News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The moral case against equity language by eru on Friday March 03, 2023 @06:01AM (#35008070)
Of course, 'disabled' is just the euphemism you grew up with, so it feels neutral enough.

The euphemism treadmill has a long history. At some point cripple used to be the neutral term for many kinds of disabled. It's long been deemed offensive. Similar with idiot or retard.

Give it a few decades, and all of the 'people first language' will perhaps turn into neutral and then offensive, too.

(I am writing the above dispassionately. But given the generation I grew up in, I share your sensibilities about the words. 'Disabled' feels fairly neutral to me as well, and 'idiot' or 'cripple' feel somewhat offensive.

But I recognise that this is just an artifact of exactly when in time I grew up. And old people complaining about shifts in language and culture is an even older trope than the euphemism treadmill.)

Re:The moral case against equity language by cornholio on Friday March 03, 2023 @07:06AM (#35008458)
The definitive resource on the euphemism treadmill, by a member of a previous generation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc
Re:The moral case against equity language by YurgenJurgensen on Friday March 03, 2023 @09:00AM (#35009721)
'Idiot' is a particularly good example of how pointless it all is. "Person of idiocy" is probably still offensive, so 'people-first language' doesn't really do anything.
Re:The moral case against equity language by kodt on Saturday March 04, 2023 @07:48PM (#35026039)
Didn’t most of those terms change because they evolved into common insults? Disabled is not used as a common insult as far as I know. This case feels more like a dictate from “well meaning” groups vs a reaction to evolving use of language.