It’s important to have morally neutral language to describe actions. This is especially important for actions that are always, usually, or sometimes morally wrong.
For instance:
In English, ‘killing’ and ‘murder’ mean different things.
‘Murder’ always means killing that is either illegal or morally wrong.
‘Killing’ can describe any act that causes someone to die.
This distinction makes it possible to talk about when killing is and isn’t justified.
Even for people who think that killing is always murder, this is important.
Without morally neutral language, it’s impossible to express a clear opinion on whether or not killing is ever acceptable.
Sonja: *dies as a result of being shot by Heather*.
In this situation, Heather definitely killed Sonja. Whether or not she murdered Sonja is something people can argue about.
Eg: If Sonja was trying to kill Heather and Heather shot her in self-defense, almost everyone would argue that this isn’t murder.
Eg: If Heather was trying to rob Sonja’s store and shot her to prevent her from calling for help, almost everyone would consider that murder.
Eg: If Heather felt threatened by Sonja in a public space and shot her rather than trying to run away, most people would consider that murder, but some people would vehemently disagree.
Because ‘murder’ and ‘killing’ are different words, everyone would be able to express their opinion in a clear way.
When it’s impossible to describe actions without condemning them, it can be impossible to describe what people are actually doing. This makes it hard to have an honest conversation, and even harder to hold people accountable.
Here’s a disability services example (randomly generated names):
Charles (a staff person): I don’t believe in coercion. I never control my clients or tell them what to do. They’re totally in control of their own lives.
Patricia (a disabled adult client): I want to eat some cookies at 3am.
Staff person: You can’t eat cookies at 3am. You agreed to take care of yourself by making healthy choices, and it’s important to keep your agreements.
Patricia: You’re telling me what to do instead of letting me decide.
Staff person: No I’m not. I’m telling you that you can’t eat cookies at 3am because staying up past your bedtime and eating junk food aren’t healthy choices. I would never tell you what to do.
Patricia doesn’t get access to cookies, and is put on a behavior plan if she leaves her room after 10pm.
In this example, Charles is blatantly and unambiguously controlling Patricia and telling her what to do. When Patrica says ‘telling me what to do’, she means it literally. When Charles says, ‘telling people what to do’ he really means ‘telling people what to do (without a good reason)’. He doesn’t realize that coercion is still coercion even if he thinks it’s justified coercion. Without a direct literal way to refer to the act of controlling people, it becomes nearly impossible to discuss when coercion is and isn’t justified.
This happens a lot, in any number of contexts, often following this kind of pattern:
Person: I would never do The (Unacceptable) Thing!
Person: *does The (Unacceptable) Thing*.
Someone else: You literally just did The (Unacceptable) Thing.
Person: No, I didn’t do The (Unacceptable) Thing. I had a good reason, so it wasn’t The (Unacceptable) Thing. I would never do The (Unacceptable) Thing.
Sometimes people who talk this way are lying — but not always. Sometimes it’s that they don’t understand that reasons don’t erase actions. Sometimes they think actions only count as The (Unacceptable) Thing when they consider the actions to be unjustified/unacceptable. If you point out that they are, in fact, literally doing The Thing, they think that means you’re accusing them of being bad — and that you couldn’t be right, because they have a good reason.
This language problem is breaking a lot of conversations that need to happen, particularly around privilege and misuse of power.
Tl;dr: It needs to be possible to describe what people are doing in morally neutral terms. This is especially important for actions that are always, usually, or sometimes morally wrong. Scroll up for more about why and a concrete example.
Ok so first off THANK YOU! A handful of you are sending story continueation requests and prompts. I see them, and I am going to get to work on them very soon!
Back update! Getting better. Definitely a longer process then I thought. I now function like a normal human. But all my disabilities are hidden now. I don’t walk with a limp as much any more. But I dont have the same strength and stamina I used to. So we are working on building that. But I have returned to work… so … yay?
Hubby and I are still trying for a little one. If I go missing for weeks at a time its because I got my period and that wrecks me mentally. So thank you all for your patience. We are starting to look into alternatives because conceiving has become a struggle.
Annnnnd I have been opening up my poly life since I am now fully vaccinated. So I have been on a few dates with two different beautiful people. I mentioned the girl before. And I have a date with her tonight. (Insert fan girl squealing). But I have also formed a relationship with a non binary person. I have been on one date and I am already head over heels. I have a full date with them on friday. And we plan to bring the party back to my place. (no promises but I may get to send more body pics)
Just thought I would share what’s going on. I can’t wait to get back to writing I have been super horny lately and your prompts are inspiring me. It might take a while but I want to do my best!
i want you all to know that there is an artist (carmen papalia) who, after he started using a white cane, assembled a 12 foot long white cane and began using it in downtown vancouver. the length of the cane made it functionally useless as a device and the only purpose it served was making him an obstacle for sighted people. dare i say… 2019 goals
therapist to sighted patient: long cane isnt real and it cant hurt you
carmen papalia:
[id: a dimly lit photo of carmen papalia using his 12 foot “long cane” piece. he walks casually behind it. the cane takes up the majority of both the photograph and the sidewalk.]
Okay I went to a conference where this guy was a keynote and he’s so fucking cool. He’s done a ton of art around disability rights. The twelve-foot cane is really cool, but here are some of my other favourites:
From the series on replacing his cane, this is one where he replaced his cane with a megaphone and would stand at intersections repeating “I can’t see” until somebody would stop and help him cross the street
Another cane replacement, this time replacing it with a high school marching band who would change the music depending on if there was something in the way or not.
A museum intervention where he got people at the MET to go through the museum with their eyes closed and experiencing touching things he’d gotten permission to touch (the floor in this image) and just exploring a visual art museum blind.
The Blind Field Shuffle, in which he has dozens of people form a conga line behind him with their eyes closed and leads them on a blind tour of the city - literally the blind leading the blind.
Wish I could find a better photo, but this is a museum gallery he curated where the works are almost at floor height, making them accessible to children, little people, and people in wheelchairs, but requiring abled people to bend down or sit on the floor in order to see them properly.
In short, this man is amazing and I love his work.
There is no such thing as being “disabled” enough. You are enough, and you have the right to use whatever aids or supports you require in order to navigate this world.
Please sign this petition to help ensure equal access to resources- especially in a school! This is a friend of my friend and it would mean a lot if we can get signatures up
(you can still contact your senators if you’re under 18, or if, like me, you are a green card holder or other immigrant who can’t vote yet.)
This one isn’t a hotbutton issue for Republicans vs Democrats so dont assume that just because you live in a blue state that your reps will definitely vote for it. Make the call.
Or that they WON’T in a red state.
Boost the heck out of this. It is bipartisan legislation, Sponsored by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and co-sponsored by Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH). The bill number is S. 4102 and I don’t think it has a House equivalent yet. If you tell your reps to vote for S. 4102 sponsored by Sen. Brown and co-sponsored by Sen. Portman, you could be completely changing the game for disabled married couples. (The Senate has a drop-down menu by state at the top of the website https://www.senate.gov/)
