59
the euphemism treadmill is a description of linguistic patterns, not a get out of rule free card
(files.catbox.moe)
Using ableist language as insults is always bad, even if the words seem innocuous. Some may reference the "euphemism treadmill" to try to justify their behavior, but it's crucial to understand that the treadmill is merely a linguistic observation. It does not exist to normalize ableist behavior.
what is the euphemism treadmill for those who dont want to google
Shouldn't this, then, extend to all implications of stupidity in behavior, not just individual words?
Good thought, because yes, this rule applies to a lot of behaviors—insulting someone’s actions or reasoning can sometimes carry ableist implications if we’re not careful. But no, it doesn’t mean all implications of foolishness are inherently ableist. It’s entirely possible to critique someone’s choices, reasoning, or behavior without tying it to assumptions about intelligence or ability. The key is focusing on what they did or said rather than who they are.
For example: “I see you’ve chosen confidence over accuracy again.” This critiques someone’s approach or behavior—being overly confident while wrong—without targeting their intelligence or abilities.
Is it permissible, conversely, to describe things as smart, in a positive sense?
Furthermore, doesn't choosing confidence over accuracy itself imply that reduced accuracy is a bad thing, despite it being something that people with reduced intellectual capacity cannot reasonably avoid?
I can’t think of examples right now, (edit: but thought of some later) but it’s definitely possible to describe something as “smart” in a way that’s ableist—like if it ties someone’s value only to intelligence or reinforces stereotypes about who’s considered “smart.” However, I’m sure the vast majority of ways to describe something as “smart” wouldn’t really be considered ableist and so are “permissible” in my book.
How so? Isn't necessarily acknowledging intelligence as a positive quality imply lack of it is a negative one?
Ah, we have a difference in terms here.
is never ableist.
can be ableist, depending on what values are being cast.
It’s about how intelligence is framed in relation to others and whether it’s used to dismiss people who might not fit those standards.
I don't understand what you're saying here. Acknowledging intelligence as a positive quality is acknowledging intelligence as a quality.
So it's your opinion that the upholding of standards that cannot be met by some individuals by inherent lack of capacity is unacceptable?
Here’s an example where it’s not: “Of course you got in, you [are(n’t) Asian/were in the gifted program/have ASD].”
These examples are rare bifecta of ✅ acknowledging intelligence as a positive quality ✅ casting value judgement on those who do or do not fit that quality
I don't see how that doesn't acknowledge intelligence as a quality.
Like, I'm not trying to play this off as some kind of rebuttal, I'm just genuinely not understanding what's being said.
But all acknowledgements of intelligence as a positive quality necessarily carry an implicit value judgement of those who lack that positive quality.
Maybe for you, but not for me. I can congratulate the Olympic gold medalist for her achievement without having any repressive or denigrating judgment toward all the other competitors. Can’t you? The value judgement I express in that scenario is, at worst, neutral.
Tell me, if someone has a positive quality, and another lacks that quality, the difference between them is:
A. Positive
B. Neutral
C. Negative
?
I don’t understand your question I’m sorry. But can’t you congratulate the medalist without doing judgement on the non-medalists?
Any congratulations of the medalists necessarily implies that they have done better than the non-medalists. While the intent is not to denigrate, it is, implicitly, denigration of the results, whether deserved or undeserved, of the non-medalists. Any positive judgement necessarily creates a vacuum of negative judgement for those who do not meet it, and unless you regard all things as value-indistinguishable, such positive judgements are inevitably made.
You perceive one value scale:
I perceive two entirely separate, non-causal scales.
That implies that you put no valuation on back handsprings, even in the context of the Olympics. Which would make any praise of it very empty.
You continue here to operate on a single-value system, where I find it trivial to embrace multiple variables. My evaluation of every single person to exist cannot be charted as a single value on a single sliding scale from 0-100.
I value back handsprings highly, but my evaluation of a person’s handspring performance has no bearing on my overall evaluation of them as a person, whether they are valuable, deserving of respect or rights. Those scales are utterly unlinked.
It’s okay that you don’t, but can you at least try to imagine how one might operate this way?
It's quite the opposite. You seem determined to deny that there is any axis of value on which you denigrate someone, as though any valuation of a person that is unequal to another is some kind of sin, that there's only one value that people are judged by, and to decrease that value is to denigrate their basic human existence.
Who said anything about being deserving or undeserving of rights?
The people making insults under our analysis. The restriction of disability rights and mistreatment of the differently abled is the end result of ableist behavior and language. If you participate in an insult about mental illness, intentional or not, you are contributing to a system that stigmatizes and perpetuates certain avoidable suffering toward the mentally ill. The same goes for disability of any kind.
no clue what you mean, i never said such a thing.
im seeing the answer was “no.” i fear i cannot explain any more clearly how it is possible for me to value an athlete’s skill without casting shade at any single quality of any other person.
See, but I'm talking about the broader issue that you've reduced these insults to a basic principle in order to extend it to other language, while any such extension of that basic principle results in a worldview that is either entirely incoherent or entirely without merit.
All of this is predicated on the assumption either that none of the things we're talking about are negative things, or that all negative judgements are disallowed; which would also disallow any positive judgements. And as someone who is disabled, with physical and mental ailments, let me assure you that disability is a very negative fucking thing. Which leaves only the latter.
Then I'm afraid you don't understand what valuation is or means, unless the valuation you're talking about is entirely empty of any real meaning and is the praise-equivalent of a participation trophy.
…and yours isn’t? [for the sake of argument i assume that you aren’t a gymnast or esteemed individual in the field either] the meaning of my praise is probably an insignificant drop in the bucket to most gold medalists. the fact that you operate under a different model of value relationships doesn’t make your praise any more significant than mine. the athlete, as the recipient of praise, is the sole determinant of the relevance or emptiness of that valuation. it would be woefully self-absorbed of me to claim i created the value of my congratulations.
Expressions of praise, under ordinary circumstances, are meant as value-judgements. You can say your opinion or mine doesn't matter, but it is still an expression of value - when you praise someone's singing, you are necessarily at the very least comparing them to the bottom-of-the-barrel with a relative positive judgement. If I say "Good singing, Tom!" and what I mean is "But no better than anyone else's", that's not praise of any real sort, and if Tom had any clue that I meant that, it would be a hit to him probably much harder than if I explicitly denigrated his singing. On the other hand, if I say "Good singing, Tom!" and what I mean is "Your singing was better than at least some others", that is a value judgement that, if Tom understands correctly, will likely please him (at least, dependent on how many 'others' I am suggesting he is above-average by) - but is also necessarily a denigration of less-talented singers in the realm of singing relative to him.
And all the other people who are implicitly judged by your praise? They have no relevance? That seems rather contrary to the argument you apply to voiced denigrations.
You express the valuation you feel. That's the purpose of praise and denigration. Or, at least, the purpose that is received; obviously dishonest expressions of valuation are possible to inflate or deflate others, or to burnish a particular reputation.
looking back at your edit im not caught up
No it’s not, I do not accept either option into my predicates, you made that assumption.
I hate to repeat myself but I gave an example of a negative judgement I think is perfectly allowed hours ago.
Plenty of negative judgements are non-ableist and hence “allowed.” Plenty more of positive judgements are non-ableist and hence certainly “allowed.”
RE: the rest of this comment… yeah your points are kind of boiling down to “yeah but thats not how i do it.” which is fine, but im asking you to try to imagine my position;since you are asking for explanations, my explanation is that i do something different that i have absolutely no mental barrier over. when starving i eat my mcdonalds big mac and enjoy it without casting any judgement on any real gourmet or home cooked meals i’ve had. somehow, i do two things at once. neuroplasticity and empathic behavior is crazy potent, just try imagining? otherwise i got nothing else. sorry.
This is honestly a great way of calling someone stupid, but you do realise that it can be very offensive to people with narcissistic personality disorder, right?
Joke aside, what is really stupid about this is the idea of "insulting someone without hurting there feelings", or as you wrote
When honestly insulting someone, there is typically an intent to be hurtful, the idea that you should be careful to "not use language that can offend X group" when doing so, kind of overlooks the whole situation of "insulting" going on
I wrote that sentence you quoted carefully. I did not use the phrase “hurt feelings” intentionally because it’s not what I meant.
I meant “carry ableist impressions,” so I wrote “carry ableist impressions.” Hurting feelings is not a sin. Contributing to a system of ableism that precipitates in mistreatment and curtailed rights for disabled people? Is a category of oppressive behavior.
I will thank you to interrogate my position for what I actually said rather than what you assume I said in the future.