- cross-posted to:
- progressivepolitics
- cross-posted to:
- progressivepolitics
[3 different thumbnails given to you randomly. All have words in yellow text. One says “explaining ableist language” another has “intro to ableist language” and one says “what is ableist language?”. They are all next to the disabled pride flag and on a digital art wooden background with a grey table in the bottom left corner]
You must log in or register to comment.
I kind of like the ad hoc presentation style of the video. The message that it’s trying to deliver is pretty incoherent, though. I just don’t feel like I learned anything beyond one person’s perspective from it
I am one person so idk what you expect lol
what even is “incoherent” about it? It is meant to be the most general overview and touch on each aspect of the topic, not one of your 8 hour video essays 4 people watch and less act on
Fair enough. I appreciate your perspective
I get what the point of the video is and I agree with a lot of it, but the way it’s presented here seems like the person speaking is offended by anyone who doesn’t have some kind of debilitating underlying condition even existing.
I was with them up to the point where they said anyone ever even just being acknowledged for any kind of achievement is somehow ableist and offensive and then the whole thing seems to kind of go further off the rails from there
When commentary itself does not embed its main point within it, it becomes part of the problem it is addressing. The entire point, as far as I can tell, here, is that being careless with words can actually cause others harm. Shifting the narrative to the rewards gained by achievement is where the comment goes astray. It would help me stay focused on the main point of, instead of telling me how praise or for performance is somehow bad, the commentary described the reverse, perhaps helping me to understand a little better, the ways in which the struggle is often overlooked, and the rewards not given in a way that benefits the whole. It is short-sighted to give rewards based on excellence, especially if those rewards are necessary for survival. My abilities will wane over time. Does that make me, then, less deserving of the ability to simply survive? The main point of dehumanizing language still holds, though. It stares us in the face everyday. They are not “HOMELESS people”. They are “people who…(sleep rough, live on the street, have been thrown away by society, etc.)” It is important to remember the humanity, and to start there. We are all born helpless, and die helpless. Everybody, at some point, relies on others. Dismissing those who need help is anti human in its entirety.
The point about achievements is very good imo.
It should be the effort you put in that is rewarded, not the outcome.
You never know how much unseen effort a person puts in every day to just get up, go to school, to work, take part in social interaction, maybe never standing out for their deeda, yet being surrounded by people praising others for visible deeds.
It’s controversial since people equate the amount of work put in with the end product. There is no saying if something great worked at the first try. Yet it promotes focus on externality instead of the much more important internal workings.
I can see how someone, myself included, would feel sad when a very intense piece of work goes unrewarded. Yet I ask myself if it is a relic of our primitive past which could be socialized out like incest and cannibalism. Do we not only yearn for external gratification because we are socialized that way and because others get it as well?
Feel free to disagree. I’m thinking out loud.
