• valentinesmith
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    I mean okay if I read this in good faith I think you are kind of addressing this weirdly.

    You can say something ableist without „meaning to do harm“. It really just is a phrase that has been used in really grotesque fashion in the past and we do live in a context. We might just have a fundamental disagreement on how we think about discourse.

    As you have said you could make the same point without using this exact phrase so I firstly don’t believe that your opinion is suppressed on the topic. Secondly I think as able-bodied people sometimes it just is not our right or place to say that language that has hurt marginalised people can be used by us or redeemed for that matter because we just talk about ourselves.

    Again yes I think you should be empowered to control your life and the end of it. And there are many ways to say this instead of: Id rather die than be (insert marginalised group).

    Maybe as a different minority I can only offer that it just feels icky to me if another group wants to use words that have been used against me because that’s the way they want to express themselves. That’s why I engaged with your question in good faith

    • sudneo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      17 minutes ago

      Look, if the problem is the expression, I don’t care really for it. English is not my first language, I have no need to say this to anybody really, and I have no problem expressing my thought in another way.

      All I care is the semantic and the underlying principle.

      So yeah, I won’t stomp my foot to defend my right to express my thought with that sentence (to be honest, not a fan of policing language this way). I will simply defend my right to express the underlying opinion, in whichever way is acceptable.