Is ableism fine in Epiphanies?
goperryrevs
Shipmate
in The Styx
We’ve had a lot of discussion and awareness on trans people being recognised on the Ship, and how trans people feel reading threads. This led to the creation of Epiphanies.
On the abortion thread, my feeling is that @Colin Smith is repeatedly using ableist language to refer to those with Down’s Syndrome. For example, repeated use of the phrase “Downs sufferers” - ask someone with Down’s if they feel their very existence is suffering. Would we accept talking about “trans sufferers” or those “suffering with homosexuality”? And referring to those with Down’s as not fully healthy. What does that even mean, other than suggesting that those with Down’s are less than human?
Given that this is specifically in Epiphanies, which is supposed to afford extra protection to minorities, I’m not impressed. I’m fine with discussion, debate, and disagreement, heated even. But ableist language should no more be tolerated than racist, sexist or homophobic.
On the abortion thread, my feeling is that @Colin Smith is repeatedly using ableist language to refer to those with Down’s Syndrome. For example, repeated use of the phrase “Downs sufferers” - ask someone with Down’s if they feel their very existence is suffering. Would we accept talking about “trans sufferers” or those “suffering with homosexuality”? And referring to those with Down’s as not fully healthy. What does that even mean, other than suggesting that those with Down’s are less than human?
Given that this is specifically in Epiphanies, which is supposed to afford extra protection to minorities, I’m not impressed. I’m fine with discussion, debate, and disagreement, heated even. But ableist language should no more be tolerated than racist, sexist or homophobic.
Comments
I'm afraid my imagination hits a wall when it comes to imagining myself with a cognitive impairment such as Downs. I can imagine myself suffering an injury that puts me in a wheelchair because it would still be me, albeit in a wheelchair. But since I am in a very real sense how I think then any impairment to my thinking would mean I am no longer me.
I am still very much me. In fact, without my ADHD I wouldn’t be me.
I certainly wouldn’t want to have been born without it.
If you do not understand a hosting command, ask. In Epiphanies, please avoid using language that implies that having any disability makes a person less, whether or not you personally want it.
Impairment in reasoning, remembering, verbal and visual problem solving and organisational ability are not the only ways in which ones mind can be limited and/or different from most people’s .
It is possible for example, to have poor impulse control, or an inability to imagine someone else’s perspective - sometimes referred to as an impairment of theory of mind.
There are myriad other possibilities in which one’s mind may vary from that of most people’s to a noticeable degree.
Anecdata, I know, but on a project with adults with autism (Aspergers through to severe plus learning difficulties), one of the questions was if you could click your fingers and wake up tomorrow without your various conditions, would you make that choice? The vast majority said no, because they wouldn’t be themselves any more.
This very discussion comes up whenever we talk about people with some kind of progressive dementia..
In terms of language, "people with X condition" is usually acceptable. With specific reference to Down syndrome, or other eponymous conditions, the possessive is generally disfavoured (use Down syndrome, not Down's syndrome).
There's a whole language war about whether one should use "person-first language" or not (autistic people vs people with autism). (I mention autism, because although person-first language is in general quite popular, it's generally unpopular among autistic people.)
It's not that I didn't understand your command on the 4th of the month. I simply didn't see it. I wasn't aware of a problem until goperryrevs mentioned me in Is ableism fine in Epiphanies?
I believe that depends on what side of the pond you're on. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/downs-syndrome/
My brother is perfectly able and yet I've barely had reason to speak to him for seven years. However, my late mother is a more apt example as she developed Alzheimer's around eight years ago and once her illness had got to the point where her personality had completely changed and she ceased to recognise those around her I chose to break contact. She died in February and frankly her death did not come too soon. It was particularly horrible as she had long wished to be a happy widow once my miserable father, eleven years her senior, had expired and had in the past asked her children not to allow her to fall into the same state that afflicted her mother.
@Colin Smith - if you were following the thread, you would have seen @Gwai 's host post. That you didn't is ... unfortunate, but the first port of call on being alerted to it is to heed its contents.
You obviously have different views to the majority, if not all of the other posters on that thread - and you have the right to argue your case on Epiphanies. However, your use of certain language in connection with, say, Downs, will cause distress.
On the entirely fair assumption that it's not your purpose to distract from the main thrust of your argument, all that's being asked of you is to use language that the people who have those conditions would use to describe themselves. Where that varies, just try and be respectful to the differences (I'm aware that some groups adopt taboo terms for use amongst themselves, but those outside ought not).
That's it. I think. And thank you for your contributions so far.
Fair enough. Having now seen it I will try to adhere and will avoid reference to anyone suffering from, etcetera. Looking at where Gwai's post occurred I think I simply didn't see it as I was replying to another comment at the time. That said, re-reading Gwai's comment I don't think I have ever in any context said that "other people should die".
That said, before my interlocutor started advocating the right to choose infanticide - I didn’t think that (unfortunately) his views were that far away from the mainstream. I am not sure where the boundary should be for positions that can be advocated on the ship, or whether he really believes this or he has just fallen down a logic trap.
As someone who fits your second category and who has interacted with him on this issue I agree and ISTM that there is something odd about how he presents his opinions. The lack of empathy perhaps as Epiphanies was I thought supposed to be a place where posters were aware that the issues under discussion could be extremely painful for some fellow Shipmates.
I don't wish to upset anyone who has had personal experience of abortion, whether directly or indirectly, or upset anyone who has personal dealings with anyone who has a disability.
That said, abortion is a very divisive issue so perhaps it is not a suitable topic on a forum where posters must take into account the feelings of those who have had direct experience and would be better on a forum where things can be discussed without emotional entanglements.
That means that you are declaring loved ones of many shipmates to be (in your view) less then human, and therefore disposable. And you’ve added that those less than human people aren’t entitled to a say in the matter. I’ve struggled, and I can only describe the view you put forward as distressingly abhorrent and immoral. That you suggest it can be discussed without emotion is, frankly, very disturbing.
Any queries regarding this ruling, please have them here, and not in Epiphanies.
DT
SoF admin
As I said on the abortion thread, given that I should be focusing my time on things that are useful to me rather than amusing myself with subjects that have no relevance to my life this ruling is a good thing.
For now, we'd appreciate that they didn't happen (and thank you, @Colin Smith for your understanding of this particular situation) until we've had discussions both here and backstage. We don't have a specific policy on every contentious issue that might come up, so this might take some time - how other shipmates might feel in discussing these matters in the general, in the specific, and whether there are legal lines we absolutely must not cross (UK law - both England and Wales, and Scottish).
It might be that after some discussion backstage, we close this thread in order to give ourselves space to think, after which we can then re-open for Styx discussion. These are weighty matters and they deserve a considered response.
Abortion is divisive precisely because people have strong feelings on the topic. It's not going to be much of a discussion if it excludes anyone who has had an abortion or might need one in the future or cares about anyone in those categories. Any discussion that excludes "emotional entanglements" is so divorced from human reality as to be useless.
As they say, "Nothing about us without us."
I wouldn't want to exclude anyone from the discussion. At the same time I would prefer to discuss a subject objectively and without worrying about other people's feelings all the time.
Then you don't want to discuss it in Epiphanies, which explicitly is about discussing topics that cannot be discussed objectively, and whose board remit requires worrying about other people's feelings all the time.
I hadn't realised that. Having been absent for a while I just saw the subject and went at it. I haven't processed the niceties of each forum beyond swearing and personal attacks okay in Hell and niceness required in Heaven and given how baldly the subject was stated I assumed it was for general discussion as a social/individual rights issue.
Oddly enough, as I see it there is a conflict between exercising freedom of choice and worrying about other people's feelings but hey-ho.
You may find what you're looking for on the planet Vulcan.
Seriously, humans are emotional critters first and foremost and it's unlikely they will turn that off just to suit you. A basic principle in customer service is that you have to acknowledge the customer's emotions before you can even start trying to figure out what the problem is.
Being able to figure out how other people feel is actually one of our most valuable survival traits. And being able to change how they feel? That's where political power comes from.
But this isn't customer service and I've never seen the point of trying to change someone's mind through discussion. Especially on social media. The best you can hope to do is establish your own position.
Sure, if someone's objection to abortion or wish to see it controlled is based on their own experiences and regrets concerning an abortion, either directly or indirectly, then that needs to be handled delicately and I would have done so had I been made aware that was the case. I also admit that my emotions get raised when I see that abortion is still illegal or very difficult to obtain in some places because I place a very high value on individual choice. Am I able to understand or sympathise with someone who has an emotional reaction to abortions happening at all? Frankly, no. I find it bewildering.
What I suspect underlies my views is a loathing of being dependent on anyone or of being in a position where I am obliged to care for someone. I don't even like being waited on in cafes and restaurants and I wouldn't last a day as a carer.
I have many vessels.
I believe many people invest far too much time and energy worrying about other people's feelings when they could be getting on with what they find enjoyable and rewarding. I'm not keen on self-sacrifice. I accept that is at odds with Christian teaching.
In the real world, in real life. yes. Not so much on internet discussion forums. At the same time sometimes you just have to walk away from situations that you find draining regardless of how others might perceive your actions.
Though I think it's fair to say that I am better than most at putting myself first, regardless of whether one considers that a good or a bad thing.
I find the use of "amusing" in the context of the posts you're referring to very disturbing; that is said well appreciating the many uses of that word.
Totally agree.
Ruth, Styx host
Ok. While you’re discussing it, please can you consider how you’d respond to someone promoting ideas like this, or this, or this, or this, or this.
Because, it seems to me that this, which, let’s not forget is what @Colin Smith is promoting, falls into a similar category as those other evils, and if it was any of those others, my guess is that you’d not be thanking him for his understanding while you discussed them.
I was thanking @Colin Smith for realising (belatedly, but still realising) that Epiphanies has a particular remit, and that his dispassionate discussion was at odds with that. I had no wish to have a stand-up fight with someone who actually agreed with me over the substantive point, so I was simply expressing my gratitude that we'd avoided that.
Any further extrapolations you might like to make as to my sympathy for any of the views you might impute to me are so far wide of the mark as to be heading out of the solar system at escape velocity.