I had previously passed by (one of the very early posts was linked in an aggregator, I believe), but closed the tab immediately out of a pretty negative visceral reaction to the name.
I can understand quite easily that you have not come across anyone in a limited circle who found the name offensive. There aren't that many visible PWDs (people/person with disabilities) on the internet. Since the only thing you see of me, for example, are the words I'm typing right now, and you can't see into my brain, nor see me walk, nor see the way I occasionally hold my left hand. You can't really know that I'm a person with a disability. I saw controversy about this comm's name left and right, but hey, I get around in the disability activist blogosphere. Let me ask you sincerely: how many of your friends have disabilities?
If, to draw a comparison that is somewhat lacking, a white person writes a novel about PoCs and then asks hir friends, all of whom are maybe white, whether there is anything racist about it, ze might not get an accurate representation of the truth out of that sample. One step further is saying: But my friend [who is a PoC/PWD] said ze wasn't offended! Why are you?
Furthermore: Being offended is not the same as being hurt. I was slightly offended. I was disappointed, but resigned. Kind of "Eh, not gonna needlessly surround myself with carelessly ableist people."
I'm pretty sure you meant "spastic" in the way it is usually used in fandom, as being mentally and/or physically excited, insofar as that it's uncontrollable. The problem for many is that
1) Cerebral palsy, the condition from which the term stems (well technically the Greek σπαστικός, which goes further back itself, I digress), is a very serious medical condition.
2) Spastic or spaz are meant to connote something negative, usually things such as clumsy or inept.
To quote from Wikipedia: Most Americans were surprised when they learned about the controversy. In fact, at least one American dictionary (Merriam Webster's) makes no reference to cerebral palsy in its definition or word origins. It simply defines "spaz" as a shortening of the word "spastic" and "one who is inept".
The thing is: we don't want to be your go-to demographic for terms to use with regard to things that suck. To quote Mandolin over at Alas, a Blog: But people’s constant defenses of I! Should! Be! Able! To! Use! The! Word! Lame! kept coming thick, fast, and with ever-more-desperate indignation. [...] But a lot of the arguers [...] just really, really, really wanted to be able to use the word lame. It’s fun, after all. And colorful. And also ACCURATE!
It’s not okay to call a coward a pussy, or a bad thing gay, they argue, because there’s nothing bad about having a vagina or being homosexual. But there IS something bad about not being mobile! In fact, it’s no fun at all, just totally miserable. All other things held equal, isn’t it better to be not-lame than lame? [Explanation of how having "less" functional legs is not as good as having functional, "normal" legs.] But even accepting that impairment to mobility is itself a sucky thing, MAYBE DISABLED PEOPLE DO NOT APPRECIATE BEING THE CULTURAL GO-TO FOR THINGS THAT SUCK.
And maybe — since people have been historically all-too-willing to relieve disabled people of the burden of having to live through all that suckiness — just maybe disability activists know what the fuck they’re talking about when they say that the constant condensation of visible disability with “suckiness” as a metaphorical cultural touchstone has real, concrete, and evil ramifications on the lives of people with disabilities.
Just maybe.
I'm not trying to shut down discussion. I'm in fact openly asking for it.
no subject
I had previously passed by (one of the very early posts was linked in an aggregator, I believe), but closed the tab immediately out of a pretty negative visceral reaction to the name.
I can understand quite easily that you have not come across anyone in a limited circle who found the name offensive. There aren't that many visible PWDs (people/person with disabilities) on the internet.
Since the only thing you see of me, for example, are the words I'm typing right now, and you can't see into my brain, nor see me walk, nor see the way I occasionally hold my left hand. You can't really know that I'm a person with a disability.
I saw controversy about this comm's name left and right, but hey, I get around in the disability activist blogosphere.
Let me ask you sincerely: how many of your friends have disabilities?
If, to draw a comparison that is somewhat lacking, a white person writes a novel about PoCs and then asks hir friends, all of whom are maybe white, whether there is anything racist about it, ze might not get an accurate representation of the truth out of that sample.
One step further is saying: But my friend [who is a PoC/PWD] said ze wasn't offended! Why are you?
Furthermore: Being offended is not the same as being hurt. I was slightly offended. I was disappointed, but resigned. Kind of "Eh, not gonna needlessly surround myself with carelessly ableist people."
I'm pretty sure you meant "spastic" in the way it is usually used in fandom, as being mentally and/or physically excited, insofar as that it's uncontrollable.
The problem for many is that
1) Cerebral palsy, the condition from which the term stems (well technically the Greek σπαστικός, which goes further back itself, I digress), is a very serious medical condition.
2) Spastic or spaz are meant to connote something negative, usually things such as clumsy or inept.
To quote from Wikipedia:
Most Americans were surprised when they learned about the controversy. In fact, at least one American dictionary (Merriam Webster's) makes no reference to cerebral palsy in its definition or word origins. It simply defines "spaz" as a shortening of the word "spastic" and "one who is inept".
The thing is: we don't want to be your go-to demographic for terms to use with regard to things that suck.
To quote Mandolin over at Alas, a Blog:
But people’s constant defenses of I! Should! Be! Able! To! Use! The! Word! Lame! kept coming thick, fast, and with ever-more-desperate indignation.
[...]
But a lot of the arguers [...] just really, really, really wanted to be able to use the word lame. It’s fun, after all. And colorful. And also ACCURATE!
It’s not okay to call a coward a pussy, or a bad thing gay, they argue, because there’s nothing bad about having a vagina or being homosexual. But there IS something bad about not being mobile! In fact, it’s no fun at all, just totally miserable. All other things held equal, isn’t it better to be not-lame than lame?
[Explanation of how having "less" functional legs is not as good as having functional, "normal" legs.]
But even accepting that impairment to mobility is itself a sucky thing, MAYBE DISABLED PEOPLE DO NOT APPRECIATE BEING THE CULTURAL GO-TO FOR THINGS THAT SUCK.
And maybe — since people have been historically all-too-willing to relieve disabled people of the burden of having to live through all that suckiness — just maybe disability activists know what the fuck they’re talking about when they say that the constant condensation of visible disability with “suckiness” as a metaphorical cultural touchstone has real, concrete, and evil ramifications on the lives of people with disabilities.
Just maybe.
I'm not trying to shut down discussion. I'm in fact openly asking for it.