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
Shouldn’t this, then, extend to all implications of stupidity in behavior, not just individual words?
Good thought, because yes, this rule applies to a lot of behaviors—insulting someone’s actions or reasoning can sometimes carry ableist implications if we’re not careful. But no, it doesn’t mean all implications of foolishness are inherently ableist. It’s entirely possible to critique someone’s choices, reasoning, or behavior without tying it to assumptions about intelligence or ability. The key is focusing on what they did or said rather than who they are.
For example: “I see you’ve chosen confidence over accuracy again.” This critiques someone’s approach or behavior—being overly confident while wrong—without targeting their intelligence or abilities.
Is it permissible, conversely, to describe things as smart, in a positive sense?
Furthermore, doesn’t choosing confidence over accuracy itself imply that reduced accuracy is a bad thing, despite it being something that people with reduced intellectual capacity cannot reasonably avoid?
I can’t think of examples right now, (edit: but thought of some later) but it’s definitely possible to describe something as “smart” in a way that’s ableist—like if it ties someone’s value only to intelligence or reinforces stereotypes about who’s considered “smart.” However, I’m sure the vast majority of ways to describe something as “smart” wouldn’t really be considered ableist and so are “permissible” in my book.
How so? Isn’t necessarily acknowledging intelligence as a positive quality imply lack of it is a negative one?
Ah, we have a difference in terms here.
is never ableist.
can be ableist, depending on what values are being cast.
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.
I don’t understand what you’re saying here. Acknowledging intelligence as a positive quality is acknowledging intelligence as a quality.
So it’s your opinion that the upholding of standards that cannot be met by some individuals by inherent lack of capacity is unacceptable?
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.
But all acknowledgements of intelligence as a positive quality necessarily carry an implicit value judgement of those who lack that positive quality.
This is honestly a great way of calling someone stupid, but you do realise that it can be very offensive to people with narcissistic personality disorder, right?
Joke aside, what is really stupid about this is the idea of “insulting someone without hurting there feelings”, or as you wrote
When honestly insulting someone, there is typically an intent to be hurtful, the idea that you should be careful to “not use language that can offend X group” when doing so, kind of overlooks the whole situation of “insulting” going on
I wrote that sentence you quoted carefully. I did not use the phrase “hurt feelings” intentionally because it’s not what I meant.
I meant “carry ableist impressions,” so I wrote “carry ableist impressions.” Hurting feelings is not a sin. Contributing to a system of ableism that precipitates in mistreatment and curtailed rights for disabled people? Is a category of oppressive behavior.
I will thank you to interrogate my position for what I actually said rather than what you assume I said in the future.