The question is not whether every insult is aimed at the neurodivergent, it is whether we accept that our language, carelessly or maliciously deployed, reinforces a world where those already struggling are further ground beneath contempt.
You assert that policing language is futile, that insults are a “basic part of human language,”. This is the refuge of those who mistake tradition for truth. If language is merely a tool, then let us ask: what does it build? Does it foster understanding, or does it erect walls? Does it invite reflection, or does it demand submission?
You say, “It literally helps nothing even if you manage to ban these words.” But who, pray tell, is asking for bans? I am not advocating for the eradication of words, I am advocating for the examination of their purpose. You are correct that words are ever shifting and changing. Sever the verbal head of one hydra and witness as two new ones emerge. This is precisely the reason for my conviction.
“100% policing language”? It is 100% asking for accountability. If you insist on wielding words as weapons, at least own the carnage. But do not pretend that this reflects anything but a commitment to a cruel world.
Hrm so I searched around that site a bit, and I genuinely cannot find them ever discussing that. Maybe it’s in some of the videos (a very poor choice of design for something that supposedly is about more inclusive communication) but mostly it seems to be seminares and workshops.
But just to ask the general question, I still need to make a negative assessment, yes? I still say “worst”, not “++ungood”. So I would also call something “stupid”, not “unsmart”?
oreoreore@lemy.lol 1 month ago
The question is not whether every insult is aimed at the neurodivergent, it is whether we accept that our language, carelessly or maliciously deployed, reinforces a world where those already struggling are further ground beneath contempt.
You assert that policing language is futile, that insults are a “basic part of human language,”. This is the refuge of those who mistake tradition for truth. If language is merely a tool, then let us ask: what does it build? Does it foster understanding, or does it erect walls? Does it invite reflection, or does it demand submission?
You say, “It literally helps nothing even if you manage to ban these words.” But who, pray tell, is asking for bans? I am not advocating for the eradication of words, I am advocating for the examination of their purpose. You are correct that words are ever shifting and changing. Sever the verbal head of one hydra and witness as two new ones emerge. This is precisely the reason for my conviction.
“100% policing language”? It is 100% asking for accountability. If you insist on wielding words as weapons, at least own the carnage. But do not pretend that this reflects anything but a commitment to a cruel world.
Carighan@piefed.world 1 month ago
This begs the question how I’d negatively assert outcomes and efforts if I am not to use negative language to describe it lest it’d be cruel.
oreoreore@lemy.lol 1 month ago
You may communicate without violence.
www.cnvc.org
Carighan@piefed.world 1 month ago
Hrm so I searched around that site a bit, and I genuinely cannot find them ever discussing that. Maybe it’s in some of the videos (a very poor choice of design for something that supposedly is about more inclusive communication) but mostly it seems to be seminares and workshops.
But just to ask the general question, I still need to make a negative assessment, yes? I still say “worst”, not “++ungood”. So I would also call something “stupid”, not “unsmart”?