One of the few productive things that came out of the recent kerfufle about ableism was a useful discussion of where we should draw the line between what seem like acceptable uses of terms like "blind review", on the one hand, and obviously offensive terms like "spaz," on the other. And if we can find that line, why is the line where we think it is?
I can think of three factors that might go into such a decision:
1. One is whether the term is being used pejoritively. So, calling an argument lame is bad because I am disparaging the argument. Saying "Justice is blind" is ok, because this is a positive characteristic of justice. (The first example was given by Keith DeRose on facebook in response to Eric S's proposal along these lines. The second was Mohan M's in a comment in a thread here.)
2. A second is whether the term has a non-metaphorical use that is not related to disability. I don't think the word "blind" is first and foremost a word for a disability. It is a word for being obscured from sight. Blindfold is not referencing a disability at all. The disability "blindness" is only one source of blinding. So, on this view, it's ok to say that someone is blind to important considerations.
3. A third thing we might cite is a long history of detachment. Calling an idea "crazy" might seem ok to you because it has referred to a colloquial category for so long in the absense of referring to a clinical condition.
What do people think? Are any or all of these principled reasons one could use to distinguish offensive terms from acceptable ones?
Recent Comments