Words seems to serve is to save people from having to use thought and judgement before they speak. I’d rather they just did the latter and kept using (some of) the forbidden words in a thoughtful and entertaining way.
[…] a comment by latsot on Don’t call me a basket […]
Heard on the news recently: “people experiencing homelessness”
Yass it’s a lifestyle choice.