the euphemism treadmill is a description of linguistic patterns, not a get out of rule free card
the euphemism treadmill is a description of linguistic patterns, not a get out of rule free card
Using ableist language as insults is always bad, even if the words seem innocuous. Some may reference the "euphemism treadmill" to try to justify their behavior, but it's crucial to understand that the treadmill is merely a linguistic observation. It does not exist to normalize ableist behavior.
what is the euphemism treadmill for those who dont want to google
You're viewing part of a thread.
Ah, we have a difference in terms here.
Acknowledging intelligence as a positive quality
is never ableist.
Acknowledging intelligence as a
positivequalitycan be ableist, depending on what values are being cast.
I don't understand what you're saying here. Acknowledging intelligence as a positive quality is acknowledging intelligence as a quality.
It’s about how intelligence is framed in relation to others and whether it’s used to dismiss people who might not fit those standards.
So it's your opinion that the upholding of standards that cannot be met by some individuals by inherent lack of capacity is unacceptable?
Acknowledging intelligence as a positive quality is acknowledging intelligence as a quality.
Here’s an example where it’s not: “Of course you got in, you [are(n’t) Asian/were in the gifted program/have ASD].”
These examples are rare bifecta of ✅ acknowledging intelligence as a positive quality ✅ casting value judgement on those who do or do not fit that quality
I don't see how that doesn't acknowledge intelligence as a quality.
Like, I'm not trying to play this off as some kind of rebuttal, I'm just genuinely not understanding what's being said.
casting value judgement on those who do or do not fit that quality
But all acknowledgements of intelligence as a positive quality necessarily carry an implicit value judgement of those who lack that positive quality.
But all acknowledgements of intelligence as a positive quality necessarily carry an implicit value judgement of those who lack that positive quality.
Maybe for you, but not for me. I can congratulate the Olympic gold medalist for her achievement without having any repressive or denigrating judgment toward all the other competitors. Can’t you? The value judgement I express in that scenario is, at worst, neutral.
I can congratulate the Olympic gold medalist for her achievement without having any repressive or denigrating judgment toward all the other competitors. Can’t you? The value judgement I express in that scenario is, at worst, neutral.
Tell me, if someone has a positive quality, and another lacks that quality, the difference between them is:
A. Positive
B. Neutral
C. Negative
?
I don’t understand your question I’m sorry. But can’t you congratulate the medalist without doing judgement on the non-medalists?
Any congratulations of the medalists necessarily implies that they have done better than the non-medalists. While the intent is not to denigrate, it is, implicitly, denigration of the results, whether deserved or undeserved, of the non-medalists. Any positive judgement necessarily creates a vacuum of negative judgement for those who do not meet it, and unless you regard all things as value-indistinguishable, such positive judgements are inevitably made.
You perceive one value scale:
- better/worse
I perceive two entirely separate, non-causal scales.
- Good at back handsprings/bad at back handsprings
- greater in value or explicit worth/lesser in value or explicit worth
That implies that you put no valuation on back handsprings, even in the context of the Olympics. Which would make any praise of it very empty.
You continue here to operate on a single-value system, where I find it trivial to embrace multiple variables. My evaluation of every single person to exist cannot be charted as a single value on a single sliding scale from 0-100.
I value back handsprings highly, but my evaluation of a person’s handspring performance has no bearing on my overall evaluation of them as a person, whether they are valuable, deserving of respect or rights. Those scales are utterly unlinked.
It’s okay that you don’t, but can you at least try to imagine how one might operate this way?
You continue here to operate on a single-value system, where I find it trivial to embrace multiple variables.
It's quite the opposite. You seem determined to deny that there is any axis of value on which you denigrate someone, as though any valuation of a person that is unequal to another is some kind of sin, that there's only one value that people are judged by, and to decrease that value is to denigrate their basic human existence.
I value back handsprings highly, but my evaluation of a person’s handspring performance has no bearing on my overall evaluation of them as a person, whether they are valuable, deserving of respect or rights. Those scales are utterly unlinked.
Who said anything about being deserving or undeserving of rights?