"no more hidin' in the old day"

[mcity]

Recently, I was informed by the Internet that using the word "lame" is ableist. I hadn't thought about it before, but I can see how it could be so. I thanked the person who informed me, and made the mistake of Googling.

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/04/30/blogging-against-disablism-day-addressing-ableist-language/

In some ways, I think that our community has transitioned to non-ableist language relatively well. “Retarded” and “lame” are insults I very rarely see in our comment section, anymore; when they do appear, they’re usually from new commenters or trolls. It took a period of quite a few months, a lot of speaking out by moderators and commenters alike, and undoubtedly and sadly much harm done to readers with disabilities to get to that place. But I’m happy and proud to see that we’re there, now.

Well, that makes se-

But other ableist language is an issue. And while not the only offenders, the terms I want to focus on are the ones I see the most frequently appear in our comment section: “crazy,” “insane,” and other similar terms that use language commonly associated with mental illness to indicate irrationality, unbelievability, ludicrousness, hilarious ignorance, and/or immorality.

...

These terms are a problem. They are terms that have been used to disparage people with mental illnesses for a very long time, to discredit them, to abuse them, and to protect those who abuse them. They are terms that are continually used in this way today. They are terms that, using their broadest definitions, could be used against me — someone who has struggled with depression more on than off since about age 13, has some PTSD issues, and probably has some other unspecified anxiety disorder. They are terms that, used very narrowly, are still used against good friends, some of the greatest writers I know, and folks who, whatever and whoever else they are, are still people. (For the record, words being reclaimed and used as self-identifiers are a VERY different matter.)

I'm confused. "Crazy" carries the meaning of "someone whose mental processes do not work in the same way as most people". This is not pejorative language. This is the definition. And while it does carry negative connotations, and shouldn't be used in such a fashion, what about using it to refer to your friend who wants to do ten shots at a kegger and drive home? What if your business partner thinks that investing in tiddlywinks futures is a good idea?

I've never really felt comfortable with the trend of declaring certain types of language offensive. There seems to be a double standard; as a black man, I'm apparently entitled to call other members of my race "niggers", while a white man cannot. Similarly, I can't use the word "faggot" or "queer", but Perez Hilton can. (Not that I'd want to use any of those words.) "Reclaiming" them doesn't work either, since every time the Appropriate Group uses them, people are reminded of what the old meaning used to be. And fairly often the new meaning isn't even that different in the first place.

It seems way too much like busywork. You're focusing on the symptoms rather than the cause, and sometimes they're not even real symptoms. Don't change the meaning of the word, change what it defines. Mentally disturbed people should be helped, not discriminated against. Changing the use of the word is pointless if the people it refers to are still being disadvantaged. Someone will just come up with a new pejorative. We've got plenty of words to spare.

I kinda feel sorry for cisgendered heterosexual first-world middle- or upper-class White men.